Moldova State University Law Department

The Content and Peculiarities of the Judicial Sentence

Student: Ana Calestru Teacher: Svetlana Doni

Chisinau, 2013
1

Table of Contents
Introduction 1. General Characteristics of Adjudicatory Trials Regulated by the Civil Procedual Code of R.M..3 2. The Functional Structure and Peculiarities of Judicial Sentences4 3. The Content of the Judicial Sentence 3.1 Introductory Part.6 3.2 Descriptive Part and Motivation8 3.3 Conclusion.10 4. Conclusions12 5. Bibliography......14

Introduction
The topic of the present report is The Content and Peculiarities of the Judicial Sentence. The report is divided into three main parts: the first part expresses briefly the general characteristic of the adjudicatory trials its parts and sequences. The second part is based on the analysis mainly of the functional and structural characteristic of the judicial sentences with concrete examples from the civil procedure in Republic of Moldova and the third part is based on the conclusions.

1. General Characteristics of Judicial Trials Regulated by the Civil Procedural Code of R.M.
The main feature of human society is to communicate and to interact, thus to this they conclude different verbal or written contracts based on the principle of good faith, but life is full of challenges and the contracts are not fulfilled correspondingly all the time. Yet, there exists the Court of Justice which comes to be the arbiter and to solve the disputes. The disputes can be of different types depending on the type of the cause, so the civil disputes are going to be solved by the competent instances according to the Civil Code of R. Moldova and the Civil Procedural Code of R. Moldova. The Civil process deals with all the disputes regulated by the Civil Code of Republic of Moldova. The phase of a civil process represents the totality of procedural acts realized by the Instance and the participants at a certain stage of the process. Generally, it has two main phases: the judgment and the enforced execution. Taking into consideration that all the actions in the civil process are strictly regulated by the Civil Procedural Code of Republic Moldova (2003)1 in the 2nd and 3rd Titles the two main phases of the process are divided into obligatory and facultative steps. The obligatory steps are the following: The judgment: The litigation art. 166-173 CPC; The preparation of the reason for the judicial debates; The proper judicial debates art.192-236 CPC; The execution of the enforced sentence.

The Civil Procedural Code of Republic of Moldova, 2 nd Title, 2003, p.60-150.

The litigation begins with the moment of presenting the claim in the instance. The second step determines exactly who are the subjects, object and the ways how the parts are going to protect their rights and interests and it ends in the first day when the parts meet. The third step, called the proper judicial debates begins with the first day of meeting the parts. It is public, verbal and contradictory, thus all the proofs and acts regarding the cause are accepted and discussed. It may last some more terms than it is supposed to, but the perfect one last only once and it ends with the deliberation lap, where the judge goes in his private room for some time in order to decide upon the cause. When the necessary time ends, the judge comes back in the court and pronounces himself upon the demands of the plaintiff. Yet, the second main phase comes, the execution of the enforced sentence. Due to the fact, that both the plaintiff and the defendant have different opinions regarding the civil dispute, they may not agree with the decision of the judge. Accordingly, they have the right to use the facultative ways of attack: The appeal art.357-396; The Recourse art.397-445; The Revision (the extraordinary way) art.446-4532.

So, the main idea of the civil process is that it starts with the noticing the judicial instance by a claim that sets the civil action and ends in an enforced sentence of the instance.

2. The Functional Structure and Peculiarities of Judicial Sentences

The meaning of the term sentence can be viewed from lato sensu and stricto sensu, yet the sentence from the latu sensum perspective represents an act of disposition of the Court in the reports with the parts, indifferently if there is a dispute or not. So, the sentence includes all the disposition acts in the contencios matter and the ones that do not belong to it, the acts adopted at the end of judging or the acts which include a litigious matter or in the judicial administrative means. Thus, the present meaning of the term sentence has a broader meaning than the judicial act, and it includes two main components: iuris dictio the dispute through the application of the law and imperium the exercising of a public force. In strict sensu, the sentence represents the decision adopted by the judge in the case of a civil dispute in the limits of the plaintiffs claims.3 So, the sentence as an act of disposition of the judge according to the article 14 CPC has the following categories:
2

The Civil Procedural Code of Republic of Moldova, 2 nd Title, 2003, p.120-147.

Sentence through which the judge solves the disputes (art.14, p.(2)); Dismissal in cases when the judge does not solve the dispute (art.14, p.(3)); Judicial Ordinance issued at the examination in the first instance of the cases mentioned at the art.345 CPC, when the claim comes, for example, from the Police organs, organs the State Treasury, Judicial Executor regarding the expenses of the researching the defendant or the safekeeping the goods etc. (art.14, p.(3));

Judicial Disposition issued at the examination of the case at appeal and recourse (art.14, (4)).

