Divortul Ncc (Locuinta Copilului...)

7/23/2019 Divortul Ncc (Locuinta Copilului...)

1/16

Analele Universit ii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 1/2013

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2013

41

EFECTELE DIVORULUI CU

PRIVIRE LA RAPORTURILE DINTRE

PRINI I COPIL REGLEMENTATEDE NOUL COD CIVIL

Alin-Gheorghe GAVRILESCU*

Abstract: Articolul analizeaz principaleleefecte ale divorului cu privire la raporturile dintre

prini i copii aa cum sunt ele reglementate deprevederile noului Cod civil. Dup o scurt parteintroductiv sunt prezentate: locuina copilului dupdivor, exercitarea autoritii printeti, fiindexaminate cazurile de exercitare comuna autoritii

printeti, exercitare autoritii printeti de ctre unsingur printe i exercitarea autoritii printeti dectre alte persoane, drepturile printelui separat decopil, stabilirea contribuiei prinilor la cheltuielilede cretere, educare, nvtur i pregtire

profesional, precum i modificarea msurilor luatecu privire la copil.

Cuvinte cheie: copil, prini, divor,autoritatea printeasc, locuina copilului

1. Consideraii introductive

Divorul este de natur s produc oserie de consecine pe planul raporturilordintre prini i copii lor minori, n special cu

privire la: locuina copilului dup divor,exercitarea autoritii printeti1, drepturile

printelui separat de copil, stabilireacontribuiei prinilor la cheltuielile decretere, educare, nvtur i pregtire

profesional. Aceste efecte pe care divorulle produce n raporturile dintre pri i copiisunt reglementate n art. 396 i urm. Din noulCod civil, cuprinse n Seciunea a 2-a

DIVORCE EFFECTS REGARDING

THE REPORTS BETWEEN PARENTS

AND THE CHILD REGULATED BY

THE NEW CIVIL CODE

Alin-Gheorghe GAVRILESCU**

Abstract: The article analyses the maindivorce effects regarding the reports between parentsand the child as they are regulated by the stipulationsof the new Civil Code. After a short introduction, it

presents: the childs domicile after the divorce, theexertion of the parental authority, by examining thecases of common exertion of the parental authority,the exertion of the parental authority by a single

parent and the exertion of the parental authority byother persons, the rights of the parent separated fromthe child, the establishment of the parentscontribution to the expenses for raising, education,learning and professional training and also thechange of the measure taken regarding the child.

Keywords: child, parents, divorce, parentalauthority, childs domicile

1.

Introductive considerations

The divorce may produce a series ofconsequences at the level of the report between

parents and their minor children, especiallyregarding: the childs domicile after thedivorce, the exertion of the parentalauthority26, the rights of the parent separatedfrom the child, the establishment of the

parents contribution to the expenses forraising, educating, learning and professionallytraining the child. These effects produced bythe divorce in the reports between the partiesand the children are regulated in art. 396 andthe following. From the new Civil Code,

* Lect. univ. dr., Departamentul tiine Juridice, Facultatea de Relaii Internaionale, Drept i tiineAdministrative, Universitatea Constantin Brncui din Tg-Jiu** University Lecturer, PhD, Department of Juridical Sciences, Faculty of International Relations, Law and

Administrative Sciences Constantin Brncui University of Tg-Jiu


2/16



42

Efectele divorului din Capitolul VIIDesfacerea cstoriei al Titlului IICstoria din Cartea a II-a Desprefamilie

Asupra raporturilor dintre priniidivorai i copiii lor minori instana de tuteltrebuie s hotrasc, odat cu pronunareadivorului innd seama, conform art. 396alin. 1 din noul Cod civil de: interesulsuperior al copiilor, de concluziile raportuluide anchetpsihosocial, precum i, dacestecazul, de nvoiala prinilor pe care i ascult.De asemenea, ascultarea copilului esteobligatorie fiind aplicabile prevederile art.2642din noul Cod civil.

2. Locuina copilului dupdivor

Odat cu pronunarea divoruluiinstana de tutel trebuie s stabileasclocuina copilului minor, aplicnd

prevederile art. 400 din noul Cod civil carereglementeazlocuina copilului dupdivor.Din prevederile art. 400 alin. 1 din noul Codcivil rezult c prinii se pot nelege cu

privire la locuina acestuia dup divor ns

nelegerea lor trebuie s fie conform cuinteresul superior al copilului pentru a fincuviinat de ctre instan. n temeiulaceluiai articol, n lipsa nelegerii dintre

prini sau dac aceasta este contrarinteresului superior al copilului locuinaacestuia va fi stabilit de ctre instan la

printele cu care locuiete n mod statornic(art. 400 alin. 1 din noul Cod civil). Dac

pn la divor copilul a locuit cu ambiiprini art. 400 alin. 2 din noul Cod civilaratcinstana i va stabili locuina la unuldintre ei innd seama de interesul susuperior3. Instana are i posibilitatea

prevzut de art. 400 alin. 3 ca, n modexcepional, i numai dac este n interesulsuperior al copilului, s stabileasc locuinaacestuia la bunici sau la alte rude ori

persoane, cu consimmntul acestora, ori lao instituie de ocrotire.

contained in Section 2 Divorce Effects ofChapter VII Marriage Dissolution of Title IIMarriage of Book II About Family.

On the reports between the divorced

parents and their minor children, theguardianship court should decide, at the sametime with the divorce pronouncingconsidering, according to art. 396 paragraph 1of the new Civil Code, regarding: thechildrens high interest, the conclusions of the

psycho-social investigation report, and also,where appropriate, the consent of the parentsthey listen to. Also, the childs hearing iscompulsory, as the stipulations of art. 26427ofthe new Civil Code are applicable.

2. The childs domicile after the

divorce

At the same time with the divorcepronouncing, the guardianship court shouldestablish the minor childs domicile, applyingthe stipulations of art. 400 of the new CivilCode regulating the childs domicile after thedivorce. From the stipulations of art. 400

paragraph 1 of the new Civil Code, it results

that the parents may agree regarding thechilds residence after the divorce, but theirconsent should be in compliance with thechilds high interest for being consented by thecourt. Based on the same article, in the absenceof the consent between the parents or if it isagainst the childs high interest, the childsdomicile is established by the court at the

parent whom he or she constantly lives with(art. 400 paragraph 1 of the new Civil Code). Ifthe child has lived with both of the parentsuntil the divorce, art. 400 paragraph 2 of thenew Civil Code shows that the courtestablishes the childs domicile at one of the

parents, considering his or her high interest28.The court has only the possibility stipulated byart. 400 paragraph 3 to establish exceptionallyand only if this is the childs high interest, thechilds domicile at the grandparents or at otherfamily members or persons, with their consent,or at a protecting institution.


3/16



43

3. Exercitarea autoritii printeti

3.1. Exercitarea autoritii printetide ctre ambii prini

Aspecte privind regula exercitrii ncomun a autoritii printeti Ca element denoutate, dispoziiile art. 397 din noul Codcivil consacr regula c autoritatea

printeasc revine n comun ambilor prinii dupdivor, afarde cazul n care instanadecide altfel. Comentnd prevederile art. 397din noul Cod civil doctrina a artat cinstana nu trebuie s se pronune asupraexercitrii autoritii printeti dup divordect dac ia msura de excepie la care

trimite partea finala art. 397; n lipsa uneiastfel de meniuni n considerentele i ndispozitivul hotrrii, autoritatea printeascse va exercita i dupdivorde ambii prini

potrivit principiului din art. 397 din noul Codcivil4.

Pronunndu-se cu privire laexercitarea autoritii printeti la desfacereacstoriei practica judiciara statuat cdupintrarea n vigoare a noului Cod civil nu maieste prevzut instituia ncredinrii

minorului ci aceea de autoritate printeasc5.Aceastformulare este nsinexactntructinstituia autoritii printeti, n ansamblulei, o nlocuiete pe aceea a ocrotirii printetireglementatanterior de Codul familiei. Ct

privete noiunea de ncredinare prevzutde dispoziiile aceluiai Cod al familiei,aceasta a fost nlocuit cu regula exercitriicomune a autoritii printeti.

