CA Aix-en-Provence, 30 novembre 2006, No de RG 06/03661
Recours rejet? et retour refus?. Le retour exposait l’enfant ? un risque grave.
CA Paris, 27 octobre 2005, No de RG 05/15032
Appeal allowed and return refused; the child was now settled in her new environment pursuant to the terms of Article 12(2).
Cass Civ 1?re (pourvoi n? 05-14646 )
Challenge dismissed; the Cour d’Appel had been correct in finding that none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.
CA Grenoble, 4 juin 2008, No de RG 08/01779
Appeal dismissed. The removal was wrongful and the exceptions of the Convention inapplicable.
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.
Cass Civ 1?re 16 juillet 1993, N? de pourvoi 92-19618
Challenge to legality dismissed; the mother’s removal was wrongful but she had subsequently been awarded custody.
CA Douai, 24 mai 2007, No de RG 06/03280
Recours rejet? et retour refus?; le d?placement ?tait illicite mais l’exception de l’article 13(1)(b) ?tait applicable.
14-Dec
Supreme Court of Finland 1995:110, S95/301
Retention wrongful but return refused; the standard required under Article 13(1)(a) had been proved to show that the father had consented to the children living in Finland.
Supreme Court of Finland 1996:151, S96/2489
Return ordered; the removal was wrongful and the standard of harm required under Article 13(1)(b) had not been made out.