In order to issue a sentence, the judge must follow the three main operations that allow get an understandable and substantial decision: The correct and direct appreciation of the fact based only on the proofs examined in the court. The identification and corresponding interpretation of the law rules applicable for the dispute in discussion; The deduction of the consequences of the dispute and the issuing the sentence correspondingly. Additionally to the present operations, Mr. Ciobanu4 points that the sentence, in order to be valid, it should be based on the following conditions: The sentence shall come from the authority recognized by the law only, that is, the disputes must be solved by the appropriate law courts. The sentence must be given by the judges that mainly participated in the solving the dispute; it refers to the situations that the case is solved by three judges and one of them is replaced by another one due to the fact that the first is ill, yet the second must analyze the case and shall judge from his point of view - do not take into considerations the remarks of the previous one. All the judges that participated in the trial must give the verdict towards the dispute. According to the article 236 CPC, the each judge must have his own opinion and to vote regarding the sentence in the case that one of them has a different opinion, he must write it and it must be attached at the main sentence.
3 4

The deliberation regarding the sentence must be secret, only the judges that analyzed the dispute. The result of the deliberation must be signed by all the judges.

The Civil Procedural Code of Republic of Moldova, article 240, p. (3), 2003, p.83. V.M. Ciobanu, I. Baicoianu, Civil Procedural Law. Enforced Execution, edition:Lumina Lex, Bucharest, 1996, p.56-57.

The sentence must be pronounced in public, and it is preferably that both parties be present at the pronunciation, but if they are not, the missing parties must be announced no later than 7 days from the issuing the sentence (art.259 CPC).

So far, as all the conditions are fulfilled and the sentence is announced, the judge or the chairman declares the meeting closed (art.237, p.(4)).

3. The Content of the Judicial Sentences

The judicial sentence represents the most important act of the judgment because it includes the whole procedural activity of all the participants of the trial. So, through the judicial sentences both requests of the courts are fulfilled: to solve the concrete disputes that they have in charge and to educate the citizins to respect the law and the rules of human living. The Civil Procedural Code of Republic of Moldova states in the article 239 that the judicial sentences must be legal and founded only on the circumstances established directly by the instance and on the proofs searched in the trial. Additionally, the legislator points in the article 241 CPC the content of the sentence, such the paragraph (2) of the article says that a judicial sentence is composed of introductive part and the conclusion [see Appendix 1], while according to the article 236 p.(5), the sentence is composed of introductive part, descriptive part, motivation and conclusion [see Appendix 2]. In order to have a nice structure and to be eligible, each part of the sentence is separated in a paragraph.

3.1. Introductory Part

The first, called the Introductory Part are found the main information about the trial and parties, so according to the art.241, p.(3) CPC it includes: a) The number of the file, thus each civil dispute is based on a number that makes it easy to find in the Archive ; b) The date and place. The date is considered to be the date when the judges signed it and the place is considered to be the one where the trial took place. c) The name of the court and the names of the members of the judges that pronounce towards the dispute this allows us to determine the right of the instance to examine the dispute, the legality of its constitution, and if the same judge(s) are present in judicial

debates and the pronouncing of the sentence, because their missing represents a good motif for the quashing of the sentence. d) The name of the court clerk, the name of the parties involved in the process, the representatives these facts are important in order to verify the legality of the parts involved and by whom the sentence must be executed. Additionally from the name and surname, it is necessary to point the procedural quality of the parts and the fact if he has been present in persona at the trial or through a representative. e) The object of the dispute and its main claim based on the concrete and legal proofs. The object of the dispute is the one presented in the initial claim, but the plaintiff has the right to modify or complete the claims during the civil process5. f) The type of the trial: public or private [see Table 1].

Table 1: The Introductory Part of a Judicial Sentence

DOSARUL nr. 2-12858/2012

HOTRRE
n numele Legii 16 octombrie 2012 Judecatoria Rcani mun.Chiinu Avind in componenta sa ca: Presedintele de sedinta judecator Grefier mun.Chiinu

Ion Stepanov Valentina Vdovicenco

Cu participarea : reclamantei i prtului A examinat n sedinta judiciar public cauza civil pe cererea lui Temciuc Elena, nscut la 17.11.1953, c/p2006048012104, domiciliat n mun.Chiinu, com.Budeti, ctre Temciuc Mihail, nscut la 12.11.1953, domiciliat n mun.Chiinu com.Cric ova, cu privire la desfacerea cstoriei, ncheiat la data de 12.11.1973 la Primria Mlieti, r -ul Criuleni, cu numrul de nregistrare 32. Thus, a brief presentation of the case above: in the introductory part we come across to the file number 2-12858/2012 judged by Ion Stepanov, at the Court Riscani, city Chisinau. The trial takes place on the 16th of October 2012 based on the dispute between the plaintiff Temciuc

Durac, Gh., Civil Procedural Law, University Alexandru Ioan Cuza, Law Department, 2009, p.37.

Elena and the defendant Temciuc Mihail regarding the divorce, that constituets the object of teh dispute. At first sight all the elements of the introductory part are respected according to the law and all the sentences nalyzed by me (20 in number) contained the above structure and points; there is only one element missing the type of the trial public or private. Anyway, taking into consideration that this is a civil process, the disputes discused affect only the participants not teh whole society as in the case of crimes that touch the rights and interests of the human society, in general.

