HC/E/FR 1128
France
Deuxième Instance
Portugal
France
28 June 2011
Susceptible de recours
Déplacement et non-retour - art. 3 et 12 | Risque grave - art. 13(1)(b) | Questions procédurales
Recours rejeté, retour ordonné
-
-
The Court of Appeal admitted that in August 2008, the child might have first been abducted by the mother. However, it stressed that the father had had a year to complain of it. Yet not only had he not done so, but he had applied to a Portuguese court and not a French court.
The Court of Appeal added that he had then taken part in a negotiation resulting in a parental agreement concerning the child, which the Portuguese court had approved. The Court of Appeal deduced that the father had thereby "unequivocally expressed his acceptance of the Portuguese court". Yet in the summer of 2010, the child was actually in the mother's custody in Portugal. The retention was therefore unlawful action justifying proceedings for immediate return.
The father, on an accessory basis, claimed that the child complained of its living conditions in Portugal (malnutrition, lack of hygiene, and neglect), and objected to its return. The Court of Appeal observed that it was up to the Portuguese courts to determine who was best suited to provide the child's day-to-day care.
It stated that Portugal, in addition, had "appropriate facilities and infrastructure to monitor children living on its territory, and the father could perform any such report" as he might see fit. His fears, which were in fact unsupported, "could not constitute the risk required by Article 13" and there was no reason to believe that the child's situation would be intolerable in the event of return.
The father applied for the child to be interviewed and psychologically examined. As regards the interview, the Court of Appeal found that the child was aged almost 7, but "lacked the understanding required for its interview to be useful, even if performed by a specialist".
As regards the psychological examination, the Court of Appeal found it pointless having regard to the child's limited understanding. It further pointed out that the issue was not whether the father took good care of the child, but which court should try the dispute.
Author of the 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@].
Preparation of INCADAT commentary in progress.