Sunteți pe pagina 1din 16

Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr.

1/2011

ASPECTE TEORETICE I DE THEORETICAL ASPECTS AND


PRACTIC JUDICIAR PRIVIND JUDICIAL PRACTICE ASPECTS
NAPOIEREA COPILULUI DEPLASAT REGARDING THE RETURN OF THE
SAU REINUT PRIN VIOLAREA UNUI DISPLACED OR KEPT CHILD BY
DREPT PRIVIND NCREDINAREA VIOLATING A RIGHT RELATED TO
ENTRUSTING

Lect. univ. dr. Alin-Gheorghe GAVRILESCU


Catedra de Drept
University Lecturer PhD. Alin-Gheorghe
Facultatea de tiine Juridice i Litere
GAVRILESCU
Universitatea Constantin Brncui din Tg-
Law Chair
Jiu
Faculty of Juridical Sciences and Letters
Constantin Brncui University of Tg-Jiu
Abstract: Articolul pune n discuie
principalele probleme referitoare la napoierea
copilului deplasat sau reinut ilicit, fiind avute n Abstract: The article discusses the main
vedere dispoziiile Conveniei de la Haga asupra problems referring to the return of the displaced or
aspectelor civile ale rpirii internaionale de copii, ale unlawfully kept child, considering the stipulations of the
Regulamentului (CE) nr. 2201/2003 al Consiliului Hague Convention on the civil aspects of the
Uniunii Europene din 27 noiembrie 2003 privind international children kidnapping of Regulation (EC)
competena, recunoaterea i executarea hotrrilor no. 2201/2003 of the European Union Council from
judectoreti n materie matrimonial i n materia November, 27th 2003 regarding the competence, the
rspunderii printeti, precum i ale Legii nr. 369/2004 acknowledgement and the execution of the judicial
privind aplicarea Conveniei asupra aspectelor civile decisions in matrimonial matter and in the parental
ale rpirii internaionale de copii, adoptat la Haga la responsibility matter, and also of Law no. 369/2004
25 octombrie 1980, la care Romnia a aderat prin regarding the application of the Convention on the civil
Legea nr. 100/1992. Dup o scurt parte introductiv aspects of the international children kidnapping,
privitoare la cadrul juridic sunt analizate caracterul adopted at Hague on October, 25th 1980, where
ilicit al deplasrii sau reinerii, precum i competena Romania accessed by Law no. 100/1992. After a short
n materie de napoiere a copilului, dup care este introductory part regarding the juridical frame, there
prezentat procedura napoierii copilului iar n partea are analysed the unlawful feature of the displacement
final este examinat posibilitatea autoritii judiciare or of the keeping, and also the competence in matter of
sau administrative de a nu dispune napoierea returning the child, and then it is presented the
copilului. procedure of returning the child and in the final part it
is examined the possibility of the judicial or
Cuvinte cheie: autoritate judiciar sau administrative authority not to dispose the childs
administrativ, deplasarea sau reinerea ilicit a return.
copilului, napoierea copilului, dreptul privind
ncredinarea, autoritate central, reedina obinuit Key-words: judicial or administrative
authority, displacement or unlawful keeping of the
child, return of the child, the right related to the
entrusting, central authority, usual residence
1. Noiuni introductive
n materia napoierii copilului n cazul
deplasrii sau nenapoierii / reinerii ilicite a 1. Introductory notions
acestuia au aplicabilitate, la nivel In the matter of returning the child in
internaional, dispoziiile cuprinse n case of his or her displacement or the unlawful
urmtoarele instrumente juridice: non-return/ keeping, at the international level,
- Convenia de la Haga asupra

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2011
67
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 1/2011

aspectelor civile ale rpirii internaionale de the stipulations contained in the following
copii1 care are drept obiect s asigure juridical tools are applicable:
napoierea imediat a copiilor deplasai sau - the Hague Convention on the civil
reinui ilicit n orice stat contractant (art. 1 lit. aspects of the international children
a din convenie) i s fac s se respecte kidnapping15 that has as object the providing of
efectiv n celelalte state contractante the immediate return of the displaced or
drepturile privind ncredinarea i vizitarea unlawfully kept children in any contracting state
care exist ntr-un stat contractant (art. 1 lit. b (art. 1, letter a of the convention) and to provide
din convenie). Prevederile acestei convenii the effective respect, in the other contracting
sunt aplicabile oricrui copil care i avea states, the rights regarding the entrusting and the
reedina obinuit ntr-un stat contractant visiting existent in a contracting state (art. 1,
imediat nainte de nclcarea drepturilor letter b of the convention). The stipulations of
privind ncredinarea sau vizitarea, dar numai this convention are applicable to any child
pn la data cnd copilul atinge vrsta de 16 having his or her usual residence in a
ani (art. 4 din convenie). contracting state immediately before
- Regulamentul (CE) nr. 2201/2003 al contravening the rights related to the entrusting
Consiliului Uniunii Europene din 27 or visiting, but only until the child reaches 16
noiembrie 2003 privind competena, years old (art. 4 of the convention).
recunoaterea i executarea hotrrilor - Regulation (EC) no. 2201/2003 of the
judectoreti n materie matrimonial i n European Union Council from November 27th,
materia rspunderii printeti2. Potrivit art. 60 2003 regarding the competence, the
lit. e din Regulament, n relaiile dintre statele acknowledgement and the execution of the
membre acesta prevaleaz asupra Conveniei judicial decisions in matrimonial matter and in
de la Haga din 25 octombrie 1980 asupra the matter of the parental responsibility16.
aspectelor civile ale rpirii internaionale de According to art. 60, letter e of the Regulation,
copii, n msura n care aceasta privete in the relations between the member states, this
materiile reglementate de Regulamentul (CE) prevails on the Hague Convention from October
nr. 2201/2003. 25th, 1980 on the civil aspects of the
n caz de deplasare sau de reinere international children kidnapping, as long as this
ilicit a unui copil, n privina napoierii sale is related to the matters regulated by Regulation
urmeaz a se aplica dispoziiile Conveniei de (EC) no. 2201/2003.
la Haga din 25 octombrie 1980, acestea In case of displacement or unlawful
completndu-se cu prevederile keeping of a child, regarding his or her return, it
Regulamentului (CE) nr. 2201/2003, n is to apply the stipulations of the Hague
special cu cele ale art. 11 din acest Convention from October, 25th 1980, and these
Regulament. n acest sens sunt dispoziiile art. are completed by the stipulations of the
11 alin 1 din Regulament care arat c n Regulation (EC) no. 2201/2003, especially with
cazul n care o persoan, instituie sau orice the ones of art. 11 of this Regulation. In this
alt organism cruia / creia i s-a ncredinat sense, there are the stipulations of art. 11,
copilul solicit autoritilor competente dintr- paragraph 1 of the Regulation showing that, if a
un stat membru s pronune o hotrre person, an institution or any other organism the
judectoreasc pe baza Conveniei de la Haga child had been entrusted to, demands to the
din 25 octombrie 1980 asupra aspectelor competent authorities of a member state to
civile ale rpirii internaionale de copii n pronounce a judicial decision based on the
vederea obinerii napoierii copilului care a Hague Convention from October, 25th 1980 on
fost deplasat sau reinut ilicit ntr-un alt stat the civil aspects of the international children
membru dect statul membru n care copilul kidnapping in order to obtain the return of the
i avea reedina obinuit imediat nainte de child who has been displaced or unlawfully kept