3.2 Descriptive Part and Motivation

The descriptive part of the sentence also represents one the facultative parts of the sentence due to the fact that the Civil Procedural Code oblige and at the same time allows to the judge to use it in the cases mentioned in the article 236, p.(5) CPC: a) The participants ask in the period of 30 days from the moment of pronouncing the sentence; b) In the case when the participants in the period of 30 days from the pronunciation of the sentence goes to Appeal; c) The judicial sentence must be recognized and executed on the territory of the other state. Thus, we can see that the law comes with the concrete cases when the sentence must be composed of all the four parts. However, at the discretion of the judge, any sentence may include all the parts at first. The descriptive part, according to the law, must include briefly the claims of the plaintiff the objections of the defendant and the explanations of other parties at the trials. Taking into account the saying that the practice beats the theory is valid our days, too I have observed that in practice the descriptive part does not have a separate paragraph and it is mixed with the Motivation part. The excuse of the judges in doing these is the fact that too much paper is used and some of the ideas are repeated in the Motivation, thus there is no reason to rewrite them. At first sight their excuse is accepted but in the complicated, long and full of claims files there is a lot to read for a jurist or any other person in order to understand what are the claims of the first part, the objections of the second part and the other parties explanations regarding the dispute. The Motivation, according to the article 241 p.(5) must include the following: The circumstances of the dispute, approved by the judge;
8

The proofs on which the judge makes his decisions; The arguments of the judge that refuse some proofs; The laws, norms used by the judge in order to solve the dispute.

In this part of the sentence the instance must express himself towards all the claims separately, towards all the approved and refused proofs of the trial according to the law, the ways of solving the claims and how the facts have been enclosed in the disposition of the law, yet, creating a logic and correct sequence between the solution given and the reality of the dispute. According to the Gh. Durac in order to get a correspondingly sentence, there must be fulfilled not only the dispositions of the law but the practical conditions, too, as the clarity, simplicity, precision, concision, formality and the power to convince. However, the judge shall have knowledge in the linguistics and psychology too. Correspondingly, the motivation must not be based on the volume but on the content.6 Table 2: The Descriptive Part and Motivation

a constatat: Temciuc Elena, domiciliat n mun.Chiinu, com.Budeti, s-a adresat n judecat cu cerere ctre Temciuc Mihail, domiciliat n mun.Chiinu com.Cricova privind desfacerea cstoriei, ncheiate pe data de 12.11.1973, la Primria Mlieti, r-ul Criuleni, cu nr.32, motivnd prin faptul, c prile nu duc viata familiar n comun, din anul 1974, prtul abandomind familia i ncheind o nou cstorie, cu o alta femeie, cu care se afl n relaii familiare pn n prezent. n edinta judiciara reclamanta susine integral cerintele inaintate si solicit desfacerea cstoriei incheiate intre ea si pirit la 12.11.1973, de ctre Primria Mlieti r -ul Criuleni, cu numrul de inregistare 32, n sustinerea cerinelor sale, invocnd faptul, c reclamntul si prtul nu se afl n relaii de familie, din anul 1974, prtul abandonnd familia, cnd fiica minor Natalia avea vrsta doar de cinci luni, neprezentndu -se in familie, pn n prezent i c prtul este cstorit cu o alta femeie, cu care se afl n relaii de familie, pn n prezent. Consider, c familia, s-a destramat complet, convetuirea soilor i pstrarea familiei in continuare,nefiind posibil. Fiica Natalia, n prezent este matur, copii minori de la cstoria cu prtul, nu au, neavnd i careva avere comun. Petru desfacerea cstoriei reclamanta s-a adresat la OSC Ciocana, mun.Chiinu cu cerere, unde s -a constat, c prtul este cstorit cu o alt femeie, cu care a nregistrat casatoria in anul 1977 i cu care locuieste pn in prezent, avind cu ultima doi copii maturi. Prtul, cu desfacerea cstoriei, este de acord, confirmnd faptul, c a prsit reclamanta in anul 1974 si c pina n prezent se afl n relaii familiare, din anul 1977, cu Cioban Valentina, domiciliat n mun.Chiinu, cu care duce viata familiar n comun, cu care are doi copii, care au atins vista majoratului. Consider, c conveuirea lui cu reclamanta, ca so i soie i pstrarea familiei cu ultima, sunt imposibile. Audiind reclamanata si prtul , cercetind sub toate aspectele complet si obiectiv toate mprejurrile cauzei in ansamblul lor , instana de judecata ajunge la concluzia, c cerintele reclamantei sunt fondate i urmeaz a fi admise, din urmtoarele considerente: Conform adeverinei de cstorie 1BM nr.338099 eliberata la data de 12.11.1973, reclamanta si prtul, la 12.11.1973, au incheiat casatoria la Primria c.Mlieti r -ul Criuleni,care a fost nregistart sub nr.32. Cum s-a constatat in sedinta, copii minori de la cstorie, prile nu au. Nu au ultimii nici avere comun. n cadrul examinrii aciunii, potrivit declaratiilor reclamantei si prtului, ultimul a prsit familia in anul 1974, cind fiica minora Natalia avea doar virsta de 5 luni, inregistrind in anul 1 977 o alt casatorie cu Cioban Valentina, cu care se afl n relaii de familie, pn n prezent si cu care are 2 copii, care au atins virsta
6

Durac, Gh., Judecata n prim instan n procesul civil, edition: Hamangiu, Bucharest, 2006, p.89

majoratului. S-a constatat, c familia ncheiat ntre reclamant i prt s -a destarmat complet, c convetuirea soilor si pstrarea familiai in continuare, sunt imposibile. n asa circumstane, instana concluzioneaz, c cererea reclamantei cu privire la desfacerea casatoriei, este fondata, urmnd a fi admis. Potrivit declaratiilor reclamantei, cheltuielile ce tin de taxa de stat in suma de 40 de lei, urmeaz a fi suportate de ultima.

