Pr??sidium des Bezirksgerichts St. Gallen (District Court of St. Gallen), decision of 8 September 1998, 4 PZ 98-0217/0532N
Return refused; the removal was wrongful but Article 12(2) was successfully invoked, the child now being settled in her new environment.
5P.437/2004 /bnm
Demande d?clar?e irrecevable, l’all?gation de faits nouveaux n’?tant pas admise.
5P.1/2005 /bnm, Bundesgericht, II. Zivilabteilung (Tribunal F?d?ral, 2?me Chambre Civile)
U/EU970069, Bezirksgericht Z?rich (Zurich District Court) (Switzerland), decision of 18 April 1997
Return refused; the retention was not wrongful as the father had consented to the relocation of the child.
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.
W.P. c. W.M., IIe cour civile du 20.6.1994, ATF 120 Ia 165
Recours irrecevable; le p?re n’avait pas d’int?r?t actuel et pratique ? l’annulation de la d?cision attaqu?e du fait de l’ex?cution de l’ordonnance de retour qu’elle confirmait.
Decision of the Cour d’appel du canton de Berne, 46/II/2001/1b, 24/07/2001
Appeal dismissed and return refused; Article 13(1)(b) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention in light of the intervening custody order made by the authorities in the State of the children’s habitual residence.
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.