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2011
68
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 1/2011

deplasarea sau de reinerea sa ilicit se aplic in another member state than the member state
alineatele (2)-(8) ale art. 11. where the child had his or her usual residence
n cauzele avnd ca obiect immediately before his or her displacement or
soluionarea cererilor de napoiere a unui unlawful keeping, we apply paragraphs (2)-(8)
copil deplasat sau reinut ilicit pe teritoriul of art. 11.
Romniei sunt incidente i prevederile Legii In the causes having as an object the
nr. 369/20043 privind aplicarea Conveniei settlement of the demands to return a displaced
asupra aspectelor civile ale rpirii or child unlawfully kept on Romanias territory,
internaionale de copii, adoptat la Haga la 25 there are parenthetic also the stipulations of Law
octombrie 1980, la care Romnia a aderat prin no. 369/200417 regarding the application of the
Legea nr. 100/1992. Convention on the civil aspects of the
international children kidnapping, adopted at
2. Caracterul ilicit al deplasrii sau Hague, on October 25th 1980, where Romania
reinerii accessed by Law no. 100/1992.
Potrivit art. 3 parag.1 din convenie,
deplasarea sau nenapoierea unui copil se 2. The unlawful feature of
consider ilicit: displacement or of keeping
a) cnd are loc prin violarea unui According to art. 3, paragraph 1 of the
drept privind ncredinarea, atribuit unei convention, the displacement or the non-return
persoane, unei instituii sau oricrui alt of a child is considered as unlawful:
organism acionnd fie separat, fie mpreun, - When it has taken place by violating
prin legea statului n care copilul i avea a right regarding the entrusting, attributed to a
reedina obinuit, imediat naintea deplasrii person, an institution or to any other organism
sau nenapoierii sale4; i acting either separately, or together, by the law
b) dac la vremea deplasrii sau of the state where the child has his or her usual
nenapoierii acest drept era exercitat n mod residence, immediately after his or her
efectiv, acionndu-se separat sau mpreun displacement or non-return18; and
ori ar fi fost astfel exercitate, dac asemenea - If, at the moment of the
mprejurri nu ar fi survenit. displacement or of the non-return, this right was
De asemenea, deplasarea sau effectively exerted, acting separately or together
reinerea ilicit a unui copil este definit i n or they were thus exerted, if such circumstances
art. 2 pct. 11 din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 2201 had not appeared.
/2003 care arat c deplasare sau reinere Also, the displacement or the unlawful
ilicit a unui copil nseamn deplasarea sau keeping of a child is defined in art. 2, point 11 of
reinerea unui copil n cazul n care: Regulation (EC) no. 2201 /2003 showing that
(a) a avut loc o nclcare adus the displacement or the unlawful keeping of a
ncredinrii dobndit printr-o hotrre child means the displacement or the keeping of
judectoreasc, n temeiul legii sau printr-un a child when:
acord n vigoare n temeiul legislaiei statului (a) there had been a contravention
membru n care copilul i avea reedina brought to the entrusting gained by a judicial
obinuit imediat naintea deplasrii sau decision, based on the law or by a valid
reinerii sale agreement based on the legislation of the
i member state where the child had his or her
(b) sub rezerva ca ncredinarea s fi usual residence immediately before his or her
fost exercitat efectiv, singur sau mpreun, displacement or keeping
n momentul deplasrii sau reinerii, sau ar fi and
fost exercitat dac nu ar fi survenit aceste (b) under the reserve for the fact that the
evenimente. ncredinarea se consider ca entrusting had been effectively exerted, alone or

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2011
69
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 1/2011

fiind exercitat mpreun atunci cnd unul together, when displacing or keeping, or that it
dintre titularii rspunderii printeti nu poate, had been exerted if there had not appeared these
n temeiul unei hotrri judectoreti sau ca events. Entrusting is considered as being exerted
efect al legii, s decid asupra locului de together when one of the holders of the parental
reedin a copilului fr consimmntul responsibility cannot, based on a judicial
celuilalt titular al rspunderii printeti. decision or as an effect of the law, make
Referitor la prevederile art. 3 lit. a dindecisions regarding the childs place of
Convenie, n practica judiciar s-a artat c residence without the consent of the other
acestea se raporteaz, n primul rnd, la legea holder of the parental responsibility.
statului n care copilul i avea reedina Referring to the stipulations of art. 3,
obinuit, adic la mprejurarea c letter a of the Convention, in the judicial
ncredinarea rezult dintr-o atribuire de plin practice it was shown that these are reported, in
drept, nainte de pronunarea oricrei decizii the first place, to the law of the state where the
iar n privina art. 3 lit. b din Convenie s-a child had his or her usual residence, namely to
subliniat c exercitarea efectiv a dreptului the circumstance that the entrusting results from
privind ncredinarea se refer la ngrijirea a full law attribution, before pronouncing any
persoanei copilului raportat la momentul la decision and regarding art. 3, letter b of the
care a survenit refuzul napoierii5. Convention, it was emphasized that the effective
Dreptul privind ncredinarea poate exertion of the law regarding the entrusting
rezulta, ntre altele, dintr-o atribuire de plin refers to the caring of the childs person reported
drept6, dintr-o hotrre judectoreasc sau to the moment when the refuse to return him or
administrativ sau dintr-un acord n vigoare her occurred19.
potrivit dreptului acelui stat (art. 3 parag. 2 The right regarding the entrusting may
din convenie) i include dreptul cu privire la result, among others, from a full law
ngrijirile cuvenite persoanei copilului i, attribution20, from a judicial or administrative
ndeosebi, acela de a hotr asupra locului decision or from a valid agreement according to
reedinei sale7 (art. 5 lit. a din convenie). the law of that state (art. 3, paragraph 2 of the
Pentru a se stabili existena unei convention) and includes the right to decide on
deplasri sau a unei nenapoieri ilicite n the place of his or her residence21 (art. 5, letter a
nelesul art. 3 din Convenia de la Haga of the convention).
trebuie avute n vedere i prevederile art. 14 In order to establish the existence of a
din aceeai convenie care arat c autoritatea displacement or of an unlawful non-return
judiciar sau administrativ a statului according to art. 3 of the Hague Convention, we
solicitant poate ine seama n mod direct de should also consider the stipulations of art. 14 of
legea i de hotrrile judiciare sau the same convention showing that the judicial or
administrative recunoscute sau nu n mod administrative authority of the demanding state
formal n statul n care se afl reedina may directly consider the law and the judicial or
obinuit a copilului, fr a recurge la administrative decisions that are formally
procedurile specifice asupra dovedirii acestui acknowledged or not in the state where there is
drept sau pentru recunoaterea hotrrilor the childs usual residence, without using the
strine care ar fi altfel aplicabile. specific procedures on proving this right or for
acknowledging the foreign decisions that would
3. Competena n materie de be otherwise applicable.
napoiere a copilului
n temeiul art. 8 parag. 1 din convenie 3. Competence in matter of
printele care pretinde c un copil a fost returning the child
deplasat sau reinut prin violarea dreptului According to art. 8, paragraph 1 of the
privind ncredinarea poate s sesizeze fie convention, the parent who pretends that a child

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2011
70
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 1/2011

autoritatea central8 a reedinei obinuite a has been displaced or kept by the violation of
copilului, fie pe aceea a oricrui stat the right regarding the entrusting may announce
contractant pentru ca acestea s acorde either the central authority22 of the childs usual
asistena lor n vederea asigurrii napoierii residence, or the one of any contracting state for
copilului. Cnd autoritatea central sesizat these to grant their assistance in order to provide
are motive s cread c respectivul copilul se the childs return. When the announced central
afl ntr-un alt stat contractant ea transmite authority has reasons to believe that the
cererea, direct i fr ntrziere, autoritii respective child is in another contracting state, it
centrale a acestui stat contractant, informnd transmits the demand directly and with no
despre aceasta autoritatea central reclamant delay, informing the plaintiff central authority
sau, dac este cazul, pe reclamant (art. 9 din or, if it is the case, informing the plaintiff about
convenie). this (art. 9 of the convention).
Competena judectoreasc n cazuri The judicial competence in cases of
de rpire a copilului este reglementat i n kidnapping the child is also regulated in art. 10
art. 10 din Regulamentul (CE) 2201/2003 care of the Regulation (EC) 2201/2003 stipulating
prevede c n caz de deplasare sau de reinere that, in case of displacement or unlawful
ilicit a unui copil, instanele judectoreti din keeping of a child, the judicial courts in the
statul membru n care copilul i avea member state where the child had his or her
reedina obinuit imediat naintea deplasrii usual residence immediately before his or her
sale sau a reinerii sale ilicite rmn displacement or unlawful keeping remain
competente pn n momentul n care copilul competent until the child gains an usual
dobndete o reedin obinuit ntr-un alt residence in another member state and if:
stat membru i dac: (a) any person, institution or other
(a) orice persoan, instituie sau organism the child has been entrusted to, agrees
alt organism creia /cruia i-a fost ncredinat with the childs displacement or keeping
copilul consimte la deplasarea sau reinerea or
acestuia (b) the child has lived in this other
sau member state for at least one year after the
(b) copilul a locuit n acest alt stat person, the institution or any other organism the
membru o perioad de cel puin un an dup ce child had been entrusted to had or should have
persoana, instituia sau orice alt organism known about the place where the child was, if
creia/cruia i s-a ncredinat copilul a avut the child was integrated in his or her new
sau ar fi trebuit s aib cunotin de locul n environment and if at least one of the following
care se afla copilul, dac copilul s-a integrat n conditions has been met:
noul su mediu i dac a fost ndeplinit cel (i) in one-year term since
puin una dintre urmtoarele condiii: the moment the child was entrusted had
(i) n termen de un an de or should have known about the place
cnd cel cruia i s-a ncredinat copilul where the child was, there was no
a avut sau ar fi trebuit s aib demand of return at the competent
cunotin de locul n care se afla authorities of the member state where
copilul, nu s-a depus nicio cerere de the child had been displaced or kept;
napoiere la autoritile competente ale (ii) it was taken back a
statului membru n care copilul a fost demand of return laid down by the one
deplasat sau reinut; whom the child had been entrusted to
(ii) a fost retras o cerere and there was no new demand in the
de napoiere naintat de cel cruia i s- term established at point (i);
a ncredinat copilul i nu s-a depus (iii) a cause solved by a
nicio nou cerere n termenul stabilit judicial court in the member state where

