R? 1995 ref 99, Regeringsr??tten (Supreme Administrative Court), decision of 20 December 1995, case number 4936-1995
Appeal allowed and return refused; the removal was not wrongful since the child was habitually resident in Sweden on the relevant date.
Sentencia nº 120/2002 (Sala Primera); N?mero de Registro 129/1999. Recurso de amparo
“Amparo” granted by the Constitutional Court which mandated the Court of Appeals to decide on the merits of the appeal.
Central Authority, RSA v. OCI [2010] JOL 25947 (GSJ)
http://www.justice.gov.za/hague/caselaw/2010_iguwa_10-15111.pdf
Family Advocate, Cape Town, and another v EM 2009 (5) SA 420 (C)
Retention wrongful and return ordered, subject to conditions; none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.
Central Authority of the Republic of South Africa and Another v B 2012 (2) SA 296 (GSJ)
Retention wrongful but return refused in the light of the child’s objections.
KG v. CB & others (748/11) [2012] ZASCA 17
http://www.justice.gov.za/sca/judgments/sca_2012/sca2012-017.pdf
Pennello v. Pennello [2003] 1 All SA 716 (N)
Appeal allowed and return refused; Article 13(1)(b) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.
Re G. (Abduction) (Rights of Custody) [2002] 2 FLR 703
Article 15 declaration granted; the removal was wrongful being in breach of inchoate rights of custody.
L?pez Gui? v. Slovakia (Application No 10280/12)
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-144355
Maire v. Portugal, Requ?te no 48206/99, (2006) 43 E.H.R.R. 13
Breach of Article 8 of the ECHR and award of damages. The Portuguese authorities had failed to take sufficient or adequate measures to ensure respect for the father’s right to have his son returned.
