Legal Case
5P.254/2005 /frs, Tribunal f?d?ral, II? cour civile
Recours rejet?; retour refus?. Plus d’un an s’?tait ?coul? depuis l’enl?vement et les enfants ?taient int?gr?s ? leur nouveau milieu.
Knowledge Base
Probably the world's biggest database for parental abduction.
Refine Search:
Language
Resource Type
Resource Topics
Countries
Year Published
Keyword Search:
Results:
Legal Case
5P.1999/2006 /blb, Bundesgericht, II. Zivilabteilung (Tribunal F?d?ral, 2?me Chambre Civile)
Recours rejet?, confirmation du rejet de la demande de retour. C’?tait ? bon droit que la cour d’appel avait conclu ? l’application de l’article 13
Legal Case
Gerichtskreis VI Signau-Trachselwald (District Court of Signau-Trachselwald), decision of 13 January 1998, S 286/97 sam
Return ordered; the retention was wrongful the child having retained his habitual residence in Germany.
Legal Case
Pr??sidium des Bezirksgerichts St. Gallen (District Court of St. Gallen), decision of 8 September 1998, 4 PZ 98-0217/0532N
Return refused; the removal was wrongful but Article 12(2) was successfully invoked, the child now being settled in her new environment.
Legal Case
5P.437/2004 /bnm
Demande d?clar?e irrecevable, l’all?gation de faits nouveaux n’?tant pas admise.
Legal Case
Decision of the Cour d’appel du canton de Berne, 46/II/2001/1b, 24/07/2001
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
Legal Case
U/EU970069, Bezirksgericht Z?rich (Zurich District Court) (Switzerland), decision of 18 April 1997
Return refused; the retention was not wrongful as the father had consented to the relocation of the child.
Legal Case
Justice de paix du cercle de Lausanne (magistrates’ court Lausanne), decision of 17 December 1998, J 765 CIEV 112E
Return ordered; the removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.
Legal Case
W.P. c. W.M., IIe cour civile du 20.6.1994, ATF 120 Ia 165
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