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2011
71
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 1/2011

la punctul (i); the child had his or her usual residence


(iii) o cauz soluionat de immediately before the displacement or
o instan judectoreasc din statul the unlawful keeping was closed
membru n care copilul i avea according to article 11, paragraph 7;
reedina obinuit imediat naintea (iv) a decision of entrusting
deplasrii sale sau reinerii sale ilicite that does not involve the childs return
a fost nchis n conformitate cu has been pronounced by the judicial
articolul 11 alineatul 7; court in the member state where the
(iv) o hotrre de child had his or her usual residence
ncredinare care nu implic immediately before the displacement of
napoierea copilului a fost pronunat the unlawful keeping.
de instana judectoreasc din statul In the Romanian law, the competence of
membru n care copilul i avea settling the demands of return of the displaced
reedina obinuit imediat naintea child or unlawfully kept on Romanias territory
deplasrii sau reinerii sale ilicite. is determined by art. 12 of Law no. 369/2004
n dreptul romn, competena de regarding the application of the Convention on
soluionare a cererilor de napoiere a copilului the civil aspects of the international children
deplasat sau reinut ilicit pe teritoriul kidnapping, adopted in Hague, on October 25th
Romniei este determinat de art. 12 din 1980, where Romania accessed by Law no.
Legea nr. 369/2004 privind aplicarea 100/1992. The stipulations of this article
Conveniei asupra aspectelor civile ale rpirii establish at first that the settlemtn of the
internaionale de copii, adoptat la Haga la 25 demands addressed by the natural person, the
octombrie 1980, la care Romnia a aderat prin juridical entity or the interested organism of any
Legea nr. 100/1992. Dispoziiile acestui state that is a part of the Convention, in order to
articol stabilesc, mai nti, c soluionarea return the child placed on Romanias territory,
cererilor adresate de ctre persoana fizic, as a consequence of a displacement or of an
instituia sau organismul interesat din oricare unlawful keeping in the sense of art. 3 of the
stat parte la Convenie, pentru napoierea Convention, belongs to the competence of the
copilului aflat pe teritoriul Romniei, ca judicial court (art. 2, paragraph 1 of the law),
urmare a unei deplasri sau reineri ilicite n and then, it shows that the competence court for
sensul art. 3 din Convenie, este de settling these demands is the Court for Minors
competena instanei judectoreti (art. 2 and Family of Bucharest (art. 2, paragraph 2 of
alin.1 din lege), dup care, arat c instana the law).
competent pentru soluionarea acestor cereri
este Tribunalul pentru minori i familie 4. The procedure of returning the
Bucureti (art. 2 alin. 2 din lege). child
The central authority of the state where
4. Procedura napoierii copilului the child is, will take or will make sure it is
Autoritatea central a statului unde se taken any measure susceptible to provide his or
afl copilul va lua sau va face s se ia orice her return willingly (art. 10 of the convention).
msur susceptibil s asigure napoierea The judicial or administrative authorities
acestuia de bun voie (art. 10 din convenie). of any contracting state are to act immediately
Autoritile judiciare sau in order to return the child (art. 11, paragraph 1
administrative ale oricrui stat contractant of the convention), as the stipulations of art. 11,
urmeaz s procedeze de urgen n vederea paragraph 2 of the convention impose a 6-week
napoierii copilului (art. 11 parag. 1 din term since announcing the judicial or
convenie).dispoziiile art. 11 parag. 2 din administrative authority so that it could decide.
convenie impunnd un termen limit de 6 Otherwise, the stipulations of the same text give

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2011
72
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 1/2011

sptmni de la data sesizrii autoritii to the plaintiff or to the central authority of the
judiciare sau administrative pentru ca aceasta demanding state the possibility to require a
s statueze. n caz contrar, prevederile declaration on the reasons of this delay.
aceluiai text dau reclamantului sau autoritii The settlement with celerity of the
centrale a statului solicitant posibilitatea s demand of a childs return also results from the
cear o declaraie asupra motivelor acestei stipulations of art. 11, paragraph 3 of the
ntrzieri. Regulation according to which an court
Soluionarea cu celeritate a cererii de announced regarding a demand of a childs
napoiere a unui copil rezult i din return acts with celerity in frame of the
prevederile art. 11 alin. 3 din Regulament procedure related to the demand, by using the
conform cruia o instan sesizat cu o cerere emergent procedures stipulated by the intern
de napoiere a unui copil acioneaz cu law. The judicial court pronounces the decision,
celeritate n cadrul procedurii privind cererea, except for the case when it proves to be
utiliznd procedurile urgente prevzute de impossible because of certain exceptional
dreptul intern. Instana judectoreasc circumstances, in maximum six weeks since it
pronun hotrrea, cu excepia cazului n care has been announced.
aceasta se dovedete imposibil din cauza Stipulations according to the ones of the
unor mprejurri excepionale, n cel mult ase Convention and of the Regulation may also be
sptmni de la sesizarea sa. met in the internal law in art. 6, paragraph 1 of
Prevederi concordante cu cele ale Law no. 369/2004 according to which the
Conveniei i Regulamentului ntlnim n causes having as an object the solving of the
dreptul intern n art. 6 alin. 1 din Legea nr. demands of return of a child placed on
369/2004 potrivit cruia cauzele avnd ca Romanias territory in the conditions of art. 3 of
obiect soluionarea cererilor de napoiere a the Convention are immediately settled.
unui copil aflat pe teritoriul Romniei n Whereas in the problems related to the
condiiile art. 3 din Convenie se soluioneaz childrens reunion with their parents, the
de urgen. opportunity of a measure should be judged by
ntruct n chestiunile legate de the rapidity it is applied with, such cases need an
reunirea copiilor cu prinii lor oportunitatea immediate settlement because the time crossing
unei msuri trebuie judecat prin rapiditatea may have irremediable consequences on the
cu care este pus n practic, asemenea cazuri relationships between the children and the
necesit o soluionare urgent, deoarece parent who does not live with them23.
trecerea timpului poate avea consecine If, since the date of the childs
iremediabile asupra relaiilor dintre copii i displacement or unlawful keeping and until the
printele care nu locuiete cu acetia9. moment of introducing the demand to the
Dac de la data deplasrii sau reinerii judicial or administrative authority of the
ilicite a copilului i pn la momentul contracting state where the child is, there was
introducerii cererii naintea autoritii less than a year, art. 12, paragraph 1 of the
judiciare sau administrative a statului convention establishes the rule according to
contractant unde se afl copilul s-a scurs o which the announced authority should dispose
perioad de mai puin de un an, art. 12 parag. his or her immediate return. The announced
1 din convenie stabilete regula c autoritatea judicial or administrative authority, even after
sesizat trebuie s dispun napoierea sa the expiration of the year, will dispose the
imediat. Autoritatea judiciar sau childs return, except for the situation when it is
administrativ sesizat, chiar i dup established that he or her has integrated in the
expirarea perioadei de un an, va dispune new environment (art. 12, paragraph 2 of the
napoierea copilului afar dac nu se stabilete convention). When applying these stipulations
c acesta s-a integrat n noul su mediu (art. of the convention, we should provide the

