1Ob220/02p, Oberster Gerichtshof
Appeal allowed: the trial judges had not considered whether, under Article 3, the children had acquired a habitual residence in Australia.
1Ob51/02k, Oberster Gerichtshof
Le recours du p?re est accueilli ; l’instance d’appel n’aurait pas d? supposer que le retour des enfants impliquait qu’ils soient confi?s ? un p?re absent une grande partie de la semaine. Les d?cisions des premiers juges sont annul?es et l’affaire renvoy?e au premier tribunal.
S. v. S., 25 May 1998, transcript (Unofficial Translation), Austrian Regional Civil Court, Graz
Appeal allowed and case remitted to the District Civil Court of Graz to rule on the father’s application for access.
6Ob183/97y, Oberster Gerichtshof
Recours rejet? ; confirmation de la d?cision refusant le retour. Le d?placement ?tait illicite, mais les conditions d’application de l’article 13 alin?a 1 b ?taient r?unies.
Arthur & Secretary, Department of Family & Community Services and Anor [2017] FamCAFC 111, (2017) FLC 93-781
https://www.incadat.com/en/case/11
State Central Authority & Quang [2009] FamCA 1038
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FamCA/2009/1038.html
Fairfax v. Ireton [2009] 1 NZLR 540
L.K. v. Director-General Department of Community Services [2009] HCA 9, (2009) 253 ALR 202
https://www.incadat.com/en/case/975
Richards & Director-General, Department of Child Safety [2007] FamCA 65
Appeal dismissed and return order confirmed; whilst the children objected to a return the standard required under Article 13(2) had not been reached.
Family application 042273/99 DR. Z.M. v. R.M.P.
Compensation would be awarded to the applicant father to cover the cost of locating the child, hiring a lawyer in Israel and the lawyer’s fees. Compensation was not awarded for emotional distress because the damage was not sufficiently serious, bearing in mind that the child was returned.