Stabilirea locuinei copilului la divornu echivaleaz, aadar, cu ncredinareaacestuia. Aa cum am artat mai sus privitorla stabilirea locuinei copilului instana areurmtoarele posibiliti:

- s stabileasc locuina copilului launul dintre prini, fie la printele cu carelocuiete n mod statornic, fie la oricaredintre ei, innd seama de interesul superioral copilului, dac pn la divor copilului alocuit cu ambii prini. n aceste cazuri actelede ngrijire curente care vor fi exercitate

exclusiv de ctre printele la care locuiete

3. Exertion of the parental authority

3.1. The exertion of the parental

authority by both of the parents

Aspects regarding the rule of thecommon exertion of the parental authority Asa new element, the stipulations of art. 397 ofthe new Civil Code consecrates the ruleaccording to which the parental authoritycommonly belongs to both of the parents afterthe divorce, except for the case when the courtdecides differently. By commenting thestipulations of art. 397 of the new Civil Code,the doctrine showed that the court should not

pronounce on the exertion of the parental

authority after divorce unless it takes theexceptional measured mentioned by the final

part of art. 397; in the absence of such amention in the reasons and in the device of thedecision, the parental authority may also beexerted after the divorce by both of the parentsaccording to the principle of art. 397 of thenew Civil Code29.

Pronouncing regarding the exertion ofthe parental authority until the marriagedissolution, the judicial practice decided that,

after the validation of the new Civil Code, theinstitution of the minors entrustment is notstipulated anymore, but the parental authorityinstitution30. But this wording is inexactwhereas the institution of the parentalauthority, in its ensemble, replaces the one ofthe parental protection previously regulated bythe Family Code. Regarding the entrustmentnotion stipulated by the same Family Code, itwas replaced by the rule of the commonexertion of the parental authority.

Therefore, the establishment of thechilds domicile when the divorce occurs is notequivalent to his or her entrustment. As wehave shown above regarding the establishmentof the childs domicile, the court has thefollowing possibilities:

- to establish the childs domicile atone of the parents, either the parents whom heor she constantly lives with, or at any of thethem, considering the childs high interest, if

the child had lived with both of the parents


4/16



44

minorul6. Stabilirea locuinei copilului launul dintre prinii si nu afecteaz nscelelalte aspecte ale autoritii printeti carecontinu s fie exercitat mpreun de ctre

prinii divorai. Exercitarea n comun aautoritii printeti impune ca printele lacare minorul locuiete s se consulte cucellalt printe cu privire la elementelefundamentale care privesc viaa copilului7astfel nct, deciziile importante cu privire lacreterea i educarea minorului vor fi luatede prini n comun (de exemplu n probleme

privind sntatea, colarizarea etc.).- s stabileasc locuina acestuia la

bunici sau la alte rude ori persoane, cu

consimmntul acestora, ori la o instituie deocrotire, ns numai n mod excepional, inumai dac este n interesul superior alcopilului, caz n care art. 400 alin. 3 din noulCod civil arat c acestea exercitsupravegherea copilului i ndeplinesc toateactele obinuite privind sntatea, educaia invtura sa iar celelalte aspecte aleautoritii printeti continu s fieexercitate, sau, dup caz, ndeplinite ncomun de ctre prini.

Prezumia de acord.Pentru a facilitaexerciiul cotidian al autoritii printetilegiuitorul reglementeazn noul Cod civil o

prezumie de acord care permite fiecruiadintre prini sacioneze singur atunci cndface un act cu caracter curent al autoritii

printeti. n acest sens art. 503 alin. 2 dinnoul Cod civil prevede c fa de terii de

bun credin oricare dintre prini, carendeplinete singur un act curent pentruexercitarea drepturilor i ndeplinireaobligaiilor printeti este prezumat care iconsimmntul celuilalt printe. Aadar, nconcepia legiuitorului romn, exerciiulcomun al autoritii printeti nu implic, nfapt, participarea materiala fiecruia dintre

prini la ndeplinirea actelor curente pentruexercitarea drepturilor i ndeplinireaobligaiilor printeti.

Aceast prezumie care nsoete pefiecare dintre prini atunci cnd face singur

un act curent pentru exercitarea autoritii

until the divorce. In these cases, the currentcaring acts which will are exclusively exerted

by the parent whom the minor lives with31.The establishment of the childs domicile at

one of his or her parents does not affect theother aspects of the parental authority whichcontinues to be exerted together by thedivorced parents. The common exertion of the

parental authority imposes for the parent wherethe minor lives, to consult the other parentregarding the basic elements related to thechilds life32 so that the important decisionsregarding the minors raising and education aremade together by the parents (for example, in

problems regarding the health, the schooling

etc.).- to establish the childs domicile at the

grandparents or at other family members orperson, with their consent, or at a protectinginstitution, but only exceptionally and if this isthe childs high interest, a case when art. 400

paragraph 3 of the new Civil Code shows thatthese exert the childs surveillance andaccomplish all the usual acts regarding thehealth, the education and the schooling, andthe other aspects of the parental authority

continue to be exerted or, where appropriate,accomplished in common by the parents.

The agreement presumption. Forfacilitating the daily exertion of the parentalauthority, the legislator regulates in the newCivil Code, an agreement presumptionallowing every parent to act by themselveswhen it is about an usual act of the parentalauthority. In this sense art. 503 paragraph 2 ofthe new Civil Code stipulates that, to thehonest thirds, any parent accomplishing bythemselves a usual act for exerting the parentalrights and accomplishing the parentalobligations, is presumed as having the other

parents consent. Therefore, in the Romanianlegislators conception, the common exertionof the parental authority does not actuallyinvolve the material participation of both of the

parents to the accomplishment of the usual actsfor exerting the parental rights and foraccomplishing the parental obligations.

This presumption accompanying each


5/16



45

printeti funcioneaznumai fade teri inumai dacacetia sunt de buncredin. Eale confer acestora securitate juridic prinfaptul cle dposibilitatea strateze doar cu

un singur printe, autorizndu-i s-i acordeacestuia ncredere total. Buna credin aterilor se prezumpnla proba contrar.

Prezumia reglementat de art. 503alin. 2 din noul Cod civil are caracter relativ8

putnd fi rsturnat prin proba contrar dectre printele care s-a opus ncheieriiactului, dac reuete s fac dovadaopunerii sale, precum i a faptului cterul afost de rea-credin n sensul c a cunoscutdezacordul cu privire la respectivul act.

Prezumia legalare ca obiect numaiacte curente fcute pentru exercitareadrepturilor i ndeplinirea obligaiilor

printeti. Legiuitorul nu aratnici mcar cutitlu de exemplu ce fel de acte intr naceast categorie, astfel c, n caz decontestaie din partea printelui neparticipantla act revine instanei de tutelmisiunea de astabili dac actul ndeplinit de ctre cellalt

printe face parte sau nu din categoria actelorcurente la care se refer art. 503 alin. 2 din

noul Cod civil. n doctrin9s-a apreciat cunact excede categoriei actelor curente dac

pentru exerciiul unui anume drept saundeplinirea unei anume ndatoriri printetieste necesar, potrivit dispoziiei exprese alegii, nvoiala prinilor cum ar fi spreexemplu: stabilirea numelui copilului dincstorie n cazul n care prinii nu au numecomun (art. 449 alin. 2 din noul Cod civil);stabilirea numelui copilului din afaracstoriei care, avnd filiaia stabilitfadeunul dintre prini, i stabilete ulteriorfiliaia i fa de cellalt printe (art. 450alin. 2 din noul Cod civil); stabilirealocuinei copilului dac prinii nu locuiescmpreun (art. 496 alin. 2 din noul Codcivil); schimbarea locuinei copiluluimpreun cu printele la care locuiete dacafecteaz exerciiul autoritii sau al unordrepturi printeti (art. 497 alin. 1 din noulCod civil).

ntruct atunci cnd instituie n art.

parent when they accomplish a usual act forexerting the parental authority works only inreport to the thirds and only if they are honest.It offers them juridical security by the fact that

it offers them the possibility to treat with onlyone parent, authorizing them to grant him orher total trust. The thirds honesty is presumeduntil the contrary is proved.

