EN | FR | ES

Recherche de décisions

Nouvelle recherche

AFFAIRE

Texte complet non disponible

Nom de l'affaire

CA Paris, 5 juillet 2013, No de RG 13-11509

Référence INCADAT

HC/E/FR 1221

Juridiction

Pays

France

Degré

Deuxième Instance

États concernés

État requérant

Portugal

État requis

France

Décision

Date

5 July 2013

Statut

Susceptible de recours

Motifs

Droit de garde - art. 3 | Risque grave - art. 13(1)(b) | Questions procédurales

Décision

Recours rejeté, retour ordonné

Article(s) de la Convention visé(s)

3 13(1)(b)

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

3 13(1)(b)

Autres dispositions
Règlement Bruxelles II bis (Règlement (CE) No 2201/2003 du Conseil du 27 novembre 2003); Code civile français
Jurisprudence | Affaires invoquées

-

Publiée dans

-

INCADAT commentaire

Exceptions au retour

Problèmes généraux
Impact de la Convention sur la fratrie, les demi-frères et les demi-sœurs
Risque grave de danger
Jurisprudence française

RÉSUMÉ

Résumé disponible en EN | FR

Facts

The case concerned a girl born in Portugal in 2010 to French married parents. The father had also adopted another child of the mother from a previous marriage. In the summer of 2012, the mother travelled to France on holiday with the two children. They did not return to Portugal.

The mother petitioned for divorce in France, and the father in Portugal. On 6 June 2013, the competent judge at first instance (the family judge of the Regional Court (Tribunal de Grande Instance) of Paris) found the removal to be wrongful and ordered the child's return. The mother appealed.

Ruling

Appeal dismissed; return ordered. The removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions raised was applicable.

Grounds

Rights of Custody - Art. 3


The Court of Appeal, having regard to Article 3 of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention, Article 2(11) of the Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003) and Article 372 of the French Civil Code (applicable owing to the conflict of laws rule under Article 3 of the Civil Code), ruled that by removing the child unilaterally from her habitual residence in Portugal without the father's consent, whereas parental authority was joint, the mother had removed the child wrongfully.

The Court added that it was immaterial that the Portuguese authorities had considered that the criminal offence of fraudulent child abduction had not been committed.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)


The mother's justification for her decision was the bitter brutality of her husband, of whom she said she was afraid, and whom she accused of having attempted, by violence and with the assistance of third-party accomplices, to abduct the child to Portugal, thereby allegedly causing the child mental trauma.

She also added that the child's return to Portugal would be contrary to her best interests since it would result in a sudden separation from her half-brother.

The Court, on the first point, noted that a psychologist had indeed referred to the great difficulty for the child of being separated from her mother, but considered that "it [could] not be inferred that the child, necessarily disturbed by this conflict between parents," would be exposed in the event of return to a grave risk of danger or an intolerable situation "whereas it [was neither] claimed nor [proved] that the father was unable to perform his educational tasks".

The Court added that the Portuguese welfare enquiry had shown "that the father [was] able to fulfil his parental obligations and to receive the child in an appropriate manner".

The Court ruled, on the second point, that if the mother chose to remain in France with her first child, the children's separation was "not such as to expose the [younger], having regard to her age, to a major risk of mental disturbance". The return order was accordingly upheld.

Procedural Matters


As the child was very young, she was not heard. Costs were awarded against the mother.

Author of the summary: Aude Fiorini

INCADAT comment

Impact of Convention Proceedings on Siblings and Step-Siblings

Preparation of INCADAT commentary in progress.

French Case Law

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@].