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2011
73
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 1/2011

12 parag. 2 din convenie). La aplicarea possibility to listen the child in frame of the
acestor prevederi ale conveniei trebuie procedure, except for the case when this is not
asigurat posibilitatea de ascultare a copilului adequate to the childs age or maturity degree
n cadrul procedurii, cu excepia cazului n [art. 11, paragraph 2 of Regulation (EC) no.
care aceasta este necorespunztoare n 2201/2003)]. Regarding the hearing to the child,
conformitate cu vrsta sau gradul su de the Romanian law stipulates that it is
maturitate [art. 11 alin. 2 din Regulamentul compulsory to hear the child who has reached
(CE) nr. 2201/2003)]. Privitor la ascultarea 10 years old24 but we could also hear the child
copilului legea romn prevede c este who has not reached the age of 10, if the court
obligatorie ascultarea copilului care a mplinit considers it is necessary (art. 9, paragraph 3 of
vrsta de 10 ani10 ns va putea fi ascultat i Law no. 369/2004).
copilul care nu a mplinit vrsta de 10 ani, If a child is displaced or kept on
dac instana consider necesar (art. 9 alin. 3 Romanias territory and the court finds that the
din Legea nr. 369/2004). childs displacement or keeping is unlawful
n cazul n care un copil este deplasat according to art. 3 of the Convention, it will
sau reinut pe teritoriul Romniei iar instana dispose the childs return in the country where
constat c deplasarea sau reinerea copilului he or she has his or her usual residence (art. 11,
este ilicit n sensul art. 3 din Convenie, va paragraph 1 of Law no. 369/2004). The court
dispune napoierea copilului n ara n care will establish even in the content of the decision
acesta i are reedina obinuit (art. 11 alin. a term for the execution of the obligation to
1 din Legea nr. 369/2004). Instana va fixa n return the child under the sanction of a civil fine
chiar cuprinsul hotrrii un termen pentru in favour of the Romanian state contained
executarea obligaiei de napoiere a copilului between 5 million and 25 million (art. 11,
sub sanciunea unei amenzi civile n favoarea paragraph 2 of the law). The motivation of the
statului romn cuprins ntre 5 milioane i 25 decision is made in a 10-day term since the
de milioane (art. 11 alin. 2 din lege). pronouncement (art. 12, paragraph 1 of the law).
Motivarea hotrrii se face n termen de 10 The decision is submitted to the appeal at the
zile de la pronunare (art. 12 alin. 1 din lege). Bucharest Appeal Court, the Section for Minors
Hotrrea este supus recursului la Curtea de and Family, in a 10 days term since the
Apel Bucureti, Secia pentru minori i communication (art. 12, paragraph 2 of the law).
familie, n termen de 10 zile de la comunicare If the obligation to return the child is not
(art. 12 alin. 2 din lege). willingly executed in the term established by the
Dac obligaia de napoiere a copilului court, at the expiration of this term the
nu este executat de bun voie, n termenul Romanian central authority will require to the
stabilit de instan, la expirarea acestuia court to communicate the executing title to the
autoritatea central romn va solicita fiscal organs in order to execute the fine (art. 13,
instanei comunicarea titlului executoriu ctre paragraph 3 of the law). If neither after applying
organele fiscale, pentru punerea n executare a the judicial fine, the judicial decision of
amenzii (art. 13 alin. 3 din lege). Dac nici returning the child in the country of his or her
dup aplicarea amenzii hotrrea usual residence is not willingly executed, it is
judectoreasc de napoiere a copilului n ara proceeded to the forced execution, according to
reedinei sale obinuite nu este executat the Civil Procedure Code (art. 14, paragraph 1
voluntar, se procedeaz la executarea silit, of the law).
conform Codului de procedur civil (art. 14 Before disposing the childs return, the
alin. 1 din lege). judicial or administrative authorities of a
nainte de a dispune napoierea contracting state may require, based on art. 15
copilului, autoritile judiciare sau of the Convention, to the plaintiff to show a
administrative ale unui stat contractant pot decision or a certificate from the authorities of

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2011
74
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 1/2011

cere, n temeiul art. 15 din Convenie, ca the state where the childs usual residence is, by
reclamantul s nfieze o hotrre sau o means of which we could find that the
atestare emannd de la autoritile statului n displacement or the non-return was unlawful
care se afl reedina obinuit a copilului, according to art. 3 of the Convention, as long as
prin care s se constate c deplasarea sau this decision or certificate may be obtained in
nenapoierea era ilicit n nelesul art. 3 din this state.
Convenie, n msura n care aceast hotrre In applying art. 15 of the Convention,
sau atestare poate fi obinut n acest stat. art. 15, paragraph 1 of Law no. 369/2004
n aplicarea art. 15 din Convenie, art. stipulates that, at the demand of a judicial or
15 alin. 1 din Legea nr. 369/2004 prevede c administrative authority of a state that is a part
la cererea unei autoriti judiciare sau of the Convention, the Romanian court may
administrative a unui stat parte la Convenie, pronounce a decision by means of which it
instana romn poate pronuna o hotrre could be find that, according to the Romanian
prin care s se constate dac, potrivit legislation, the displacement or the keeping of
legislaiei romne, deplasarea ori reinerea the child having his or her usual residence in
copilului avnd reedina obinuit n Romania, on the territory of that state, it was
Romnia, pe teritoriul acelui stat, s-a fcut cu made by contravening a right regarding the
nclcarea vreunui drept privind ncredinarea. entrusting. According to art. 15, paragraph 2 of
Potrivit art. 15 alin. 2 din lege, n soluionarea the law, in solving such a demand, the court will
unei asemenea cereri instana va putea s be able to attest, depending on the case:
ateste dup caz: 1. The holder of the rights regarding the
a) titularul drepturilor cu privire la child;
copil; 2. The content and the limits of the rights
b) coninutul i limitele drepturilor regarding the child, according to the Romanian
cu privire la copil, potrivit legii law;
romne; 3. If, reported to the mentioned
c) dac n raport de elementele elements, in the sense of the Romanian law, the
menionate, n sensul legii romne, deplasarea childs displacement from Romanias territory
copilului de pe teritoriul Romniei sau or the childs keeping outside this territory has
reinerea lui n afara acestui teritoriu a respected the rights regarding the childs
respectat drepturile privind ncredinarea entrusting or if the person the child was
copilului ori dac persoana creia i era entrusted to had the right to agree or to oppose
ncredinat copilul avea dreptul s to the childs displacement outside Romanias
ncuviineze sau s se opun deplasrii territory or to the childs keeping outside this
copilului n afara teritoriului Romniei ori territory;
reinerii lui n afara acestui teritoriu; 4. Any other aspect determinant in
d) orice alt aspect determinant pentru order to establish whether the childs
a stabili dac deplasarea sau reinerea displacement or keeping outside Romanias
copilului n afara teritoriului Romniei este territory is unlawful according to art. 3 of the
ilicit n sensul art. 3 din Convenie. Convention.
Hotrrea instanei nu este supus The court decision is not submitted to
niciunei ci de atac i se comunic any way of attack and it is communicated to the
autoritilor judiciare sau administrative demanding judicial or administrative authorities
solicitante prin intermediul autoritilor by means of the Romanian central authorities
centrale romne (art. 15 alin. 5 din lege). (art. 15, paragraph 5 of the law).
O hotrre asupra napoierii copilului, A decision on the childs return,
pronunat n cadrul Conveniei nu afecteaz pronounced in frame of the Convention, does
fondul dreptului privind ncredinarea (art. 19 not affect the fund of the right regarding the

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2011
75
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 1/2011

din Convenie). entrusting (art. 19 of the Convention).

