| Summary: | > X., a Swiss resident in Switzerland, filed an appeal against an injunction issued against her by a court in Lausanne.
>
> The injunction forbade X. to contact her ex-husband B.
>
> X. argued that the injunction was disproportionate and violated her right to privacy.
>
> The Court of Appeal gave X. rightand lifted the injunction.
>
> The court ruled that the injunction was not justified, since X. did not threaten to cause any harm.
More detailed summary:
> In the underlying case, X. and B. were divorced and had a common child. X. had accused B. of physically and psychologically mistreating her. B. denied these allegations.
>
> In the preliminary injunction, the court had forbidden X. to contact B. X. argued that the injunction was disproportionate and violated her right to privacy. She claimed that she only wanted to contact B. to see their daughter together.
>
> The Court of Appeal proved X. right and lifted the injunction. The court ruled that the order was not justified, since X. did not threaten to cause harm. The court found that X. and B. had already been in contact with each other in the past without causing any problems. The court also concluded that X. had a legitimate interest in seeing the common daughter.
More details:
> The judgment is an important precedent for the application of restraining orders in cases of domestic violence. The court clarified that injunctions are justified only if they are appropriate and necessary to prevent harm. |