Articles and publications

Divorce Judgement

JUDGMENT
IN THE NAME OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

March XX, 2009 Moscow city

Justice of the Peace of court district No. XXX of Sokolniki District of Moscow city Ms. XXXXXXXXXXXX, temporary acting as the Justice of the Peace of court district No. XXX of Preobrazhensky District of Moscow, with Clerk to justices Ms. XXXXXXXXXXXX,

Having considered in open court session the civil case based on the suit of Mr. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX against Ms. XXXXXXXXXXXXX claiming marriage dissolution,

HAS ESTABLISHED:

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX applied to the court with a suit against XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX claiming dissolution of marriage. Substantiating the declared claim he stated that has been married to the defendant since August XX, 20XX. They have no children in the wedlock. Cohabitation with the defendant has failed. Marital relations between the parties were stopped more than six months ago, they do not have common household. Further cohabitation of retaining of the family is impossible. The parties have no disputes as regards separation of common property. On the ground of the above stated the plaintiff asks to dissolve the marriage between him and the defendant, specifying that the defendant is avoiding the marriage dissolution by Civil Records Authorities.

The plaintiff’s representative, attorney at law Ms. K.M. Krasnova supported the plaintiff’s claims in full.

Defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXX failed to appear before the court, according to the report of Mr. XXXXXXXXXXXX District Police Officer of DIA Preobrazhenskoye District Ms. XXXXXXXXXXXX does not reside at the address: XX Bolshaya XXXXXXXXXX St., Apt. XX, Moscow, the apartment has been leased, so the place of her residence is unknown, which means that pursuant to Art. 119 of RF CPC the Justice of Peace believes it possible to commence the consideration of this civil case absente reo.
The court having read the suit, having examined the case papers, and having assessed the weight of evidence believes that ... Read More »

RULING

On April XX, 20XX the XXXXXXXXXXXXX District Court of Saint Petersburg in the composition of chairperson judge Ms. XXXXXXXXXX
With participation of attorneys at law Ms. XXXXXXXXXXX, Ms. Karina Krasnova, Clerk to the justices Ms. XXXXXXXXXXXXXX,

Having considered in open court session the civil case based on the suit of Mr. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX against XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX claiming determination of the procedure for meeting with the child,

HAS ESTABLISHED:

The parties have been officially married since January XX, 19XX, in the wedlock they have daughter XXXXXXX born on May XX, 19XX.

The plaintiff applied to the court with the suit claiming dissolution of marriage, he agrees to the child’s place of residence to be the place of residence of her mother, to the size of alimony and procedure for child’s support, agrees to divide the jointly acquired property, and to define the procedure for meeting with the child.

In the course of proceedings it has been established that the parties to the case being citizens of Russia, are permanently residing in the USA, they do not object to the fact that in case of marriage dissolution the child’s place of residence shall be the place of residence of her mother.

The plaintiff asks to lay the defendant under the obligation not to put obstacles to his communication with the daughter, to establish the procedure for his participation in the child’s upbringing. In support of his claims he states that since the separation the defendant is putting the child against him, during joint meetings the defendant starts to clear up their personal relations involving their daughter into discussion of those matters, which has adverse effect on the teenager’s mind. He asks to establish the procedure for his meeting with the daughter, according to which he will be able to communicate with his daughter twice a month without her mother at the place of his residence from Friday evening till Sunday morning, and to spend his... Read More »

RULING

On April XX, 20XX the XXXXXXXXXXXXXX District Court of Saint-Petersburg in the composition of chairperson judge Ms.XXXXXXXXXXXX
With participation of attorneys at law Ms. XXXXXXXX, Ms. Karina Krasnova, Clerk to the justices Ms. XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Having considered in open court session the civil case based on the suit of Mr. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX against XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX claiming recovery of child support,

HAS ESTABLISHED:

The parties have been officially married since January XX, 19XX, in the wedlock they have daughter XXXXXXXXXXX born on May XX, 19XX.

The plaintiff applied to the court with the suit claiming dissolution of marriage, he agrees to the child’s place of residence to be the place of residence of her mother, to the size of alimony and procedure for child’s support, agrees to divide the jointly acquired property, and to define the procedure for meeting with the child.

In the course of proceedings it has been established that the parties to the case being citizens of Russia, are permanently residing in the USA, they do not object to the fact that in case of marriage dissolution the child’s place of residence shall be the place of residence of her mother.

The plaintiff asks to recover from him child support in favor of the defendant for support of his daughter born on May XX, 19XX at the rate of 1/4 of all his earnings or other income on monthly basis, except for the months when the child will be residing with him. In addition, he thinks it necessary to deliver a judgement on transfer of 50% of alimony to the account opened in favor of his daughter.