As it is nicely seen from the Table 2 the Descriptive part of the sentence starts with the words notice of the judge, where the fable of dispute is described from the beginning till the end as a proof of the decision taken by the judge. The linguists consider them the empirical base on judicial sentence. The second part of the text in italics represents the Motivation that is guaranty for the parties that their claims have been analyzed attentively and it offers the possibility to exercise the judicial control. Different from the procedural civil law request is that the expenses that must be included in the Conclusion of the sentence are included in the Motivation Potrivit declaratiilor reclamantei, cheltuielile ce tin de taxa de stat in suma de 40 de lei, urmeaz a fi suportate de Cioban Valentina (according to the declarataion of the plaintiff, all the expenses regardint the state tax of 40 lei are going to be supported by Cioban Valentina). This cannot be considered a big error taht might quash the sentence, it is a technical mistake transformed in error, because aproximatively in all the sentences examined the paymant of the state taxes come in the Motivation. So far, the descriptive part is composed of claims of the plaintiff and the position of the defendant. If the defendant do not agree there most be presented briefly the motifs of disagreement. This part includes the causes of the changing of the objec, if there are any, the explanations of the witnesses and circumstances invoked by the parts in orfer to confirm their claims or objections. While, the Motivation is based on the law fact and the material facts on that formed the decision of the judge. And the judge is obliged to apply the Decisions of the Constitutional Court and the jurisprudence regarding the Rights and Freedoms of Human being in order to verify the constitutionality of the laws applied in the present dispute.

3.3 Conclusion
The Conclusion represents the last and one of the most important parts of the sentence because it includes the final decision of the judge regarding the dispute analyzed in the trial. Additionally to the fact that it includes the admitting or refusing partially or totally the claims of the plaintiff, it must include the distribution of the trial expenses and the ways and terms of the
10

attacking the judicial sentence (art.241 p.(6) CPC). The practice shows that the Conclusion includes usually the decision of the judge regarding the dispute and the way and the term of attacking the sentence; the distribution of the expenses usually go in the Motivation. In the case that have been linked other processes, according to the art.187 CPC, or there have been examined additionally the reconventional claim, the judge must express towards each action. One of the main strong and important points of the Conclusion is that it must be strictly correspond to the conclusions from the motivational part. On the contrary, the decision may be cancelled by the hierarchically superior court in the order established in the Civil Procedural Code.

Table 3. Conclusion n conformitate cu prevederile art. art. 83-84,94, 117-119, 130,239-240,362 CPC al RM, art. art. 4 ,33,35,37,38,39, Codul Familiei al RM,instana de judecat, a hotrt: Cererea lui Temciuc Elena, nscut la 17 noiembrie 1953, c/p 2006048012104, domiciliat n mun.Chiinu com.Budeti str.Mircea cel Btrin 17, ctre Temciuc Mihail, nscut la 24 aprilie 1953, domiciliat n mun.Chiinu, com.Cricova. str.Pcii 48,cu privire la desfacerea cstorie, a o admite. Cstoria inregistart ntre Temciuc Elena , nscut la 17 noiembrie 1953, c/p 206048012104, domiciliat n mun.Chiinu com.Budeti str.Mircea cel Btrin 17, ctre Temciuc Mihail, nscut la 24 aprilie 1953, domiciliat n mun.Chiinu com Cricova str.Pcii 48, nregistrat la Primria s. Mlieti r-ul Criuleni , sub numrul 32, a o desface. Hotrrea este dat cu drept de apel n Curtea de Apel Chiinu n termen de 20 de zile de la data comunicrii. Preedinte de edin Ion Stepanov

The judges in general, as Ion Stepanov7, the judge at the Economical Court of Circumscription point that in practice the Conclusion must be concise and must have a complete content and it must have the view of a summary of the dispute analyzed, yet, it includes the names of the parties with all the legal data about them as in our case Temciuc Elena, the plaintiff, born on 17th of November 1953, c/p 2006048012104, the residence in the city Chiinu street 17 th Mircea cel Btrin; the main claim of the plaintif the divorce; the decision of the judge to admit the divorce and the way of attacking the sentence the present sentece has the right of appeal at the Appeal Court of Chisinau in 20 days from the date of communication.

Manual al Judecatorului la examinarea pricinilor civile, 2010

11

The last but not the least element of the Conclusion is the signature of the court clerk and the judge that has been solved the dispute. Thus, in the present conditions, the sentence is considered to be legal and must be fulfilled by the parties. Additionally, according to the art.24 p.(4) CPC, in the case that the process is extended in another language, the instance must issue obligatory the sentence in the state language, while in the cases that the participants do not know the state language, than the judge must issue the sentence in the language that parties understand or speak. There are situations that the sentence is not set after the moment of announcind it, yet the judge has the right to edit it no later than 15 days from the moment of ending the dispute, according to the article 242 CPC.