5. Posibilitatea autoritii judiciare 5. The possibility of the judicial or


sau administrative de a nu dispune administrative authority not to dispose the
napoierea copilului childs return
Autoritatea judiciar sau The judicial or administrative authority
administrativ a statului solicitant nu este of the demanding state is not kept to dispose the
inut s dispun napoierea copilului n childs return in the following situations
urmtoarele situaii prevzute de art. 13 parag. stipulated by art. 13, paragraph 1 of the
1 din convenie: convention:
- dac persoana, instituia sau - if the person, the institution or the
organismul care se mpotrivete napoierii sale organism opposing to the childs return
stabilete c printele (persoana, instituia sau establishes that the parent (the person, the
organismul) care avea n ngrijire copilul nu institution or the organism) that will take care of
exercita efectiv dreptul privind ncredinarea the child did not effectively exert the right
la data deplasrii sau nenapoierii, ori regarding the entrusting since the date of the
consimise sau achiesase ulterior acestei displacement or the non-return, or had
deplasri sau nenapoieri (art. 13 parag. 1 lit. subsequently agreed or acquiesced this
a); displacement or non-return (art. 13, paragraph 1,
- dac persoana, instituia sau letter a);
organismul care se mpotrivete napoierii sale - if the person, the institution and the
stabilete c exist un risc grav ca napoierea organism opposing to the childs return
copilului s-l expun unui pericol fizic sau establishes that there is a serious risk for the
psihic sau ca n orice alt chip s-l situeze ntr- childs return to expose to child to a physical or
o situaie intolerabil11 (art. 13 parag. 1 lit. b); mental danger or to place him or her in any
Dispoziiile Conveniei instituie other manner in an intolerable situation25 (art.
prezumia c cel care ngrijete copilul 13, paragraph 1, letter b);
exercit efectiv ncredinarea. Aceast The stipulations of the Convention
prezumie are caracter relativ, putnd fi institute the presumption that the one who takes
rsturnat prin proba contrar. Sarcina probei care of the child effectively exerts the
revine celui care se opune napoierii copilului, entrusting. This presumption is relative, as it
acesta urmnd s stabileasc, pentru a evita may be turned by the contrary evidence. The
napoierea copilului, c persoana care avea task of the evidence belongs to the one opposing
dreptul privind ncredinarea nu o exercit to the childs return and he or she is to establish,
efectiv12. Instana nu va fi obligat s dispun in order to avoid the childs return, that the
napoierea nici n situaia n care napoierea ar persons who had the right regarding the
expune copilul la un pericol fizic sau entrusting does not effectively exert it26. The
psihologic sau l-ar pune ntr-o situaie court will not be forced to dispose the return
intolerabil, ns instana trebuie s se even if the return exposed the child to a physical
pronune n funcie de circumstanele cauzei, or mental danger or put the child in an
sarcina probei, n sensul incidenei acestei intolerable situation, but the court should
situaii de excepie revenind tot celui care se pronounce depending on the circumstances of
opune la napoierea copilului13. the cause, the evidence task, meaning that the
Autoritatea judiciar sau incidence of this exceptional situation belongs
administrativ poate, de asemenea, n baza art. to the one opposing to the childs return27.
13 parag. 2 din convenie s refuze s dispun The judicial or administrative authority
napoierea copilului dac constat c acesta se may also, based on art. 13, paragraph 2 of the
mpotrivete la napoierea sa i c a atins o convention, refuse to dispose the childs return

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2011
76
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 1/2011

vrst sau o maturitate care face necesar s se if it is found that the child opposes to the return
in seama de opinia sa. Dispoziii privind and that he or she has reached an age or a
ascultarea copilului la aplicarea art. 13 din maturity requiring the consideration of his or her
Convenia de la Haga, cu excepia cazului n opinion. Stipulations regarding the listening to
care aceasta este necorespunztoare n the child when applying the art. 13 of the Hague
conformitate cu vrsta sau gradul su de Convention, except for the case when this is not
maturitate conine i art. 11 alin 2 din adequate to the childs age or maturity degree
Regulamentul (CE) nr. 2201/2003 also contain art. 11, paragraph 2 of Regulation
Potrivit art. 11 alin. 4 din (EC) no. 2201/2003
Regulamentul (CE) nr. 2201/2003 o instan According to art. 11, paragraph 4 of
judectoreasc nu poate refuza napoierea Regulation (EC) no. 2201/2003 a judicial court
copilului n temeiul art. 13 litera b din cannot refuse the childs return based on art. 13,
Convenia de la Haga din anul 1980 n cazul letter b of the 1980 Hague Convention if it is
n care se stabilete c s-au luat msuri established that there were taken measures
corespunztoare pentru a asigura protecia adequate in order to provide the childs
copilului dup napoierea sa. De asemenea, protection after the return. Also, the childs
napoierea copilului nu va putea fi refuzat de return cannot be refused by the judicial court if
ctre instana de judecat n cazul n care the person demanding the childs return had no
persoana care a solicitat napoierea copilului possibility to be listened to [art. 11, paragraph 5
nu a avut posibilitatea de a fi ascultat [art. 11 of Regulation (EC) no. 2201/2003].
alin. 5 din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 2201/2003]. If a judicial court pronounced a decision
n cazul n care o instan of non-return based on article 13 of the 1980
judectoreasc a pronunat o hotrre de Hague Convention, the court should transmit
nenapoiere n temeiul articolului 13 din immediately either directly, or by means of its
Convenia de la Haga din 1980 instana central authority, a copy of the judicial decision
trebuie s transmit, de ndat, fie direct, fie of non-return and of the pertinent document,
prin intermediul autoritii sale centrale, o especially a protocol of the meetings, to the
copie a hotrrii judectoreti de nenapoiere competent court or to the central authority of the
i a documentelor pertinente, n special un member state where the child had his or her
proces verbal al edinelor, instanei usual residence immediately before the
competente sau autoritii centrale din statul displacement or the unlawful keeping,
membru n care copilul i avea reedina according to the intern law. The court should
obinuit imediat naintea deplasri sale sau receive all the mentioned documents in a one
reinerii sale ilicite, n conformitate cu dreptul year term since the decision of non-return [art.
intern. Instana trebuie s primeasc toate 11, paragraph 6 of Regulation (EC) no.
documentele menionate n termen de o lun 2201/2003].
de la data hotrrii de nenapoiere [art. 11 The court decision of the member state
alin. 6 din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 2201/2003]. where the child has been displaced or
Hotrrea instanei din statul membru unlawfully kept by means of which it opposed
n care copilul a fost deplasat sau reinut ilicit to the childs return may be replaced by a
prin care aceasta s-a opus napoierii sale poate subsequent decision pronounced by the court of
fi nlocuit cu o hotrre ulterioar pronunat the member state of the childs usual residence
de instana din statul membru al reedinei before the displacement or of the unlawful
obinuite a copilului naintea deplasrii sale keeping. This possibility results from the
sau a reinerii sale ilicite. Aceast posibilitate stipulations of art. 11, paragraph 8 of Regulation
rezult din prevederile art. 11 alin. 8 din (EC) no. 2201/2003 establishing that, without
Regulamentul (CE) nr. 2201/2003 care reaching a decision of non-return pronounced
stabilesc c fr a aduce atingere unei hotrri according to art. 13 of the 1980 Hague

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2011
77
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 1/2011

de nenapoiere pronunate n conformitate cu Convention, any subsequent decision by means


art. 13 din Convenia de la Haga din 1980 of which it is disposed the childs return,
orice hotrre ulterioar prin care se dispune pronounced by a competent court based on this
napoierea copilului, pronunat de a instan regulation, is executory according to the 3rd
de o instan competent n temeiul acestui chapter, section 4, in order to provide the childs
Regulament, este executorie n conformitate return.
cu capitolul III, seciunea 4, n vederea According to art. 42, paragraph 1 of
asigurrii napoierii copilului. Regulation (EC) no. 2201/2003 the childs
Potrivit art. 42 alin 1 din return resulting from an executory judicial
Regulamentul (CE) nr. 2201/2003 napoierea decision pronounced in a member state is
copilului care rezult dintr-o hotrre acknowledged and executory in another
judectoreasc executorie pronunat ntr-un member state without needing the approval of
stat membru este recunoscut i executorie the execution and without the possibility to
ntr-un alt stat membru fr s fie necesar oppose to its acknowledgement if the decision
ncuviinarea executrii i fr s fie posibil s has been certified in the original member state28.
se opun recunoaterii sale n cazul n care Even if the intern law does not stipulate the
hotrrea a fost certificat n statul membru de executory legal feature of a decision by means
origine14. Chiar dac dreptul intern nu of which it is disposed the childs return, the
prevede caracterul executoriu de drept al unei original court may declare the executory
hotrri prin care se dispune napoierea decision, without reaching an eventual way of
copilului, instana de origine poate declara attack.
hotrrea executorie, fr a aduce atingere
unei eventuale ci de atac. Bibliography:

