Key facts of the case - The applicant had divorced her wife; they both were Jewish and he refused to deliver the get to his wife. By doing so, he wanted her to provide guarantees for the exercise of his right of access for their children. She brought an action for damages and applied for her former husband to be enjoined, under penalty payment, to deliver the get. Before the court of cassation, the husband argues that the get issue is strictly religious and does not fall within the competence of civil courts.

Main reasoning of the court - the husband could not justify the refusal to deliver the get by the sole fear to be deprived of this right of access. Thus, the malicious intent of the husband has been clearly established and amounts to abuse of rights. The wife is entitled to ask for damages.