4. Conclusions
In conclusion, I would like to point that the judicial sentence represents final act of a trial in which the dispositions of the parties are examined. According to the Civil Procedural Code, the sentence must be legal and correspondingly to the dispute analyzed, based on the valid proofs. Thus, from this perspective, the sentence is legal when the norms of the procedural law and material law are respected, and if there are cases that the law does not regulate them, then it is used the law with similar reports that do not go against the norms of the Constitution. From the structural perspective, the sentence is composed of two main parts and two facultative parts. The main parts are the Introductory part, where are included the dates about the subjects of the dispute, the object of the dispute, the name of the judges and of the court clerk present at the dispute, the date and place of the analysis of the dispute and the Conclusion, where the judge accepts or refuse the claims of the plaintiff, yet he expresses himself regarding all the circumstances established in the trial based on the legal proofs, the term of attacking the sentence and the place and finally the date and signature of the judges present as the arbiters. The facultative parts of the sentence are the Descriptive part, where all the claims of the plaintiff are exposed, the proofs on which he bases, the objections of the defendant, the explanations of the witnesses and all other necessary facts needed in order to create the real and concrete fable of the dispute, and the Motivation, where the instance expresses himself towards all the claims separately, towards all the approved and refused proofs of the trial according to the law, the ways of solving the claims and how the facts have been enclosed in the disposition of the law.

12

In the case that there are some technical misunderstandings regarding the sentence, the judge is obliged according to the article 250 CPC to write an additional sentence from the office or at the request of the parties and clarify them. Correspondingly the law gives the variants when it must be written the additional sentence, and mainly: the judge did not pronounce upon a claim of the parties that had enough proofs; the judge did not specify the sum or the object, or the actions that must be fulfilled by the defendant and the judge did not express upon the trial expenses. Additionally, in the cases when here are some drawbacks of the sentence as for example there is not clear the Conclusion of the sentence, the parties may ask the judge to explain, that is, to display its content, not to modify. The explanation of the sentence is realized according to the rules of the general procedure, thus the instance announces all the parties about the place, date and time of its explanation and the absence of one of the parties does not stumble its explanation.

13

5. Bibliography:
1. Ciobanu, V.M., Baicoianu, I., Civil Procedural Law. Enforced Execution, Edition: Lumina Lex, Bucharest, 1996, p.455; 2. Civil Procedural Code of Republic of Moldova, 2003 with the modifications 2012; 3. Durac, Gh., Civil Procedural Law (course support), University Alexandru Ioan Cuza, Law Department, 2009, pp.111; 4. Durac, Gh., Judecata n prim instan n procesul civil, Edition: Hamangiu, Bucharest,
2006, pp.235;

5. Manual al judecatorului la examinarea pricinilor civile, 2010 6. http://www.stiucum.com/drept/drept-civil/Deliberarea-si-pronuntarea-hot71115.php

14

Appendix 1:
DOSARUL nr. 2-12778/2012 HOTRRE n numele Legii

24 decembrie 2012 Judecatoria Rcani mun.Chiinu Avind in componenta sa ca: Presedintele de sedinta judecator Ion Stepanov

mun.Chiinu

Grefier

Valentina Vdovicenco

Cu participarea :

reprezentantului reclamantului si a piritului

A examinat n sedinta judiciar public cauza civil pe cererea lui Moldovanu Valentin, domiciliat n mun.Chiinu ctre Srghi alexandru, domiciliat n mun.Chiinu cu privire la ncasarea datoriei, n sum de 93 000 lei i a dobnzii de ntrziere , n sum de 6022 lei.

A HOTRT: Cererea SRL,, Condiprod Com,, mun. Chiinu ctre SRL,,Probrig,, mun.Chiinu cu privire la ncasarea datoriei, n sum de 2688 lei 25 bani, a dobnzii de intirziere, n sum de 1022 lei i a cheltuielilor de asiten juridic, n sum de 1000 lei, a o admite integral. A ncasa de la SRL,,Probrig,, mun.Chiinu n benenficiul SRL,, Condiprod Com,, mun.Chiinu datoria n sum de 2688 lei 25 bani, dobnda de ntrziere, n sum de 1022 lei, cheltuieli de asisten juridic, n sum de 1000 lei, costul citaiie publice, n Ziarul,,Dreptul,, n sum de 83 lei i taxa de stat, n sum de 270 lei, n total 5063 lei 25 bani. Hotrrea este dat cu drept de apel, n Curtea de Apel Chiinu, n termen de 20 de zile, de la recepionare.