The presumption regulated by art. 503paragraph 2 of the new Civil Code is relative33as it may be turned over by the contraryevidence by the parent who opposed to theaccomplishment of the document, if itmanages to prove the opposition, and also ofthe fact that the third was dishonest, namely he

or she knew about the disagreement regardingthat act.

The legal presumption has as objectonly usual acts for the exertion of the parentalrights and the accomplishment of the parentalobligations. The legislator does not show, noteven as an example, the type of acts of thiscategory so that, in case of contestation fromthe parent who does not participate to the act,the guardianship court should establish if theact accomplished by the other parent is or is

not from the category of the usual actsmentioned by art. 503 paragraph 2 of the newCivil Code. The doctrine34appreciated that anact exceeds the category of the usual acts if, forthe exertion of a certain parental right or forthe accomplishment of a certain parentalobligation, it is necessary, according to theexpress stipulation of the law, the parentsconsent, for example: establishing the name ofthe child resulted from the marriage when the

parents have no common name (art. 449paragraph 2 of the new Civil Code);establishing the name of the child resultedfrom outside the marriage, who subsequentlyestablishes the filiation to the other parent, ashe or she already has the filiation established toone of the parents (art. 450 paragraph 2 of thenew Civil Code); establishing the childsdomicile if the parents do not live together (art.496 paragraph 2 of the new Civil Code);changing the childs domicile together with the

parent where he or she lives with, if this affects


6/16



46

503 alin. 2 prezumia de acord legiuitorul nudistinge ntre prinii cstorii i ceidivorai, aceast prezumie continu a seaplica i dup divor n caz de exercitare

comuna autoritii printeti. n consecin,Fa de terii de bun credin fiecare dintreprini continusfie prezumat cacioneazcu acordul celuilalt cnd face singur un actcurent pentru exercitarea drepturilor indeplinirea obligaiilor printeti (deexemplu o cerere de nscriere a copilului lacoal)10.

nvoiala prinilor. Fr a distingentre prini n timpul cstoriei i prinidupdesfacerea cstoriei legiuitorul romn

stabilete n art. 506 din noul Cod civil cprinii se pot nelege cu privire laexercitarea autoritii printeti sau cu privirela luarea unei msuri de protecie a copiluluidac este respectat interesul superior alacestuia i cu ncuviinarea instanei detutel. ntr-o atare situaie ascultareacopilului este obligatorie fiind aplicabiledispoziiile art. 264 din noul Cod civil.Pentru a produce efecte nvoiala prinilortrebuie omologatde ctre instaniar pentru

a fi omologatnelegerea trebuie srespecteinteresul superior al copilului. Aadar,

prevederile art. 506 din noul Cod civilinstituie rolul de supraveghere i control alinstanei de tutelchiar i n situaia n care

prinii se neleg ceea ce nseamncsimplaprezentare a unei convenii nu este suficientpentru a putea fi ncuviinat de ctreinstan11.

nelegerile neomologate de ctreinstana de tutel nu pot fi consideratevalabile, mai ales dacprin ele se renunlaun drept care aparine copilului sau este ninteresul acestuia ori se recunoate un dreptcare nu este consacrat legal, datoritcaracterului de ordine public pe care l areautoritatea printeasc12

Nenelegerile dintre prini. Regulaexercitrii comune a autoritii printeti nutrebuie neleas n sensul c este imperativnecesar ca prinii sajungla un consens, n

toate cazurile. Astfel, n practic pot aprea

the exertion of the parental authority or of theparental rights (art. 497 paragraph 1 of the newCivil Code).

Whereas the legislator does not

distinguishes between the married parents andthe divorced ones, when it institutes in art. 503paragraph 2 the agreement presumption, thispresumption continues to apply after thedivorce in case of common exertion of the

parental authority. Consequently, to the honestthirds, both of the parents continues to be

presumed as acting with the others consentwhen they accomplish by themselves a usualact for exerting the parental rights and foraccomplishing the parental obligations (for

example, an application for the childsregistration in school)35.

The parents consent. Withoutdistinguishing between the parents during themarriage and after dissolving the marriage, theRomanian legislator establishes in art. 506 ofthe new Civil Code that the parents may agreeon the exertion of the parental authority orregarding the taking of a childs protectionmeasure, if the childs high interest is respectedand with the consent of the guardianship court.

In such a situation, the childs hearing iscompulsory, applying the stipulations of art.264 of the new Civil Code. For producingeffects, the parents consent should behomologated by the court and, for beinghomologated, the consent should respect thechilds high interest. Therefore, the stipulationsof art. 506 of the new Civil Code institute thesurveying and controlling role of theguardianship court, even when the parentsagree, which means that the simple

presentation of a convention is not enough forbeing consented by the court36.

The consents non-homologated by theguardianship court cannot be considered asvalid, especially if they give up a right

belonging to the child or in the childs interestor if they recognize a right which is not legallyconsecrated, due to the public order feature ofthe parental authority37

The discords between parents.The rule

of the common exertion of the parental


7/16



47

nenelegeri ntre prini n pofida consacrriiregulii c autoritatea printeasc se exercitn comun de ctre acetia. Legiuitorul a avutn vedere aceast realitate stabilind n art.

486 din noul Cod civil c n cazul n carentre prini apar nenelegeri cu privire laexerciiul drepturilor sau la ndeplinireandatoririlor printeti hotrte instanatutelar potrivit interesului superior alcopilului, dupascultarea prinilor i lundn considerare concluziile raportului referitorla ancheta psihosocial. Ascultarea copiluluieste obligatorie, fiind aplicabile prevederileart. 264.

3.2.Exercitarea autoritii printeti

de ctre un singur printeRegula exercitrii n comun a

autoritii printeti de ctre prinii divorainu este, n sistemul noului Cod civil, o regulabsolut. Astfel, prin excepie de la aceastregul art. 398 alin. 1 din noul Cod civilreglementeaz posibilitatea instanei de ahotr, atunci cnd exist motive temeinice,i avnd n vedere interesul superior alcopilului ca autoritatea printeasc s fieexercitatnumai de ctre unul dintre prini.

n ceea ce l privete pe cellalt printealineatul 2 al aceluiai articol arat c el

pstreazdreptul de a veghea asupra moduluide cretere i educare a copilului, precum idreptul de a consimi la adopia acestuia. Deasemenea, acest printe este i titularuldreptului de a menine legturi personale cucopilul iar n sarcina lui cade obligaia dentreinere a acestuia.

3.3. Exercitarea autoritii printetide c

tre alte persoane

n mod excepional, instana de tutelpoate shotrascplasamentul copilului dincstoria care se desface sau se desfiineazsau a celui din afara cstoriei la o rudsaula o alt familie ori persoan, cuconsimmntul acestora sau ntr-o instituiede ocrotire (art. 399 alin. 1 din noul Codcivil). ntr-o astfel de situaie prinii voravea numai exerciiul drepturilor printeticu privire la bunurile minorului ntruct,

potrivit art. 399 alin. 1 teza finaldin noul

authority should not be understood as it isimperatively necessary for the parents to reacha consensus, in every case. Thus, in practice,there may be discords between the parents

despite of the consecration of the ruleaccording to which the parental authority isexerted in common by them. The legislatorconsidered this reality, establishing in art. 486of the new Civil Code that, if there are discords

between the parents regarding the exertion ofthe parental rights or the accomplishment ofthe parental obligations, the guardianship courtdecides according to the childs high interest,after hearing the parents and considering theconclusions of the report referring to the

psycho-social investigation. The childshearing is compulsory, applying thestipulations of art. 264.

