5P.437/2004 /bnm
Demande d?clar?e irrecevable, l’all?gation de faits nouveaux n’?tant pas admise.
Simpson v Hamilton [2020] NZSC 42
U. v. D. [2002] NZFLR 529
Retention wrongful and return ordered. Acquiescence on the part of the applicant parent was established to the standard required under Article 13(1)(a) but the court nevertheless exercised its discretion to order the return of the child. None of the other exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.
Cass Civ 1?re, 12 d?cembre 2006, No de RG 05-22119
Legal challenge dismissed and decision refusing to return the child to Germany confirmed. The removal had been wrongful but Article 13(1)(b) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.
Cass. Civ 1?re, 22 juin 1999, No de RG 98-17902
Challenge to legality dismissed; Article 13(1)(b) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.
County Court of Zagreb, No. 15 Gž Ob-1264 / 16-2 of 11 October 2016
Municipal Court of Rijeka, No. R1Ob-649/16 of 16 June 2017
Al-Hadad v. Al Harash, 2020 ONCJ 269
Office of the Children’s Lawyer v. Balev, 2018 SCC 16
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/17064/index.do
1Ob51/02k, Oberster Gerichtshof
Le recours du p?re est accueilli ; l’instance d’appel n’aurait pas d? supposer que le retour des enfants impliquait qu’ils soient confi?s ? un p?re absent une grande partie de la semaine. Les d?cisions des premiers juges sont annul?es et l’affaire renvoy?e au premier tribunal.