The defendant has no claims of her own as regards recovery of child support for her daughter. She asks to terminate the proceeding in case concerning this issue, stating that the claims made by the plaintiff are the claims made against himself, they are not based on the provisions of effective procedural legislation. She does not contest the fact that the child is permanent... Read More »

SENTENZA In nome della Federazione Russa

il giudice di pace del reparto giudiziario N. 3 del distretto Lomonossovski di Arkanghelsk ХХХХХХХХХХ
con la segretaria ХХХХХХХХХХХХХ

dopo aver esaminato nella pubblica seduta del tribunale la causa civile sul ricorso di ХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХ verso ХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХ di scioglimento del matrimonio,

HA DECISO:

Il ricorrente si è rivolto al tribunale con il ricorso verso il citato di scioglimento del matrimonio. Le sue esigenze sono motivate del fatto che in data ХХ settembre ХХХХ il ricorrente (ХХХХХХХХХХХ) ha contratto matrimonio con ХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХ, cittadino d’Italia. Il matrimonio è stato registrato dall’ufficio dello stato civile N.1 del Municipio di Genova, Italia, di cui è rilasciato il certificato. Il certificato di matrimonio è legalizzato nell’ordine stabilito e in conformità alle esigenze della Convenzione d’Aia del 05 ottobre 1961 e munito con la postilla. Dal matrimonio non sono nati bambini, non è acquistato il patrimonio comune. La vita di famiglia con il citato non andava bene. Fra alcuni mesi dopo la registrazione del matrimonio il ricorrente iniziò a vivere separatamente dal citato, e da quel momento loro vivono separati e non mantengono niente rapporto. Il citato è d’accordo con lo scioglimento del matrimonio, però evita dalla procedura di scioglimento del matrimonio presso l’ufficio dello stato civile. Dopo aver ricevuto da ХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХ la notificazione sul fatto di presentazione del ricorso nel tribunale, lui ha confermato il suo consenso autenticato dal notaio allo scioglimento del matrimonio. La legislazione russa ammette la possibilità indiscutibile per scioglimento del matrimonio presso il tribunale della Federazione Russa. Il citato chiede di sciogliere il matrimonio in sua contumacia.
Il citato non è comparso nella pubblica seduta del tribunale. Dalla parte... Read More »

BESLISSING BIJ VERSTEK Namens de Russische Federatie

De stad van Kazan ХХ juli 20ХХ

Vrederechter van de gerechtelijke sectie nummer 5 van ХХХХХХХХХХХХ district te Kazan ХХХХХХХХХ bij secretaris ХХХХХХХХХХ, heeft op de openbare rechtzitting na nader onderzoek van de burgerlijke zaak van ХХХХХХХХХХХХХХ tegen ХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХ betreffende echtscheiding,

vastgesteld:

De heer ХХХХХХХХХХХ (hierna: “eiser”) heeft het verzoekschrift tot echtscheiding van mevrouw ХХХХХХХХХХХХ (hierna: “verweerder”) bij de rechtbank ingediend. Ter ondersteuning van zijn verzoek de eiser wijst erop dat het huwelijk met de verweerder die duurt sinds ХХ februari 19ХХ is duurzaam ontwricht. Uit dit huwelijk zijn er geen kinderen geboren. Echtelijke relaties zijn beëindigd. Er bestaat geen geschil over de boedel. Het behoud van het gezien lijkt onmogelijk te zijn. Gelet op het feit dat de verweerder ontwijkt van ontbinding van het huwelijk bij het bureau van de burgerlijke stand, verzoekt de eiser het Hof om nietigverklaring van het huwelijk met de verweerder.
Eiser is niet bij de rechtbank verschenen. Hij vraagd om behandeling van de zaak in zijn afwezigheid (blz. 16). In overeenstemming met paragraaf 5, artikel 167 van het Burgerlijke Procesrecht van de Russische Federatie de partijen mogen de rechbank vragen om behandeling van de zaak in hun afwezigheid en verzending van de kopie van de beslissing van de rechter. De zaak is beoordeeld in afwezigheid van de eiser.

De verweerder is bij de rechtbank niet verschenen en aanwezigheid van haar vertegenwoordiger niet voorzien. De verweerder was over het tijd en de plaats van de rechtzitting behoorlijk opgeroepen (blz. 18), informatie over de redenen van haar afwezigheid bij de rechtbank heeft zij niet voorgelegd en behandeling van de zaak in haar afwezigheid niet aangevraagd. De zaak is met de toestemming van de eiser behandeld in afwezigheid van de verweerder volgens de procedure... Read More »