3.2. The exertion of the parentalauthority by only one parent

The rule of the common exertion of theparental authority by the divorced parents isnot an absolute rule, in the system of the newCivil Code. Thus, as an exception from thisrule, art. 398 paragraph 1 of the new CivilCode regulate the court possibility to decide,

when there are strong reasons, and consideringthe childs high interest, for the parentalauthority to be exerted by only one of the

parents. Regarding the other parent, paragraph2 of the same article shows that he or she keepsthe childs raising and education, and also theright to consent to the childs adoption. This

parent is also the holder of the right to keeppersonal connections to the child andresponsible for supporting the child.

3.3. The exertion of the parental

authority by other persons

Exceptionally, the guardianship courtmay decide the investment of the child fromthe dissolved or annulled marriage or of thechild from outside the marriage to a familymember or to another person, with theirconsent or in a protecting institution (art. 399

paragraph 1 of the new Civil Code). In such asituation, parents have only the exertion of the

parental rights regarding the minors goods

whereas, according to art. 399 paragraph 1 of


8/16



48

Cod civil drepturile i ndatoririle printetiprivitoare la persoana copilului vor fiexercitate i ndeplinite de ctre ruda,

persoana, familia sau instituia de ocrotire

creia i-a fost plasat copilul. n temeiulalineatului 2 al aceluiai articol instana vastabili dac drepturile cu privire la bunurilecopilului se exercit de ctre prini ncomun sau de ctre unul dintre ei.

4. Drepturile printelui separat decopil

n conformitate cu prevederile art.401 alin. 1 din noul Cod civil, n cazurile

prevzute de art. 400, printele sau, dupcaz, prinii separai de copilul lor au dreptulde a avea legturi personale cu acesta.

Legturile personale ntre printe sau,dupcaz, prini i copil constituie un elementfundamental al vieii de familie. Dat fiindimportana meninerii lor relaiile personaledintre prini i copil sunt ocrotite, la nivelinternaional, de prevederile Convenieiasupra relaiilor personale care privesccopiii13, art. 4 alin. 1 din acest act

internaional dispunnd: copilul i priniisi au dreptul de a obine i de a ntreinerelaii personale constante.

n dreptul romnesc relaiilepersonale dintre prini i copil trebuieanalizate dintr-un dublu punct de vedere:

- prin prisma dreptului printelui avealegturi personale cu copilul reglementat deart. 401 alin. 1 din noul Cod civil. Acestaeste unul dintre drepturile printeti

privitoare la persoana copilului fiindrecunoscut aceluia dintre prini la care nulocuiete copilului pentru a-i putea ndeplinindatoririle pe care le are fade copil;

- din perspectiva dreptului recunoscutcopilului de prevederile art. 16 din Legea nr.272/2004 potrivit cruia copilul are dreptulde a menine relaii personale i contactedirecte cu ambii prini n ipoteza n care afost separat de acetia sau de unul dintre ei

printr-o msurdispusn condiiile legii, cu

excepia situaiilor cnd acestea ar fi contrarii

the final thesis of the new Civil Code, theparental rights and obligations regarding thechilds person will be exerted andaccomplished by the family member, the

person, the family or the protecting institutionwhere the child was invested. Based onparagraph 2 of the same article, the court willestablish if the rights related to the childsgoods are exerted in common by the parents or

by one of them.

4. The rights of the parent separated

from the child

According to the stipulations of art.

401 paragraph 1 of the new Civil Code, in thecases stipulated by art. 400, the parent or,where appropriate, the parents separated fromtheir child have the right to have personalconnections with the child.

The personal connections between theparent or, where appropriate, the parents andthe child constitute a basic element of thefamily life. Given the importance ofmaintaining them, the personal relationships

between the parents and the child are

internationally protected by the stipulations ofthe Convention on the personal relationshipsregarding the children38, art. 4 paragraph 1 ofthis international document stipulates: thechild and the parents have the right to obtainand maintain constant personal relationships.

In the Romanian law, the personalrelationships between the parents and the childshould be analysed from a double viewpoint:

- from the perspective of parents rightto have personal connections with the child,regulated by art. 401 paragraph 1 of the newCivil Code. This is one of the parental rightsregarding the childs person and it isrecognized for that parent where the child doesnot live, so that he or she could accomplish theobligations to the child;

- from the perspective of the childsright stipulated by art. 16 of Law no. 272/2004according to which the child has the right tomaintain personal relationships and direct

contacts with both of the parents when he or


9/16



49

interesului superior al copilului, ntruct arpericlita dezvoltarea fizic, mental,spiritual, moral sau sociala copilului. Lafel ca i dispoziiile Legii nr. 272/2004 cele

din noul Cod civil reglementeaz dreptulcopilului care nu locuiete la prinii si sau,dupcaz, la unul dintre ei, de a avea legturi

personale cu acetia. Exerciiul acestui dreptnu poate fi limitat dect n condiiile

prevzute de lege, pentru motive temeinice,lund n considerare interesul superior alcopilului (art. 262 alin. 2 din noul Cod civil).Aceste prevederi sunt concordante cu celeale art. 9 pct. 3 din Convenia cu privire ladrepturile copilului care dispune c statele

pri vor respecta dreptul copilului care a fostseparat de ambii prini sau de unul dintre eide a ntreine relaii personale i contactedirecte cu cei doi prini ai si, n modregulat, exceptnd cazul cnd acest lucrucontravine interesului superior al copilului.

Aadar, dreptului printelui de a pstralegturi personale cu minorul reglementat dedispoziiile art. 401 alin. 1 din noul Cod civili corespunde dreptul copilului de a meninerelaii personale i contacte directe cu acest

printe14.ntruct meninerea de relaii

personale ntre prini i copii d coninutdreptului la respectarea vieii de familiereglementat de art. 8 din Convenia european

pentru aprarea drepturilor omului i alibertilor fundamentale15exerciiul dreptului

prinilor de avea legturi personale cu copilultrebuie asigurat efectiv, pe deplin.

n interesul superior al copiluluiprinii sunt datori s colaboreze astfel ncts poat lua cele mai potrivite msuri nlegtur cu persoana acestuia, iar nu sobstrucioneze, n orice mod, desfurareafireasc a legturilor dintre copil i printelela care copilul nu locuiete. n acest sens, n

practica noastr judiciar s-a decis c, nspiritul bunei credine i al nelegerii, ninteresul superior al copilului, principial,ambii prini trebuie s manifeste odisponibilitate maximi o cooperare deplin,

fiind excluse icanele, de aa manier nct

she was separated from them or from one ofthem by a measure taken in the law conditions,except for the situations when these are againstthe childs high interest, whereas they endanger

the childs physical, mental, spiritual, moral orsocial development. As the stipulations of Lawno. 272/2004, the ones of the new Civil Coderegulate the right of the child who does not livewith his or her parents or, where appropriate,with one of them, to have personal connectionswith them. The exertion of this right can only belimited in the conditions stipulated by the law,for strong reasons, considering the childs highinterest (art. 262 paragraph 2 of the new CivilCode). These stipulations are in compliance

with the ones of art. 9 point 3 of the Conventionregarding the childs rights stipulating that the

parties should respect the right of the child whowas separated by both of the parents or by oneof them to maintain personal relationships anddirect contacts regularly with the two parents,except for the case when this is against thechilds high interest.

Therefore, the parents right to maintainpersonal connections with the minor, regulatedby the stipulations of art. 401 paragraph 1of the

new Civil Code, corresponds to the childs rightto maintain personal relationships and directcontacts with this parent39.

