HC/E/FR 1132
FRANCE
Cour d'appel de Paris, Pôle 1, chambre 1
Appellate Court
ISRAEL
FRANCE
14 October 2010
Subject to appeal
Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters
-
-
-
The Court of Appeal noted that the child had been born in Israel in 2008 and had lived there with her parents until her departure in December 2009.
Admittedly, the departure had been consented to but the child ought to have returned to Israel on 18 January. The child's stay in France after that date despite the father's wishes was therefore a wrongful retention.
The mother claimed that the child had witnessed the father's violence to her, and discovered a medical certificate supporting the view that the child had witnessed traumatic scenes in the family home: the child was very anxious and reacted violently when the father was mentioned.
The Court of Appeal held that it was proven that the child's return to Israel would expose her to a grave psychological risk.
Having regard to the child's age, the Court of Appeal decided not to have her interviewed.
Author of summary: Aude Fiorini
The treatment of Article 13(1) b) by French courts has evolved, with a permissive approach being replaced by a more robust interpretation.
The judgments of France's highest jurisdiction, the Cour de cassation, from the mid to late 1990s, may be contrasted with more recent decisions of the same court and also with decisions of the court of appeal. See:
Cass. Civ. 1ère 12 juillet 1994, Rev. Crit. 84 (1995), p. 96 note H. Muir Watt ; JCP 1996 IV 64 note Bosse-Platière, Defrénois 1995, art. 36024, note J. Massip [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 103];
Cass. Civ. 1ère 21 novembre 1995 (Pourvoi N° 93-20140), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 514];
Cass. Civ. 1ère 22 juin 1999, (N° de pourvoi : 98-17902), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 498];
And contrast with:
Cass. Civ. 1ère 25 janvier 2005 (N° de pourvoi : 02-17411), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 708];
Cass. Civ. 1ère 14 juin 2005 (N° de pourvoi : 04-16942), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 844];
Cass. Civ 1ère 13 juillet 2005 (N° de pourvoi : 05-10519), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 845];
CA. Amiens 4 mars 1998, n°5704759, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 704];
CA. Grenoble 29 mars 2000 M. c. F., [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 274];
CA. Paris 7 février 2002 (N° de pourvoi : 2001/21768), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 849];
CA. Paris, 20/09/2002 (N° de pourvoi : 2002/13730), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 850];
CA. Aix en Provence 8 octobre 2002, L c. Ministère Public, Mme B. et Mesdemoiselles L. (N° de rôle 02/14917) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 509];
CA. Paris 27 octobre 2005, 05/15032 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 814];
Cass. Civ. 1ère 14 décembre 2005 (N° de pourvoi :05-12934) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR @889@];
Cass. Civ. 1ère 14 November 2006 (N° de pourvoi : 05-15692) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR @890@].
Recent examples where Article 13(1) b) has been upheld include:
Cass. Civ. 1ère 12 Décembre 2006 (N° de pourvoi : 05-22119) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR @891@];
Cass. Civ. 1ère 17 Octobre 2007 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR @946@].
The interpretation given by the Cour d'appel de Rouen in 2006, whilst obiter, does recall the more permissive approach to Article 13(1) b) favoured in the early 1990s, see:
CA. Rouen, 9 Mars 2006, N°05/04340 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR @897@].