Bibliografie: The Hague Convention on the civil


aspects of the international children kidnapping
Convenia de la Haga asupra Regulation (EC) no. 2201/2003 of the
aspectelor civile ale rpirii internaionale de European Union Council from November, 27th
copii 2003 regarding the competence, the
Regulamentul (CE) nr. 2201/2003 al acknowledgement and the execution of the
Consiliului Uniunii Europene din 27 judicial decisions in matrimonial matter and in
noiembrie 2003 privind competena, the matter of the parental responsibility
recunoaterea i executarea hotrrilor Law 369/ 2004 regarding the application
judectoreti n materie matrimonial i n of the Convention on the civil aspects of the
materia rspunderii printeti international children kidnapping, adopted in
Legea 369/ 2004 privind aplicarea Hague, on October, 25th 1980, where Romania
Conveniei asupra aspectelor civile ale rpirii accessed by Law no. 100/1992.
internaionale de copii, adoptat la Haga la 25 E. Rou, Family Law. Judicial Practice.
octombrie 1980, la care Romnia a aderat prin ECHU Decisions, Hamangiu Press, Bucharest,
Legea nr. 100/1992. 2007
E. Rou, Dreptul familiei. Practic European Court of Human Rights.
judiciar. Hotrri CEDO, Editura Jurisprudence regarding the Contravention of
Hamangiu, Bucureti, 2007 certain Parental Rights in Causes related to
Curtea European a Drepturilor Minors, A Selection accomplished by D. Bria,
Omului. Jurisprudena privind nclcarea on www. mpublic.ro.
unor drepturi parentale n cauze cu minori, Bucharest Appeal Court, the 3rd Civil
Selecie realizat de D. Bria, pe www. Section and for causes related to minors and
mpublic.ro. family, decision no. 580 from May, 12th 2010,

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2011
78
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 1/2011

Curtea de Apel Bucureti, Secia a in the Romanian Pandects, no. 8/2010


III-a civil i pentru cauze cu minori i de Bucharest Appeal Court, the 3rd Civil
familie, decizia nr. 580 din 12 mai 2010, n Section and for causes related to minors and
Pandectele Romne, nr. 8/2010 family, decision no. 643 from April, 9th 2009, in
Curtea de Apel Bucureti, Secia a the Romanian Pandects, no. 10/2009
III-a civil i pentru cauze cu minori i de Bucharest Appeal Court, the 3rd Civil
familie, dec. nr. 643 din 09 aprilie 2009, n Section and for causes related to minors and
Pandectele Romne, nr. 10/2009 family, decision no. 1635 from December 19th
Curtea de Apel Bucureti, Secia a 2009 on www.jurisprudena.org
III-a civil i pentru cauze cu minori i de Bucharest Appeal Court, the 3rd Civil
familie, decizia nr. 1635 din 19 decembrie Section and for causes related to minors and
2009 pe www.jurisprudena.org family, Civil Decision no. 1695/December, 9th
Curtea de Apel Bucureti, Secia a 2009 on www.jurisprudenta.org.
III-a civil i pentru cauze cu minori i de Bucharest Appeal Court, the 3rd Civil
familie, Decizia civil nr. 1695/9 decembrie Section and for causes related to minors and
2009 pe www.jurisprudenta.org. family, Civil Decision no. 510 from March, 18th
Curtea de Apel Bucureti, Secia a 2009 on www.jurisprudenta.com.
III-a civil i pentru cauze cu minori i de Bucharest Appeal Court, the 3rd Civil
familie, Decizia civil nr. 510 din 18 martie Section and for causes related to minors and
2009 pe www.jurisprudenta.com. family, Civil Decision no. 887 from May, 21st
Curtea de Apel Bucureti, Secia a 2009 on www.jurisprudenta.org.
III-a civil i pentru cauze cu minori i de
familie, Decizia civil nr. 887 din 21 mai
2009 pe www.jurisprudenta.org.

1
Romnia a aderat la Convenia asupra aspectelor civile ale rpirii internaionale de copii ncheiat la Haga la 25
octombrie 1980 prin Legea nr. 100/1992, publicat n Monitorul oficial al Romniei, partea I, nr. 243 din 30
septembrie 1992.
2
Publicat n Jurnalul Oficial L338/23 decembrie 2003, A 0001-0029, n vigoare de la 01 august 2004, modificat prin
Regulamentul nr. 2116/2004 al Consiliului din 02 decembrie 2004, abrog Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1347/2000.
Prevederile art. 1 alin. 1 din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 2201/2003 stabilesc c acesta se aplic, oricare ar fi natura instanei,
materiilor civile privind: (a) divorul, separarea de corp i anularea cstoriei; (b) atribuirea, exercitarea, delegarea,
retragerea total sau parial a rspunderii printeti. Materiile prevzute la litera b cuprind n special: (a) ncredinarea i
dreptul de vizit; (b) tutela, curatela i instituiile similare; (c) desemnarea i atribuiile oricrei persoane sau oricrui
organism nsrcinat s se ocupe de persoana sau bunurile copilului, s-l reprezinte sau s-l asiste; (d) plasarea copilului
ntr-o familie substitutiv sau ntr-un centru de plasament; (e) msurile de protecie a copilului privind administrarea,
conservarea sau dispoziia cu privire la bunurile copilului.
3
Publicat n Monitorul oficial al Romniei nr. 888 din 29 septembrie 2004.
4
n practica judiciar s-a constatat caracterul ilicit al nenapoierii minorului la reedina obinuit din Portugalia,
avnd loc prin violarea dreptului mamei privind ncredinarea, drept atribuit prin legea statului portughez . n spe,
minorul s-a nscut la data de 6 noiembrie 2006 la Setubal, Portugalia, din relaia de concubinaj dintre reclamanta C.
S. P. C., cetean portughez, i prtul M. S. B., cetean romn. n luna septembrie 2007, cnd minorul avea 8 luni,
prinii au venit n Romnia mpreun cu acesta, n vizit la bunica patern, urmnd ca napoierea mamei i a
copilului n Portugalia s aib loc n luna octombrie 2007, ns reclamanta a fost nevoit ca la data de 27 octombrie
2007 s se ntoarc la reedina obinuit fr fiul su. La data de 18 decembrie reclamanta s-a ntors n Romnia
pentru a-i lua fiul ns prtul a recurs la violen mpotriva sa i nu i-a permis s plece mpreun cu minorul.
Aceasta a rmas alturi de copil pn la data de 1 februarie 2008 cnd s-a ntors din nou n Portugalia pentru a-i
relua activitatea la locul de munc i a putea trimite bani pentru minor. Instana a avut n vedere prevederile art. 1911
din Codul civil portughez potrivit crora n cazul n care prinii nu sunt cstorii i nu locuiesc mpreun, n msura
n care nu s-a cerut s se stabileasc n justiie custodia, se presupune c mama este aceea care deine custodia i care
exercit responsabilitile printeti. n consecin, ntruct prinii nu au fost cstorii i nu au declarat autoritilor