Whereas the maintenance of personalrelationships between parents and children givescontent to the right to respecting the family liferegulated by art. 8 of the European Conventionfor Protecting the Basic Human Rights andLiberties40 the exertion of the parents right tohave personal connections with the child should

be efficiently, fully provided.For the childs high interest, the parents

are obligated to collaborate so that they couldtake the most adequate measures regarding thechilds person, not to obstruct in any way thenatural development of the connections betweenthe child and the parent where the child does notlive. In this sense, our judicial practice decidedthat, in the spirit of honesty and understanding,in the childs high interest, both of the parentsshould manifest maximum availability and full

cooperation, excluding the cavils, so that the


10/16



50

copilul s se bucure de prezena, deafeciunea, de grija i de cretere din parteaambilor prini16. Aceste raiuni par s fi fostavute n vedere i de legiuitorul francez atunci

cnd a stabilit n art. 372-2 alin. 2 din Codulcivil c fiecare dintre prini trebuie smenin relaii personale cu copilul i srespecte legturile acestuia cu cellalt printe.Aadar, n vederea aprrii i asigurriimeninerii de relaii personale ntre printelela care copilul nu locuiete i acesta din urmlegea civil francez instituie pe de o parteobligaia acestui printe de a ntreine relaii

personale cu copilul iar pe de alt parteobligaia printelui care exercit autoritatea

printeascde a se abine de la orice ar puteatirbi legturile copilului cu cellalt printe.innd cont de aceast realitate, Curtea deApel Bordeaux nu a ezitat s atrag ateniamamei cfixarea locuinei la ea nu constituieun favor fcut ei, ci o msur luatnumai ninteresul copilului, interes care se apreciaz

prin raportare la capacitatea ei de a fimeninute bune relaii ntre tat i copil, iarrefuzul ei nemotivat i de duratde a respectadreptul de vizitstabilit pe cale judiciareste

de natursantreneze schimbarea locuinei17.Legiuitorul romn nu instituie

obligaia printelui la care locuiete copilul dea respecta legturile personale ale celuilalt

printe cu acest copil mrginindu-se s araten art. 401 alin. 2 din noul Cod civil cn cazde nenelegere dintre prini, instana detutel decide cu privire la modalitile deexercitare a acestui drept, caz n careascultarea copilului este obligatorie, fiindaplicabile prevederile art. 264.

Pe aceeai poziie a garantriimeninerii efective de legturi personale cucopilul se situeaz i jurisprudena CEDO,instan care, prin multe hotrri, a impusstatelor obligaia pozitiv de a lua toatemsurile necesare pentru a asigura exercitareadreptului de vizit18.

Meninerea efectiv de relaiipersonale ntre copil i printele care nulocuiete cu acesta contribuie la crearea ntre

acetia a unei legturi care, n timp, s se

child would enjoy the presence, the affection,the care and the raising from both of the

parents41. These reasons seem to have beenconsidered by the French legislator when he

established in art. 372-2 paragraph 2 of the CivilCode that each parent should maintain personalrelationships with the child and should respectthe childs connections with the other parent.Therefore, in order to defend and provide themaintenance of personal relationship betweenthe child and the parent where the child does notlive, the French civil law institutes, on one hand,this parents obligation to maintain personalrelationships with the child and, on the otherhand, the obligation of the parent exerting the

parental authority to abstain from anything thatcould damage the childs connections with theother parent. Considering this reality, theBordeaux Court of Justice mentioned that theestablishment of the childs domicile at themothers place does not constitute a favour forher, but a measure taken only in the childsinterest, and interest appreciated by report to itscapacity of maintaining good relationships

between the father and the child, and itsunmotivated and long-lasting refusal to respect

the visiting right judicially established is able toinvolve the change of domicile42.

The Romanian legislator does notinstitute the obligation of the parent where thechild lives, to respect the personal connectionsof the other parent with this child, being limitedto show in art. 401 paragraph 2 of the new CivilCode that, in case of a discord between the

parents, the guardianship court decides on theexertion ways of this right, a case when thechilds hearing is compulsory, applying thestipulations of art. 264.

On this position of guaranteeing theefficient maintenance of personal connectionswith the child, there is also the CEDO

jurisprudence, a court which imposed to thestates by many decisions the positive obligationto take all the measures necessary for providingthe exertion of the visiting right43.

The efficient maintenance of personalrelationships between the child and the parent

who does not live with the child contributes to


11/16



51

dezvolte i s evolueze nspre o legturafectiv puternic. Pentru atingerea acestuideziderat comunicarea dintre printele la carenu locuiete copilul i respectivul copil

trebuie s aib loc n mod firesc, fr nici orestrngere19 astfel c dreptul printelui idreptul copilului la relaii personale nu trebuielimitate la meninerea de legturi numai ladomiciliul printelui cruia copilul i-a fostncredinat. n raport de aceste considerenteapreciem c prevederile art. 496 alin. 5 dinnoul Cod civil care recunosc printelui la carecopilul nu locuiete n chip statornic dreptulde a avea legturi personale cu minorul lalocuina acestuia sunt de natur s limiteze

exerciiul acestui drept, astfel c, pentru a seasigura exercitarea lui efectiv propunem caintr-o viitoare reglementare s se recunoasc

printelui la care copilul nu locuiete dreptulde a avea legturi personale cu acesta, prinnlturarea condiiei ca aceste legturi s fiemeninute numai la locuina copilului.

Legturile personale dintre printele lacare copilul nu locuiete i acesta din urmnutrebuie stingherite prin prezena obligatorie aceluilalt printe. Meninerea unei legturi

ntre printele care nu locuiete cu copilul iacest copil numai n prezena printelui lacare a fost stabilitlocuina copilului nu ar da

posibilitatea celor doi s dezvolte o relaiearmonioas, lipsit de inhibiii, dimpotriv,

programul de vizitare ar constitui un motiv dedisconfort pentru ambele pri i, cel mai

probabil, ar sfri prin ntreruperea lui, ceeace nu este n interesul minorului i nu respectdreptul la viade familie protejat de art. 8 dinConvenia european pentru aprareadrepturilor omului i a libertilorfundamentale20. Dac nu este n interesulsuperior al copilului s ntrein relaii

personale nesupravegheate cu printele decare a fost separat instanele trebuie s ia nconsiderare posibilitatea de ntreinere a unorrelaii personale sub supraveghere21.

Pentru a fi posibil crearea imeninerea legturii afective specifice relaiei

printe-copil, printele la care nu locuiete

minorul trebuie s beneficieze de un timp

the creation of a connection between themwhich could develop in time and evolvetowards a strong affective connection. Forreaching this desideratum, the communication

between the parent where the child does not liveand that child should occur naturally, with norestraint44 so that the parents right and thechilds right to personal relationships should not

be limited at maintaining connections only atthe place of the parent whom the child wasentrusted to. In report to these reasons, weappreciate that the stipulations of art. 496

paragraph 5 of the new Civil Code recognizingfor the parent where the child does notconstantly live, the right to have personal

connections with the minor at his or her placeare able to limit the exertion of this right, sothat, for providing its efficient exertion, wesuggest for the future regulation to recognize theright of the parent where the child does not liveto have personal connections with the child, byremoving the conditions according to which thisconnection should be maintained only at thechilds domicile.

The personal connections between theparent where the child does not live and the

child should not be hampered by thecompulsory presence of the other parent. Themaintenance of a connection between the parentwho does not live with the child and this childonly in the presence of the parent where thechilds domicile was established would notallow the two of them to develop a harmoniousrelationship lacked of inhibitions, but on thecontrary, the visiting hours would constitute adiscomfort reasons for both of the parties and,the most probably, it would end by stopping it,which is not in the minors interest and does notrespect the right to family life protected by art. 8of the European Convention for Protecting theBasic Human Rights and Liberties45. If thechilds high interest is not about maintainingnon-surveyed personal relationships with the

parent whom he or she was separated from, thecourts should consider the possibility tomaintain personal relationships with nosurveillance46.

