EUPillar K.F. v. F.B. - Cass., 7 June 2013

Summary

The Court of Appeal had ruled that the first judge considered that the application of defendant was manifestly unfounded because Mr. B. had explicitly given his permission to register the children in Belgium – thus, that there was no wrongful removal or retention within the meaning of the Brussels II Regulation. The order on non-return was therefore not founded on one of the grounds for refusal of Art. 13 of the Hague Abduction Convention. With this ruling, the contested decision of the Court of Appeal adds a ground to the decision of the first judge and gives it an interpretation which is irreconcilable with the wording of that decision; the Court of Appeal violates the evidentiary value and the force of res judicata of the decision of 16 November 2011. Pursuant to Art. 1322sexies of the Belgian Judicial Code, it is not possible to appeal decision of non-return founded on Art. 11(6) Brussels II Regulation and Art. 13 Hague Abduction Convention. Short critique