AFFAIRE

Télécharger le texte complet FR

Nom de l'affaire

Cass, 1re Civ., 24 septembre 2014, pourvoi no 13-17.553

Référence INCADAT

HC/E/FR 1722

Juridiction

Pays

France

Nom

Cour de Cassation

Degré

Instance Suprême

Juge(s)

Mme Bignon 

États concernés

État requérant

Belgique

État requis

France

Décision

Date

24 September 2014

Statut

Définitif

Motifs

Questions procédurales

Décision

Demande rejetée

Article(s) de la Convention visé(s)

4

Article(s) de la Convention visé(s) par le dispositif

4

Autres dispositions

-

Jurisprudence | Affaires invoquées

-

Publiée dans

-

SYNOPSIS

Synopsis disponible en EN

​​2 children allegedly wrongfully removed at age 11 and 5 – Separated parents – Both parents had parental responsibility - The mother had primary custody of the children and the father had visiting rights – Children lived in Belgium until March 2010 – Application for return filed by the public prosecutor with the District Family Court of Lille – Application dismissed at all levels – Main issues: Art 4 Age of the child (one of the children reached age of 16) & Procedural Matters (public prosecutor revoked the return application)​ 

RÉSUMÉ

Résumé disponible en EN

Facts

​​The case concerned two children, one born on 23 June 1998 and one on 2 March 2005. In 2008,  Belgium court which ratified the parents’ agreement, declared both parents had parental responsibility over the children. The court gave the mother primary custody and granted access rights to the father. In March 2010, the mother moved to France with the children, respectively aged 11 and 5. The father filed a return application under the 1980 Convention. The public prosecutor (procureur de la République) brought proceedings against the mother before the District Family Court (juge aux affaires familiales du tribunal de grande instance) of Lille. At the hearing, the public prosecutor considered that it was no longer appropriate to seek the return of the children. The Court ruled that, in light of the revoked request for return, there was no longer a basis upon which to issue a ruling.  

​The Court of Appeal (cour d’appel) of Douai, on 22 March 2012, upheld this decision. The father appealed the decision before the Supreme Court (Cour de Cassation). ​ 

Ruling

​​Appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court noted that one of the children was now 16 years old, so the 1980 Convention was no longer applicable to him, and that, overall, there was no longer a basis upon which to issue a ruling, particularly in light of the public prosecutor revoking the return request.  ​ 

Grounds

Procedural Matters

​​Age of the child – Article 4 

​The Supreme Court noted that the older child was now 16 years old, so the 1980 Convention did not apply to him anymore. The request of the father regarding this child had become moot.     

​Procedural matters  

​It was noted by the First Instance Court, and confirmed on appeal, that there was no longer a basis upon which to issue a ruling particularly in light of the revocation of the return request by the public prosecutor. The Supreme Court therefore dismissed the father’s claims and upheld the appeal decision.  ​ 

Author: Camille Druilhet