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2011
79
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 1/2011

portugheze c doresc exercitarea custodiei comune asupra copilului, conform dispoziiilor art. 1911 din Codul civil
portughez, mama deine custodia asupra copilului, prtul neavnd dreptul de a decide cu privire la reedina
minorului, astfel c reinerea acestuia pe teritoriul Romniei, fr acordul mamei, este ilicit conform art. 3 din
Convenia de la Haga. A se vedea Curtea de Apel Bucureti, Secia a III-a civil i pentru cauze cu minori i de
familie, decizia nr. 580 din 12 mai 2010, n Pandectele Romne, nr. 8/2010, p. 170 i urm.
5
A se vedea Curtea de Apel Bucureti, Secia a III-a civil i pentru cauze cu minori i de familie, decizia nr. 1081
din 23 septembrie 2005, n E. Rou, Dreptul familiei. Practic judiciar. Hotrri CEDO, Editura Hamangiu,
Bucureti, 2007, p. 294-295.
6
ntr-o spe, instana a reinut ncredinarea ex lege n situaia reglementat de art. 144 din Codul civil austriac,
conform cruia ambii prini ai copilului nscut n timpul cstoriei sunt ndreptii s se ngrijeasc de copil i s
acioneze ca reprezentani legali ai acestuia; ei sunt obligai s exercite aceste drepturi n bune condiii unul fa de
cellalt. Instana a constatat c, att timp ct, potrivit art. 144 din Codul civil austriac, minora era ncredinat de plin
drept, prin lege, ambilor prini, prin luarea acesteia din Austria i reinerea sa de ctre prt pe teritoriul Romniei,
fr acordul mamei, se ncalc dispoziiile art. 3 din Convenia de la Haga. A se vedea Curtea de Apel Bucureti,
Secia a III-a civil i pentru cauze cu minori i de familie, decizia nr. 1081 din 23 septembrie 2005, n E. Rou, op.
cit., p. 294-295.
7
n practica judiciar s-a decis c sunt ndeplinite condiiile art. 3 din Convenie n situaia reinerii de ctre mam a
minorului n Romnia, fr acordul tatlui. Privitor la situaia de fapt, instana a reinut c minorul a locuit n Ungaria
de la data de 7 februarie 2001, dat de la care prinii si i-au stabilit domiciliul la adresa reclamantului. La data de
20 iulie 2008 prinii mpreun cu minorul s-au deplasat n Romnia pentru a-i vizita rudele. Reclamantul s-a ntors
n Ungaria, la nceputul lunii august iar prta mpreun cu minorul au rmas n Romnia. Ulterior, pe la mijlocul
lunii august, prta i-a comunicat reclamantului c nu mai dorete s se ntoarc n Ungaria i c intenioneaz s se
stabileasc cu minorul n Romnia. Instana a constatat c nenapoierea copilului a avut loc prin violarea unui drept
privind ncredinarea. Pentru a hotr astfel, instana a avut n vedere dispoziiile art. 5 din Convenie care arat c
dreptul privind ncredinarea include dreptul cu privire la ngrijirile cuvenite persoanei copilului i ndeosebi acela de
a hotr asupra locului reedinei sale, drept care se exercit n mod efectiv de ctre prinii minorului, acesta fiind
ncredinat, de plin drept, prin lege, ambilor prini. n acest sens instana a avut n vedere dispoziiile din Seciunea
72 paragraful 1 i 4 i Seciunea 77 paragraful 1 din Actul VI privind cstoria, familia i tutela din legislaia ungar
unde se prevede c supravegherea parental este realizat de prini mpreun, precum i dispoziiile art. 97 din
Codul familiei care instituie principiul egalitii n drepturi i ndatoriri a ambilor prini fa de copilul minor, fr a
deosebi dup cum acesta este din cstorie sau din afara cstoriei. A se vedea Curtea de Apel Bucureti, Secia a III-
a civil i pentru cauze cu minori i de familie, decizia nr. 1635 din 19 decembrie 2009 pe www.jurisprudena.org.
8
Potrivit art. 2 din Legea nr. 100/1992 Ministerul Justiiei a fost desemnat ca autoritate central pentru aducerea la
ndeplinire a obligaiilor stabilite prin convenie. n acelai sens sunt i prevederile art. 1 alin. 1 din Legea nr.
369/2004 privind aplicarea Conveniei asupra aspectelor civile ale rpirii internaionale de copii, adoptat la Haga la 25
octombrie 1980, la care Romnia a aderat prin Legea nr. 100/1992.
9
Cauza Iosub Caras mpotriva Romniei Hotrrea din 27 iulie 2006 (nepublicat), pe www. csm1909.ro, precum i
n Curtea European a Drepturilor Omului. Jurisprudena privind nclcarea unor drepturi parentale n cauze cu
minori, Selecie realizat de D. Bria, pe www. mpublic.ro.
10
ntr-o spe, instana romn a considerat c un minor cu vrsta de 10 ani nu a atins un grad de maturitate necesar
pentru a putea aprecia c se opune napoierii sale. A se vedea Curtea de Apel Bucureti, Secia a III-a civil i pentru
cauze cu minori i de familie, Decizia civil nr. 1695/9 decembrie 2009 pe www.jurisprudenta.org.
11
n practica judiciar s-a stabilit c sunt incidente prevederile art. 13 alin. 1 lit. b din Convenia de la Haga ntr-o
spe n care s-a solicitat napoierea copilului aflat n Romnia la reedina sa obinuit din Italia. Pentru a decide
astfel, instana a reinut c deplasarea copilului n Romnia a avut loc atunci cnd acesta avea vrsta de 2 ani i 5 luni.
n Romnia copilul locuiete mpreun cu mama i bunicii materni, s-a integrat perfect n familie, vorbete limba
romn, nu cunoate limba italian iar mediul familial de la domiciliul tatlui, cetean italian, pune n pericol
integritatea fizic i psihic a copilului, deoarece, din aprrile formulare de prt, precum i din depoziiile
martorilor, rezult faptul c att tatl copilului ct i unchiul patern i bunica patern consum alcool, bunica avnd i
probleme psihice, iar tatl i unchiul patern sunt consumatori de droguri. n aceste condiii instana a apreciat c este
n interesul copilului s creasc i s se dezvolte ntr-un mediu familial favorabil, napoierea copilului la reedina
tatlui din Italia nefiind n interesul copilului n condiiile n care aceasta ar presupune lipsirea copilului de ocrotirea
i supravegherea pe care mama copilului a asigurat-o acestuia nc de la natere i integrarea sa ntr-un mediu
tensionat, unde se consum alcool, droguri i unde exist violen n familie (A se vedea Curtea de Apel Bucureti,
Secia a III-a civil i pentru cauze cu minori i de familie, dec. nr. 643 din 09 aprilie 2009, n Pandectele Romne,
nr. 10/2009, p. 217-220).

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2011
80
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 1/2011