Preedinte de edin

Ion Stepanov

15

Appendix 2:
DOSARUL nr. 2-12726/2012 HOTRRE

n numele Legii

16 noiembrie 2012

mun.Chiinu

Judecatoria Rcani mun.Chiinu

Avind in componenta sa ca: Presedintele de sedinta judecator Ion Stepanov

Grefier

Valentina Vdovicenco

Cu participarea :

reclamantei, prtului i reprezentantului intervienentului accesoriu

A examinat n sedinta judiciara public cauza civil pe cererea lui Chiosea Alina, nscut la 19 iulie 1974, c/p 2001002115668, domiciliat n mun.Chiinu str.Matei Basarab,10 ap.62 ctre Chiosea Fiodor, nscut la 03.06.1974, c/p 0983006455251, domiciliat n mun.Chiinu bd. Moscovei,14/1 ap.100, , intervienent accesoriu Direcia Pentru Protecia Drepturilor Copilului mun.Chiinu, cu privire la suspendarea executrii deciziei Direciei Pentru Protecia Copilului sect.Rcani mun.Chiinu nr. 75/1 din 26.07.2012, cu privire la graficul de ntrevederi a tatlui Chiosea Fiodor, cu fiul minor Chiosea Dmitri, nscut la 24 decembrie 2005 i stabilirea ordinii de comunicare a tatlui Chiosea Fiodor cu fiul minorChiosea Dmitri, dup cum urmeaz: pe perioada anului de nvtmint tatl se va avedea cu copilul: miercurea i vinerea, dup finisarea orelor de studii, pn la ora 20.00; I-a i III-a smbt a lunii, de la ora 11.00 pna la ora 20.00; a II-a si a IV-a duminic a lunii , de la ora 11.00 pn la 19.00; cu eliminarea punctului 2 din decizie, punctul 3 din decizie urmnd a fi modificat i primit n redacia: pe perioada anului de nvtmint tatl se v-a vedea cu copilul, in fiecare simbt i duminic de la ora 11.00 pn la ora 17.00; cu modificarea punctului 7 din decizie, in redacia: copilul v-a fi transmis tatlul, respectiv mamei, n ograda liceului Matei Basarab, unde invata copilul, pe adresa: mun.Chiinu str.Matei Basarab, 14, a constatat: Chiosea Alina, domiciliat n mun.Chiinu s-a adresat cu cerere de chemare n judecat ctre Chiosea Fiodor, domiciliat n mun.Chiinu,intervienent accesoriu-Direcia Pentru Protecia Drepturilor Copilului, cu privire la suspendarea executrii deciziei Direciei Pentru Protecia Copilului sect.Rcani mun.Chiinu nr. 75/1 din 26.07.2012, cu privire la graficul de
16

ntrevederi a tatlui Chiosea Fiodor, cu fiul minor Chiosea Dmitri, nscut la 24 decembrie 2005 i stabilirea ordinii de comunicare a tatlui Chiosea Fiodor cu fiul minor-Chiosea Dmitri, dup cum urmeaz: pe perioada anului de nvtmint tatl se va avedea cu copilul: miercurea i vinerea, dup finisarea orelor de studii, pn la ora 20.00; I-a i III-a smbt a lunii, de la ora 11.00 pna la ora 20.00; a II-a si a IV-a duminic a lunii , de la ora 11.00 pn la 19.00. n cadrul examinrii aciunii, reclamanta a depus cerere de concretizare a preteniiilor, solicitnd modificarea graficului de ntrevedere a tatlui-Chiosea Fiodor cu fiul Chiosea Dmitri, stabilit prin Decizia nr.75/1 din 26.07.2012, emise de Direcia Pentru Protecia Drepturilor Copilului sect.Rcani mun.Chiinu, dup cum urmeaz: eliminarea punctului 2 din decizia nominalizat; Modificarea punctul 3 din decizie i primirea n urmtoarea redacie: pe perioada anului de nvtmnt tatl se v-a vedea cu copilul minor, n fiecare simbt i duminic a lunii, de la ora 11.00 pn la ora 17.00; Modificarea punctului 7 din decizie, i primirea n urmtoarea redacie: copilul minor v-a fi transmis tatlul de ctre mam, n ograda Liceului ,,Matei Basarab,, mun.Chiinu, pe adresa: mun.Chiinu str.Matei Basarab, 14, unde invata copilul.

