Gross v. Boda [1995] NZFLR 49
Appeal allowed on the basis that there had been a breach of custody rights and case remitted to the District Court for the making of a return order and any appropriate incidental orders.
X. (the mother) against De directie Preventie, en namens Y. (the father) (14 april 2000, ELRO nr. AA 5524, Zaaksnr.R99/076HR)
Challenge to legality dismissed; the standard of harm required under Article 13(1)(b) had not been met and the return was therefore ordered.
A.A.A. v. A.S.H. (Registrar General for England and Wales and the Secretary for Justice) [2009] EWHC 636 (Fam.)
http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed36657
X. (Stichting Bureau Jeugdzorg {BJA}) against Y. (the mother) (14 April 2000, ELRO nr: AA5523 Zaaknr.R99/111HR)
Challenge to legality dismissed; the removal of the child was not wrongful as the rights possessed by the BJA did not amount to rights of custody. The application was therefore rejected.
Tribunal d’arrondissement de Luxembourg, 29 octobre 1992, R?f?r? No 1895/92
Procedure for International Return of Children, Case No. 2926/2008, instituted by J.V.U.B.
Appeal allowed and return ordered; the retention was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been established to the standard required under the Convention.
Cour d’appel de Luxembourg, 8 mai 2013, No de r?le 39629
Appel rejet? et retour refus? ; le d?placement de l’enfant ?tait illicite mais les conditions requises pour appliquer l’article 13(1)(b) ?taient r?unies.
Tribunal d’arrondissement de Diekirch, 18 juin 2013, R?f?r? No 144/2013
https://www.incadat.com/en/case/1323
2015 (Ra) No. 714 Appeal case against an order to return the child
2016 (Ra) No. 445 Appeal case against dismissal of case seeking return of a child