For allowing the creation and the


12/16



52

rezonabil, pentru exercitarea dreptului su,astfel nct acesta snu devinpur formal22.Aadar, n realizarea efectiv a relaiilor

personale trebuie s se in cont i de durata

de timp n care printele are legturi personalecu minorul23 ntruct dreptul printelui de aveghea la creterea i educarea copiluluiminor nu se poate exercita n mod eficientdac legturile personale i-au fost limitatedoar la cteva ore din anumite zile24.

n unele situaii exerciiul dreptului de amenine legturi personale poate fi limitat.Astfel, n temeiul art. 4 pct. 2 din Conveniaasupra relaiilor personale care privesc copiii,relaiile personale pot fi restrnse, sau chiar

excluse, atunci cnd acest lucru este necesarn interesul superior al copilului. Posibilitateangrdirii dreptului de a menine relaii

personale este reglementat i n dreptulintern, art. 16 alin. 2 din Legea nr. 272/2004

prevznd c instana de judecat, lund nconsiderare, cu prioritate, interesul superior alcopilului poate limita exercitarea acestui dreptdac exist motive temeinice de natur a

periclita dezvoltarea fizic, mental,spiritual, moral sau social a copilului.

Limitarea dreptului de a avea legturipersonale cu minorul al printelui la carecopilul nu locuiete n mod statornic estereglementat i de art. 496 alin. 5 din noulCod civil, sub condiia ca limitarea s fie ninteresul superior al copilului.

5. Stabilirea contribuiei prinilor

n temeiul art. 402 alin. 1 din noul Codcivil, prin hotrrea de divor instana dedivor stabilete contribuia fiecrui printela cheltuielile de cretere, educare, nvturi pregtire profesional a copiilor. ntr-unatare caz, alineatul 2 al aceluiai articol aratcdispoziiile titlului V privind obligaia dentreinere coninute de noul Cod civil seaplicn mod corespunztor25. n consecin,cuantumul ntreinerii se va stabili conformart. 529 alin. 2 care prevede c atunci cndntreinerea este datorat de ctre printe ea

se stabilete pnla ptrime din venitul su

maintenance of the affective connection specificto the parent-child relation, the parent where theminor does not live should benefit from areasonable time, for exerting his or her right, so

that it would not become purely formal47

.Therefore, in the efficient accomplishment ofthe personal relationships, we should alsoconsider the lapse of time when the parent had

personal connections with the minor48whereasthe parents right to survey the minor childsraising and education cannot be efficientlyexerted if the personal connections were limitedto only a few hours of certain days49.

In certain situations, the exertion of theright to maintain personal connections may be

limited. Thus, based on art. 4 point 2 of theConvention on the Personal Relationshipsregarding the Children, the personalrelationships may be restrained or evenexcluded, when this is necessary for the childshigh interest. The possibility to limit the right tomaintain personal relationships is also regulatedin the intern law, art. 16 paragraph 2 of Law no.272/2004 stipulating that the judicial court,considering mainly the childs high interest,may limit the exertion of this right if there are

strong reasons able to endanger the childsphysical, mental, spiritual, moral or socialdevelopment. The limitation of the right to have

personal connections with the minor, belongingto the parent where the child does not constantlylive, is also regulated by art. 496 paragraph 5 ofthe new Civil Code, considering that thelimitation should be in the childs high interest.

5. Establishing the parents

contribution

Based on art. 402 paragraph 1 of the newCivil Code, by the divorce decision, the divorcecourt establishes every parents contribution tothe expenses for the childrens raising,education, learning and professional training. Insuch a case, paragraph 2 of the same articleshows that the stipulations of title V regardingthe supporting obligation contained by the newCivil Code is correspondingly applied50.

Consequently, the supporting quantum is


13/16



53

lunar net pentru un copil, o treime pentru 2copii i o jumtate pentru 3 sau mai mulicopii. La stabilirea cuantumului ntreineriitrebuie avute n vedere i prevederile art. 529

alin. 3 din noul Cod civil potrivit croracuantumul ntreinerii datorate copiilormpreun cu ntreinerea datorat altor

persoane, potrivit legii, nu poate depijumtate din venitul net lunar al celui obligat.

6. Modificarea msurilor luate cuprivire la copil

n cazul schimbrii mprejurrilor,instana de tutelpoate hotr, n temeiul art.

403 din noul Cod civil, modificareamsurilor cu privire la drepturile indatoririle prinilor divorai fa de copiiilor minori, la cererea oricruia dintre prinisau unui alt membru de familie, a copilului, ainstituie de ocrotire, a instituiei publicespecializate pentru protecia copilului sau a

procurorului.

Bibliografie:

Alexandru Bacaci, Viorica-ClaudiaDumitrache, Cristina Codrua Hageanu,Dreptul familiei n reglementarea noul Codcivil , Ediia 7, Editura C.H. Beck, Bucureti,2012

Alin-Gheorghe Gavrilescu, Drepturilei obligaiile printeti. Drept romn i dreptcomparat, Editura Universul Juridic,Bucureti, 2011

Alin-Gheorghe Gavrilescu, Aspecteteoretice i de practic judiciar privindobligaia de ntreinere dintre prini i copiln reglementarea Codului familiei i a nouluiCod civil, Analele Universitii ConstantinBrncui din Tg-Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice,nr 3/2010

Emese Florian, Dreptul familiei nreglementarea noului Cod civil, Ediia 4,Editura C. H. Beck, Bucureti, 2011

Flavius-Antoniu Baias, EugenChelaru, Rodica Constantinovici, Ioan

Macovei (Coordonatori), Noul Cod civil.

established according to art. 529 paragraph 2stipulating that, when the support is owed by the

parent, it is established to a quarter of his or hernet monthly income for a child, a third for 2

children and a half for 3 or several children.When establishing the support quantum, weshould also consider the stipulations of art. 529

paragraph 3 of the new Civil Code according towhich the support quantum owed to the childrentogether with the support owed to other persons,according to the law, cannot cross half of the netmonthly income of the person in question.

6. Amendment of the measures taken

for the child

In case of changes of circumstances, theguardianship court may decide, based on art.403 of the new Civil Code, the amendment ofthe measures regarding the divorced parentsrights and obligations to their minor children, atthe demand of any parent or of any other familymember, of the child, of the protectinginstitution, of the public institution specializedfor child protection or of the prosecutor.

Bibliography:Alexandru Bacaci, Viorica-Claudia

Dumitrache, Cristina Codrua Hageanu, FamilyLaw in the Regulation of the New Civil Code,the 7th Edition, C.H. Beck Press, Bucharest,2012

Alin-Gheorghe Gavrilescu, ParentalRights and Obligations, Romanian Law andCompared Law, Universul Juridic Press,Bucharest, 2011

Alin-Gheorghe Gavrilescu, Theoreticaland Judicial Practice Aspects regarding theSupport Obligation between the Parents and theChild in the Regulation of Family Code of thenew Civil Code, Annals of ConstantinBrncui University of Tg-Jiu, juridicalSciences Series, no 3/2010

Flavius-Antoniu Baias, Eugen Chelaru,Rodica Constantinovici, Ioan Macovei(Coordinators) New Civil Code. Comment onArticles, C.H. Beck Press, Bucharest, 2012

Emese Florian, Family Law in the


14/16



54

Comentariu pe articole,Editura C.H. Beck,Bucureti, 2012

Teodor Bodoac, Aurelia Drghici,Ioan Puie, Dreptul familiei. Curs universitar,

Editura Universul Juridic, Bucureti, 2011

Regulation of the New Civil Code, the 4thEdition, C. H. Beck Press, Bucharest, 2011