n edina judiciar reclamanta susine parial cerinele , solicitnd ca punctul 2 din Decizia contestat s fie modificat, stabilindu-se zilele de comunicare a prtului cu copilul minor Chiosea Dmitri, nscut la 24 decembrie 2005, n vacana de var a anului 2013 i anume: zilele de luni, miercuri i smbt a fiecrei sptmni a lunii; urmnd a fi modificate si punctele 3 i 7 al Deciziei nominalizate, cu primirea ntr-o nou redacie, dup cum urmeaz: n perioada anului de nvmnt copilul minor-Chiosea Dmitri, se transmite de reclamant prtului n zilele de simbt i duminic ale fiecrei sptmni a lunii, de la orele 10.00, pn la 19.00, la locul de trai al reclamantei,n rest de cerine refuzndu-se, din motivele expuse n cerere si indicate in edin. Prtul cu cerinele reclamantei este de acord parial,i anume: ca punctul 2 din Decizia cointestat s fie modificat, acordndu-i-se prtului termen de intrevedere cu copilul minor, pe termen de 2 sptmni lunar, peste o sptmn a lunii, in rest cu condiiile propuse de reclamant este de acord, din motivele expuse in referina la aciune i n edin. Reprezentantul Direciei pentru Protecia Drepturilor Copilului sect.Rcani mun.Chiinu consider cerinele reclamantei ca nentemeiate, din motivul c Decizia comisiei a fost adoptat cu participarea ambelor pri. Audiind reclamanta, prtul i reprezentantul intervienentului accesoriu, cercetnd sub toate aspectele complet si obiectiv, toate mprejurrile priciii n ansamblul lor, instana ajunge la concluzia c cererea de chemare n jduecat, urmeaz a fi admis parial din urmtoarele considerente: n cadrul examinrii aciunii s-a constatat c reclamanta si prtul au ntregistrat cstoria la 05.08.2005, la OSC Rcani mun.Chiinu , trecut n Registrul Strii Civile, sub nr.552. De la casatorie prile il au pe copilul minor-Chiosea Dmitri, nscut la 24.12.2005. Prin hotrrea Judectoriei Rcani din 21.11.2011 castoria ncheiat ntre prti a fost desfcut, determinndi-se domiciliul copilului minor - Chiosea Dmitri , cu mama Chiosea Alina. La cererea lui Chiosea Fiodor, Comisia pentru Protecia Copilului aflat n dificultate a Direciei pentru Protecia Drepturilor Copilului Rcani mun.Chiinu a a doptat la 26.07.2012, Decizia nr.75/1 ,, cu privire la graficul de intrevedere a tatlul - Chiosea Fiodor, cu fiul minor17

Chiosea Dmitri, nscut la 24.12.2005, aprobndu-se i recomandindu-se graficul de intrevederi a tatlui-Chiosea Fiodor, cu fiul minor-Chiosea Dmitri,, Punctul 2,3 i 7 din Decizia contestat, aprob i recomannd urmtorul grafic de intrevederi a tatlul-Chiodea Fiodor cu fiul minor Chiosea Dmitri, dup cum urmeaz: P.2- n vacana de vara 2013, tatl v-a lua copilul de la 03.06.2013 pn la 09.06.2013; de la 17.06.2013 pn la 23.06.2013; de la 01.07.2013, pn la 07.07.2013; de la 15.07.2013, pn la 21.07.2013; de la 29.07.2013, pn la 04.08.2013; de la 12.08.2013, pn l a18.08.2013 i de la 26.08.2013, pn la 31.08.2013; - P.3 Pe perioada anului de invmnt , tatl se va vedea cu copilul: miercurea si vinerea de la ora 17.00 pn la ora 20.00; I-a si a III-a simbt de la ora 11.00. pn la ora 20.00; a II i a IV duminic de la ora 11.00 pn la ora 19.00; - Iar P.7 prevznd c copilul v-a fi transmis tatlui, respectiv mamei, la benzinria ,,Lukoil,, str. Alecu Russo, col cu str.Mihail Sadoneanu; n edina judiciar reclamanta a prezentat certificate medicale conform crora copilul minor este bolnav i necesit tratament permanent, fapt recunoscut n edin atit de reclamant ct i de prt. S-a mai constatat c copilul minor-Chiosea Dmitri, invat n clasa I, a Liceului,, Matei Basarab,, mun.Chiinu, ntorcndu-se acasa, de la ore, zilnic, aproximativ pe la ora 17.00, respectiv avnd nevoie de odihn i de tratament. Faptul c copilul minor este bolnav i necesit tratament permanent este confirmat n edin i de reprezentantul intervienentului accesoriu, ultimul m-ai menionnd, c la stabilirea graficului de intrevedere a tatlui cu fiul minor, au fost prezeni ambii prini, ultimii avnd cunotin despre decizia nominalizat. Audiind reclamanta, prtul i reprezentantul intervienentului accesoriu, fcnd cunotin cu referina la aciune depus de prt i cu materialele prezentate de reclamant, innd cont de intereselele legitime ale copilului minor-Chiosea Dmitri, c ultimul i face studiile n clasa-I, la liceu, c este bolnav i necesit tratament permanent, instana consider, c cerinele reclamantei referitor la modificarea punctului 2 din deciziea menionat, sunt neintemeiate i necesit a fi respinse, acest punct urmnd a fi lsat in redacia indicat n Decizia nr.75/1 din 26.07.2012, iar punctele 3 i 7 din decizia menionat, urmeaz a fi modificate, cu primirea acestor puncte, n urmtoarea redacie: Punctul 3- Pe perioada anului de invtmnt tatl Chiosea Fiodor, domiciliat n mun. Chiinu se va avedea cu copilul Chiosea Dmitri: n zilele de simbt i duminic a lunii, de la ora 10.00 pn la ora 19.00; - Punctul 7-Copilul minor Chiosea Dmitri, v-a fi transmis tatlui-Chiosea Fiodor, in perioada anului de invtmint, de ctre mama copilului minor-Chiosea Alina, la locul de domiciliu al ultimei: mun.Chiinu str.Matei Basarab 10, ap.62, copilul minor urmnd a fi ntors mamei la domiciliu ultimei. Instnaa consider c punctul 2 din Decizia contestat, urmeaz a fi lasat in redacia din aceast Decizie, din motivele c modificarea acestui punct, n redacia solicitat de reclamant ar nclca atit interesele legitime ale copilului minor ct i drepturile prtului, stabilite de legislaia n vigoare. Conform alin.1 art.58 Codul Familiei al RM, prinii au frepturi i obligaii egale fa de copii indiferent de faptul dac copii sunt nscui n cstoriei, sau inafara ei, sau daca locuiesc impreun cu prinii sau separat.
18

