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.
Kantonsgericht St.Gallen (St.Gallen Cantonal Court), decision of 10 February 1999, RF.1998.111-E2
Appeal dismissed and return refused; the removal was wrongful but on the basis of the children’s objections a return order was refused.
(DELETED) Z 99 61591 WAB
Retour refus? ; il y a eu d?placement, mais l’exception de l’art. 13(2) a ?t? retenue.
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.