Teodor Bodoac, Aurelia Drghici,Ioan Puie, Family Law. University Course,

Universul Juridic Press, Bucharest, 2011

1Legiuitorul romn definete noiunea de autoritate printeascn art. 483 alin. 1 din noul Cod civil ca ansamblul dedrepturi i ndatoriri care privesc persoana ct i bunurile copilului i aparin n mod egal ambilor prini. Autoritatea

printeascare n coninutul su doulaturi:1. o laturpersonalalctuitdin drepturi i obligaii printeti privitoare la persoana minorului fiind astfel considerate:dreptul i ndatorirea de ndrumare a copilului minor, dreptul i ndatorirea de supraveghere a copilului minor, dreptul de astabili locuina copilului i de a-l ine, dreptul de a cere napoierea copilului de la orice persoana care l ine frdrept,dreptul de a consimi la deplasarea copilului n arsau n strintate, dreptul de a menine legturi personale cu copilul,dreptul de a consimi la adopia copilului, dreptul de a consimi la cstoria copilului, dreptul de a veghea asupra moduluide cretere i educare a copilului, dreptul i obligaia de a-l reprezenta pe minor n actele civile ori de a-i ncuviina actele

juridice, obligaia de a crete copilul, obligaia de a ntreine copilul. Pentru o analizdetaliat a acestor drepturi iobligaii a se vedea Alin-Gheorghe Gavrilescu, Drepturile i obligaiile printeti. Drept romn i drept comparat, EdituraUniversul Juridic, Bucureti, 2011, p. 53-135.2. o laturpatrimonialalctuitdin drepturi i obligaii printeti privitoare la bunurile minorului, respectiv: dreptul iobligaia prinilor de a administra bunurile minorului dreptul i obligaia prinilor de a-l reprezenta pe minor n actelecivile ori de a-i ncuviina actele juridice (care privete i latura patrimoniala autoritii printeti). Pentru o analizdetaliata acestor drepturi i obligaii a se vedea Alin-Gheorghe Gavrilescu, op. cit., p. 136-148.2Articolul 264 reglementeazascultarea copilului avnd urmtorul coninut:(1) n procedurile administrative sau judiciare care l privesc, ascultarea copilului care a mplinit vrsta de 10 ani esteobligatorie. Cu toate acestea, poate fi ascultat i copilul care nu a mplinit vrsta de 10 ani, dacautoritatea competentconsidercacest lucru este necesar pentru soluionarea cauzei.(2) Dreptul de a fi ascultat presupune posibilitatea copilului de a cere i a primi orice informaie, potrivit cu vrsta sa, de a-i exprima opinia i de a fi informat asupra consecinelor pe care le poate avea aceasta, daceste respectat, precum i

asupra consecinelor oricrei decizii care l privete.(3) Orice copil poate cere s fie ascultat, potrivit prevederilor alin. (1) i (2). Respingerea cererii de ctre autoritateacompetenttrebuie motivat.(4) Opiniile copilului ascultat vor fi luate n considerare n raport cu vrsta i cu gradul su de maturitate.(5) Dispoziiile legale speciale privind consimmntul sau prezena copilului, n procedurile care l privesc, precum i

prevederile referitoare la desemnarea de ctre instana unui reprezentant n caz de conflict de interese rmn aplicabile.3n sistemul Codului civil belgian, ca o aplicaie a principiului exercitrii n comun a autoritii printeti atunci cnd

prinii nu convieuiesc, instana are posibilitatea de a fixa gzduirea alternativa copilului la acetia (art. 374 din Codulcivil belgian).4Flavius-Antoniu Baias, Efectele divorului cu privire la raporturile dintre prini i copiii lor minori n Noul Cod civil.Comentariu pe articole, Coordonatori: Flavius-Antoniu Baias, Eugen Chelaru, Rodica Constantinovici, Ioan Macovei,Editura C.H. Beck, Bucureti, 2012, p. 522.5Judectoria Craiova, Sentina civilnr. 15352 din 20. 10. 2011 pe www.portal.just.ro, accesatla data de 22. 03 20136Judectoria Sectorului 3 Bucureti, Sentina civilnr. 5000 din 22. 03. 2012, pe www.portal.just.ro, accesatla data de22. 03. 2013.7Tribunalul Mehedini, Decizia civilnr. 111 din 19. 10. 2012, pe www.portal.just.ro, accesatla data de 22. 03. 2013.8n sensul cprezumia stipulatde art. 503 alin. 2 din noul Cod civil este una absolutntruct acest text nu prevede

posibilitatea nlturrii ei prin administrarea probei contrarii a se vedea Teodor Bodoac, Aurelia Drghici, Ioan Puie,Dreptul familiei. Curs universitar, Editura Universul Juridic, Bucureti, 2011, p. 512.9Emese Florian, Dreptul familiei n reglementarea noului Cod civil, Ediia 4, Editura C. H. Beck, Bucureti, 2011, p. 302.10P. Courbe, op. cit., p. 446.11Cristina Irimia, Autoritatea printeascn Noul Cod civil. Comentariu pe articole, op. cit., p. 522.12Alexandru Bacaci, Viorica-Claudia Dumitrache, Cristina Codrua Hageanu, Dreptul familiei n reglementarea noul Codcivil , Ediia 7, Editura C.H. Beck, Bucureti, 2012, p. 330.13Publicatn Monitorul oficial al Romniei, partea I , nr. 257 din 17 aprilie 2007.14Curtea de Apel Craiova, dec. civ. nr. 8 din 19 ianuarie 2007 pe portal.just.ro.


15/16



55

15 Adoptat la Roma la 4 noiembrie 1950 Convenia a fost amendat prin Protocolul nr. 3 intrat n vigoare la 21septembrie 1970, Protocolul nr. 5 intrat n vigoare la 20 decembrie 1971 i Protocolul nr. 8 intrat n vigoare la 1 ianuarie1990 i completatprin Protocolul nr. 2 i Protocolul nr. 11 intrat n vigoare la 1 noiembrie 1998. Romnia a ratificatConvenia prin Legea nr. 30/1994 publicatn Monitorul oficial al Romniei nr. 135 din 31 mai 1994.16Curtea de Apel Timioara, dec. nr. 1531/2006; C. A. Bucureti, Secia a III-a civili pentru cauze cu minori i defamilie, dec. civ. nr. 110/2010 pe portal.just.ro; Tribunalul Mehedini, Decizia civil nr. 111 din 19. 10. 2012, pewww.portal.just.ro, accesatla data de 22. 03. 2013.17Bordeaux, 3 oct. 2006, Juris-Data, no315794 citatde A. Gouttenoire, L. Brunet,Droits de enfant, Recueil Dalloz, nr.31/2007, p. 2195.18Fourchon c Franei, 28 septembrie 2005; Bove c Italia, 30 iunie 2005; Reigado Ramos c Portugaliei, 22 noiembrie2005, F. Sudre (dir.)Les grands arrts de la Cour europenne des droits de homme, 4ed. PUF, 2007, Comm. no 50.Aceastjurisprudena CEDO este ilustrati n hotrreaLafargue c Romnieidin 13 iulie 2006, autoritile Romnefiind condamnate ntruct Curtea a considerat cacestea au omis s-i manifeste eforturile adecvate i suficiente pentru a ise face reclamantului respectat dreptul de viziti de a locui mpreuncu copilul su de ctre mama acestuia din urmcare a refuzat sexecute o hotrre judectoreascn acest sens timp de mai muli ani.19 Curtea de Apel Bucureti, Sec. civ. dec. nr. 560/1994 n Culegere de practic judiciar civil, Curtea de Apel

Bucureti, 1993-1998 (Dan Lupacu, Octavia Spineanu Matei, Mihaela Tbrc, Adriana Roua Pop, Rodica Susanu),

Editura All Beck, Bucureti, 1999, p. 115-116; Trib. Suprem, Sec. civ. dec. nr. 1884/1979, n CD 1979, p. 167-168.20Curtea de Apel Craiova, Secia I civili pentru cauze cu minori i de familie, dec. nr. 139 din 9 februarie 2009 nBuletinul Curilor de Apel, nr. 2/2009, p. 37-38.21n acest sens sunt i prevederile art. 4 pct. 3 din Convenia asupra relaiilor personale care privesc copiii.22Judectoria Tecuci, Sentina civilnr. 519 din 23 februarie 2010 pe portal. just.ro.23Curtea de Apel Piteti, dec. civ. nr. 2121/2004 pe portal.just.ro.24T. M. Bucureti, Sec. a III-a civ., dec. nr. 96/1990, n Culegere de practicjudiciarcivilpe anul 1990, Tribunalul