La rndul su alin.1 art.62 CF al RM, pervede c drepturile printeti nu pot fi exercitate contrar prevederilor copilului minor. Potrivit alin.1 art.64 din CF al RM, printele care locuieste impreun cu copilul nu are dreptul s impiedice contactul dintre copil i cellalt printe care locuiesc separat, cu excepia cazurilor cnd comportamentul acestuia din urm este n detrimentul copilului, sau prezint pericol pentru starea lui fizic i psihic. inind cont de cele relatate, conducndu-se de articolele 117-119,130,239-241,358 CPC i art.46,52,58,60,61,64 Codul Familie al RM, instana de judecat,

A HOTRT : Cererea lui Chiosea Alina, nscut la 19 iulie 1974, c/p 2001002115668, domiciliat n mun.Chiinu, str.Matei Basarab,10 ap.62 ctre Chiosea Fiodor, nscut la 03.06.1974, c/p 0983006455251, domiciliat n mun.Chiinu bd. Moscovei,14/1 ap.100, intervienent accesoriu Direcia Pentru Protecia Drepturilor Copilului mun.Chiinu, cu privire la suspendarea executrii deciziei Direciei Pentru Protecia Copilului sect.Rcani mun.Chiinu nr. 75/1 din 26.07.2012, cu privire la graficul de ntrevederi a tatlui Chiosea Fiodor, cu fiul minor Chiosea Dmitri, nscut la 24 decembrie 2005 i stabilirea ordinii de comunicare a tatlui Chiosea Fiodor cu fiul minor-Chiosea Dmitri, dup cum urmeaz: pe perioada anului de nvtmint tatl se va avedea cu copilul: miercurea i vinerea, dup finisarea orelor de studii, pn la ora 20.00; I-a i III-a smbt a lunii, de la ora 11.00 pna la ora 20.00; a II-a si a IV-a duminic a lunii , de la ora 11.00 pn la 19.00; cu eliminarea punctului 2 din decizie, punctul 3 din decizie urmnd a fi modificat i primit n redacia: pe perioada anului de nvtmint tatl se v-a vedea cu copilul, in fiecare simbt i duminic de la ora 11.00 pn la ora 17.00; cu modificarea punctului 7 din Decizie, in redacia: copilul v-a fi transmis tatlul, respectiv mamei, n ograda liceului Matei Basarab, unde invata copilul, pe adresa: mun.Chiinu str.Matei Basarab, 14, a o admite parial. Punctul 3 din Decizia Comisiei pentru protecia copilului aflat n dificultate a Directiei Pentru Protecia Drepturilor Copilului sect.Rcani mun.Chiinu , nr.75/1 din 26 iulie 2012 ,, Cu privire la graficul de intrevedere a tatlui-Chiosea Fiodor, cu fiul minor-Chiosea Dmitri, nscut la 24 decembrie 2005, a fi modificat, cu primirea acestui punct, n urmtoarea redacie: Pe perioada anului de nvtmnt tatl-Chiosea Fiodor se va vedea cu copilul minorChiosea Dmitri, n zilele de simbt i duminic a lunii, de la ora 10.00 pn la ora 19.00; Punctul 7 din Decizia Comisiei pentru protecia copilului aflat n dificultate a Directiei Pentru Protecia Drepturilor Copilului sect.Rcani mun.Chiinu , nr.75/1 din 26 iulie 2012 ,, Cu privire la graficul de intrevedere a tatlui-Chiosea Fiodor, cu fiul minor-Chiosea Dmitri, nscut la 24 decembrie 2005, a-l modifica, cu primirea acestui punct, n urmtoarea redacie: Copilul minor-Chiosea Dmitri, nscut la 24 decembrie 2005, v-a fi transmis de ctre mama - Chiosea Alina, tatlui-Chiosea Fiodor, la domiciliul lui Chiosea Alina: mun.Chiinu str.Matei Basarab, 10 ap.62, copilul urmnd a fi intors mamei, tot la acest domiciliu.

19

n rest cerinele lui Chiosea Alina, nscut la 19 iulie 1974, c/p 2001002115668, domiciliat n mun.Chiinu, str.Matei Basarab,10 ap.62, a fi respinse, ca fiind nentemeiate.

Hotrrea nominalizat urmeaz a fi adus la cunotin lui Chiosea Alina, Chiosea Fiodor, domiciliai n mun.Chiinu i Directiei Pentru Protecia Drepturilor Copilului mun.Chiinu. Hotrrea este dat cu drept de apel, n Curtea de Apel Chiinu, n termen de 20 de zile de la data pronunrii.

Preedinte de edin

Ion Stepanov

20