Return refused; the removal was wrongful but Article 12(2) was successfully invoked, the child now being settled in her new environment.
Demande d?clar?e irrecevable, l’all?gation de faits nouveaux n’?tant pas admise.
Appeal dismissed and return refused; Article 13(1)(b) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention in light of the intervening custody order made
Return refused; the retention was not wrongful as the father had consented to the relocation of the child.
Return ordered; the removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.
Recours irrecevable; le p?re n’avait pas d’int?r?t actuel et pratique ? l’annulation de la d?cision attaqu?e du fait de l’ex?cution de l’ordonnance de retour qu’elle
Appeal dismissed and return refused; the removal was wrongful but on the basis of the children’s objections a return order was refused.
Retour refus? ; il y a eu d?placement, mais l’exception de l’art. 13(2) a ?t? retenue.
Appeal allowed and return refused; the removal was not wrongful since the child was habitually resident in Sweden on the relevant date.