Municipiului Bucureti, de Ioan Mihu, Casa de edituri presansa S.R.L., 1992, p. 33.25Pentru o analizdetaliata se vedea Alin-Gheorghe Gavrilescu, Aspecte teoretice i de practic judiciarprivindobligaia de ntreinere dintre prini i copil n reglementarea Codului familiei i a noului Cod civil, Analele UniversitiiConstantin Brncui din Tg-Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, nr 3/2010, p. 109-138.26The Romanian legislator defines the parental authority notion in art. 483 paragraph 1 of the new Civil Code as theensemble of rights and obligations regarding the childs person and goods and which equally belong to both of the

parents. The parental authority contains two sides:1. a personal side composed of parental rights and obligations regarding the minors person, considering thus: the rightand the obligation to guide the minor child, the right and the obligation to survey the minor child, the right to establish thechilds lodgement and to keep him or her, the right to demand the childs return from any person keeping him or her withno right, the right to consent to the childs displacement in the country or abroad, the right to have personal connectionswith the child, the right to consent to the childs adoption, the right to consent to the childs marriage, the right to surveyon the childs raising and education, the right and the obligation to represent the minor in the civil documents or to accepthis or her juridical documents, the obligation to raise the child , the obligation to support the child. For a detailed analysisof these rights and obligations, see Alin-Gheorghe Gavrilescu, Parental Rights and Obligations, Romanian Law andCompared Law, Universul Juridic Press, Bucharest, 2011, p. 53-135.2. a patrimonial side composed of parental rights and obligations regarding the minors goods, respectively: the parentsrights and obligation to administrate the minors goods, the parents right and obligation to represent the minor in the civildocuments or to accept his or her juridical documents (regarding also the patrimonial side of the parental authority). For adetailed analysis of these rights and obligations, see Alin-Gheorghe Gavrilescu, op. cit., p. 136-148.27Article 264 regulates the childs hearing, having the following content:(1) In the administrative or judicial procedures regarding him or her, the hearing of the child who has reached 10 years oldis compulsory. However, the child who has not reached 10 years old yet may be heard if the competent authorityconsiders that this is necessary for solving the cause.(2) The right to be heard supposes the childs possibility to demand and receive any information, regarding his or her age,to express his or her opinion and to be informed on the consequences it may have if respected, and also on theconsequences of any decision regarding him or her.(3) Any child may demand to be heard, according to the stipulations of paragraph (1) and (2). The rejection of the demand

by the competent authority should be motivated.(4) The opinions of the heard child will be considered in report to his or her age and maturity degree.


16/16



56

(5) The special legal stipulations regarding the childs consent or presence, in the procedures regarding him or her, andalso the stipulations referring to the assignment by the court of a representative in case of an interest conflict are stillapplicable.28In the system of the Belgian Civil Code, as an application of the principle of the common exertion of the parental

authority when the parents do not live together, the court my settle the childs alternative accommodation at them (art. 374of the Belgian Civil Code).29Flavius-Antoniu Baias, Divorce Effects regarding the Reports between the Parents and their Minor Children in the NewCivil Code. Comment on Articles, Coordinators: Flavius-Antoniu Baias, Eugen Chelaru, Rodica Constantinovici, IoanMacovei, C.H. Beck Press, Bucharest, 2012, p. 522.30Craiova Court of Justice, Civil Sentence no. 15352 from 20. 10. 2011 on www.portal.just.ro, accessed on 22. 03 201331Court of Justice of Sector 3 Bucharest, Civil Sentence no. 5000 from 22. 03. 2012, on www.portal.just.ro, accessed on22. 03. 2013.32Mehedini Court of Justice, Civil Decision no. 111 from 19. 10. 2012, on www.portal.just.ro, accessed on 22. 03. 2013.33Meaning that the presumption stipulated by art. 503 paragraph 2 of the new Civil Code is absolute whereas this textdoes not stipulate the possibility to remove it by administrating the contrary evidence, see Teodor Bodoac, AureliaDrghici, Ioan Puie, Family Law. University Course, Universul Juridic Press, Bucharest, 2011, p. 512.34Emese Florian, Family Law in the Regulation of the New Civil Code, the 4 thEdition, C. H. Beck Press, Bucharest,

2011, p. 302.35P. Courbe, op. cit., p. 446.36Cristina Irimia, Parental Authority in the New Civil Code. Comment on Articles, op. cit., p. 522.37Alexandru Bacaci, Viorica-Claudia Dumitrache, Cristina Codrua Hageanu, Family Law in the Regulation of the NewCivil Code, the 7thEdition, C.H. Beck Press, Bucharest, 2012, p. 330.38Published in Romanian Official Gazette, part I , no 257 from April 17th, 2007.39Craiova Court of Justice, civil decision no. 8 from January 19th, 2007 on the portal.just.ro.40Adopted in Rome, on November 4th, 1950 the Convention was amended by the Protocol no. 3 validated on September21st, 1970, Protocol no. 5 validated on December 20th, 1971 and Protocol no. 8 validated on January 1st, 1990 andcompleted by Protocol no. 2 and Protocol no. 11 validated on November 1 st, 1998. Romania ratified the Convention byLaw no. 30/1994 published in Romanian Official Gazette no. 135 from May 31st, 1994.41Timioara Court of Justice, dec. no. 1531/2006; C. A. Bucharest, Civil Section III for minor and family causes, civildecision no. 110/2010 on the portal.just.ro; Mehedini Court of Justice, Civil Decision no. 111 from 19. 10. 2012, on

www.portal.just.ro, accessed on 22. 03. 2013.42Bordeaux, October 3rd, 2006, Juris-Data, no315794 quoted by A. Gouttenoire, L. Brunet,Droits de enfant, RecueilDalloz, nr. 31/2007, p. 2195.43Fourchon c France, September 28th, 2005; Bove c Italy, June 30th, 2005; Reigado Ramos c Portugal, November 22nd,2005, F. Sudre (dir.)Les grands arrts de la Cour europenne des droits de homme, 4ed. PUF, 2007, Comm. no 50.This CEDO jurisprudence is also illustrated by the decisionLafargue c Romaniafrom July 13th, 2006, as the Romanianauthorities are sentenced whereas the Court considered that they omitted to manifest the efforts adequate and sufficient forgranting to the plaintiff the right to visit and to live together with the child by the mother who refused to execute a judicialdecision in this sense for several years.44Bucharest Court of Justice, Civil Section. dec. no. 560/1994 in Collection of Civil Judicial Practice, Bucharest Court of

Justice, 1993-1998 (Dan Lupacu, Octavia Spineanu Matei, Mihaela Tbrc, Adriana Roua Pop, Rodica Susanu), AllBeck Press, Bucharest, 1999, p. 115-116; Supreme Court, Civil Section. dec. no. 1884/1979, in CD 1979, p. 167-168.45Craiova Court of Justice, Civil Section I for minor and family causes, dec. no. 139 from February 9 th, 2009 in Bulletinof Courts of Justice, no. 2/2009, p. 37-38.46In this sense, there are also the stipulations of art. 4 point 3 of the Convention on the Personal Relationships regardingthe Children.47Tecuci Court of Justice, Civil Section no. 519 from February 23rd, 2010 on the portal. just.ro.48Piteti Court of Justice, civil decision no. 2121/2004 on the portal.just.ro.49T. M. Bucharest, Civil Section III., dec. no. 96/1990, in Collection of Civil Judicial Practice for 1990, Bucharest

Municipality Court of Justice, by Ioan Mihu, ansa S.R.L. Publishing House, 1992, p. 33.50For a detailed analysis, see Alin-Gheorghe Gavrilescu, Theoretical and Judicial Practice Aspects regarding the SupportObligation between the Parents and the Child in the Regulation of Family Code of the new Civil Code, Annals ofConstantin Brncui University of Tg-Jiu, juridical Sciences Series, no 3/2010, p. 109-138.

Divortul Ncc (Locuinta Copilului...)

Documents

Transcript of Divortul Ncc (Locuinta Copilului...)