12
Curtea de Apel Bucureti, Secia a III-a civil i pentru cauze cu minori i de familie, Decizia civil nr. 510 din 18
martie 2009 pe www.jurisprudenta.com.
13
Curtea de Apel Bucureti, Secia a III-a civil i pentru cauze cu minori i de familie, Decizia civil nr. 887 din 21
mai 2009 pe www.jurisprudenta.org.
14
Conform art. 42 alin 2 din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 2201/2003 instana judectoreasc de origine care a pronunat
hotrrea judectoreasc prin care s-a dispus napoierea copilului menionat la art. 11 alin. 8 din Regulament nu
elibereaz certificatul menionat la art. 42 alin. 1 din Regulament dect n cazul n care: (a) copilul a avut posibilitatea
de a fi ascultat, cu excepia cazului n care aceasta a fost considerat necorespunztoare n conformitate cu vrsta sau
gradul su de maturitate; (b) prile au avut posibilitatea de a fi ascultate i (c) instana judectoreasc a pronunat
hotrrea innd seama de motivele i mijloacele de prob care au stat la baza hotrrii pronunate n conformitate cu
articolul 13 din Convenia de la Haga din 1980.
15
Romania accessed the Convention on the civil aspects of the international children kidnapping contracted at Hague
on October, 25th 1980 by Law no. 100/1992, published in the Romanian Official Gazette, part I, no. 243 from
September, 30th.
16
Published in the Official Journal L338/December, 23th 2003, A 0001-0029, valid from August, 1st 2004, changed
by Regulation no. 2116/2004 of the Council from December, 2nd 2004, abrogates the Regulation (EC) no. 1347/2000.
The stipulations of art. 1, paragraph 1 of Regulation (EC) no. 2201/2003 establish that this applies, whatever is the
instance nature, the civil matters regarding: (a) the divorce, the separation from the body and the marriage annulment;
(b) the attribution, the exertion, the delegation, the total or partial retreat of the parental responsibility. The matters
stipulated at letter b contain especially: (a) the entrusting and the right to visit; (b) the guardianship, the trusteeship and
the similar institutions; (c) the assigning and the attributions of every person or organism that is responsible for the
childs person or goods, to represent or assist him or her; (d) the childs placement in a substitutive family or in a
orphanage; (e) the measures of protecting the child regarding the administration, conservation or disposition regarding
the childs goods.
17
Published in the Romanian Official Gazette no. 888 from September, 29th 2004.
18
In the judicial practice, it was found the unlawful feature of non-returning the minor to the usual residence in
Portugal, as it had place by violating the mothers right regarding the entrusting, a right attributed by the law of the
Portuguese state. In this case, the minor was born on November, 6th 2006 in Setubal, Portugal, as a result of the
concubinage relation between the plaintiff C. S. P. C., a Portuguese citizen and the defendant M. S. B., a Romanian
citizen. In September 2007, when the minor was 8 months old, the parents came in Romania together with him, to
visit the paternal grandmother and the return of the mother and of the child in Portugal was to have place in October
2007, but the plaintiff had to return on October, 27th 2007 to the usual residence without her son. On December, 18th
the plaintiff returned in Romania to take her son but the defendant used violence against her and did not allow her to
leave together with the minor. She stayed with her child until February, 1st 2008 when she returned again to Portugal
in order to resume her activity at her job and to be able to send money for the minor. The instance considered the
stipulations of art. 1911 of the Portuguese Civil Code according to which, if the parents are not married and they do
not leave together, as long as it was not required for the custody to be established in justice, it is supposed that the
mother owns the custody and exerts the parental responsibilities. As a consequence, whereas the parents have not
been married and they have not declared to the Portuguese authorities that they wanted the exertion of the common
custody of the child, according to the stipulations of art. 1911 of the Portuguese Civil Code, the mother owns the
custody of the child and the defendant has no right to make decision regarding the minors residence so his keeping
on Romanias territory without the mothers consent is unlawful according to art. 3 of the Hague Convention. See
Bucharest Appeal Court, the 3rd Civil Section and for cause related to minors and family, decision no. 580 from May,
12th 2010, in the Romanian Pandects, no. 8/2010, p. 170 and the following ones.
19
See Bucharest Court of Appeal, the 3rd Civil Section and for causes related to minors and family, decision no. 1081
from September, 23rd 2005, in E. Rou, Family Law. Judicial Practice. ECHO Decisions, Hamangiu Press,
Bucharest, 2007, p. 294-295.
20
In one case, the instance kept the ex lege entrusting in the situation regulated by art. 144 of the Austrian Civil Code
according to which both of the parents of the child born during marriage have the right to take care of the child and to
act as his or her legal representatives; they are forced to exert these rights in good conditions one to the other. The
instance found that, as long as, according to art. 144 of the Austrian Civil Code, the minor was entrusted in full law,
by the law, to both of the parents, by taking her from Austria and keeping her by the defendant on Romanias
territory, without the mothers consent, there is a contravention of the stipulations of art. 3 of the Hague Convention.
See Bucharest Appeal Court, the 3rd Civil Section and for causes related to minors and family, decision no. 1081
from September, 23rd 2005, in E. Rou, op. cit., p. 294-295.

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2011
81
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 1/2011

21
In the judicial practice, it was decided that there are accomplished the conditions of art. 3 of the Convention when
the mother keeps the minor in Romania, without the fathers consent. Regarding the situation of fact, the instance
kept that the minor has lived in Hungary since February, 7th 2001, a date since his parents have established their
domicile at the plaintiffs address. On July, 20th 2008 the parents together with the minor went to Romania to visit
their relatives. The plaintiff returned to Hungary, at the beginning of August and the defendant woman together with
the minor remained in Romania. Subsequently, at the middle of August, the defendant communicated to the plaintiff
that she did not want to return to Hungary and that she intended to settle down in Romania, together with the minor.
The instance found that the non-return of the child had place by violating a right regarding the entrusting. In order to
decide thus, the instance considered the stipulations of art. 5 of the Convention showing that the right regarding the
entrusting includes the right regarding the cares deserved by the childs person, and especially the one to make
decisions regarding the place of his residence, a right that is effectively exerted by the minors parents, as he is
entrusted in full law, by law to both of the parents. In this sense, the instance considered the stipulations of the
Section 72 paragraph 1 and 4 and Section 77 paragraph 1 of the 4th Act regarding the marriage, the family and the
guardianship of the Hungarian legislation, where it is stipulated the the parental surveillance is accomplished by the
parents together, and also the stipulations of art. 97 of the Family Code instituting the principle of the equality in
rights and obligations of both of the parents to their minor child, without distinguishing whether if it is inside or
outside the marriage. See Bucharest Appeal Court, the 3rd Civil Section and for causes related to minors and family,
decision no. 1635 from December, 19th 2009 on www.jurisprudena.org.
22
According to art. 2 of Law no. 100/1992 the Ministry of Justice has been assigned as a central authority for
accomplishing the obligations established by the convention. In the same sense, there are also the stipulations of art.
1, paragraph 1 of Law no. 369/2004 regarding the application of the Convention on the civil aspects of the international
children kidnapping adopted in Hague on October, 25th 1980, where Romania accessed by Law no. 100/1992.
23
Iosub Caras against Romania cause, Decision from July, 27th 2006 (unpublished), on www. csm1909.ro, and also
in the European Court of Human Rights. Jurisprudence regarding the Contravention of certain Parental Rights in
Causes related to Minors. A selection accomplished by D. Bria, on www. mpublic.ro.
24
In a case, the Romanian instance considered that a 10-year-old minor has not reached a maturity degree needed in
order to appreciate that he opposed to his return. See Bucharest Appeal Court, the 3rd Civil Section and for causes
related to minors and family, Civil Decision no. 1695/December, 9th 2009 on www.jurisprudenta.org.
25
In the judicial practice, it was established that the stipulations of art. 13, paragraph 1, letter b of the Hague
Convention are incidental in a case where it was required the return of the child placed in Romania at his usual
residence in Italy. In order to decide this, the court kept the fact that the childs displacement in Romania had place
only when he was 2 years and 5 months old. In Romania, the child lives together with his mother and his maternal
grandparents, he integrated perfectly in the family, he speaks Romanian, he does not know Italian and the family
environment at the fathers domicile, an Italian citizen, endangers the childs physical and mental integrity because,
from the justifications formulated by the defendant, and also from the depositions of the witnesses, it results that both
the childs father and the paternal uncle and paternal grandmother drink alcohol, the grandmother has also mental
problems and the father and the paternal uncle use drugs. In these conditions, the instance appreciated that the childs
interest is to grow up and to develop in a favourable family environment, and the childs return to the fathers
residence in Italy is not in his interest if this supposes the childs lack of the protection and surveillance provided by
his mother since his birth and integration in a tensed environment where there are drugs, alcohol and family violence
(See Bucharest Appeal Court, the 3rd Civil Section and for causes related to minors and family, decision no. 643 from
April, 9th 2009, in the Romanian Pandects, no. 10/2009, p. 217-220).
26
Bucharest Appeal Court, the 3rd Civil Section and for causes related to minors and family, Civil Decision no. 510
from March, 18th 2009 on www.jurisprudenta.com.
27
Bucharest Appeal Court, the 3rd Civil Section and for causes related to minors and family, Civil Decision no. 887
from May, 21st 2009 on www.jurisprudenta.org.
28
According to art. 42, paragraph 2 of Regulation (EC) no. 2201/2003 the original judicial instance that pronounced
the judicial decision by means of which it was disposed the return of the child mentioned at art. 11, paragraph 8 of the
Regulation does not release the certificate mentioned at art. 42, paragraph 1 of the Regulation unless: (a) the child had
had the possibility to be listened, except for the case when it was considered as inadequate for the childs age or
maturity degree; (b) the parties had the possibility to be listened and (c) the judicial instance had pronounced the
decision considering the reasons and the evidence means that were at the basis of the decision pronounced according to
article 13 of the 1980 Hague Convention.

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2011
82