Cass Civ 1?re, 12 d?cembre 2006, No de RG 05-22119
Legal challenge dismissed and decision refusing to return the child to Germany confirmed. The removal had been wrongful but Article 13(1)(b) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.
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.
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.