Moldavia / Casos nacionales
CSJ Plenary Decision no. 1 of 25 April 2016, modified by no. 36 of 4 December 2017
Casos nacionales. La inclusión en esta ficha no convierte una referencia extranjera en una decisión nacional. Se conserva el estado y el alcance de la fuente.
Expediente y fuentes
- Nombre
- CSJ Plenary Decision no. 1 of 25 April 2016, modified by no. 36 of 4 December 2017
- Cita
- Hotărârea Plenului CSJ nr. 1/2016, modificată prin nr. 36/2017
- Tribunal
- Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of Moldova
- Instancia
- última instancia
- Fechas
- Decisión
- 2016-04-25
- modification
- 2017-12-04
- Estado
- resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada
- Resultado
- Nationwide interpretive guidance issued and later amended; no individual relief or merits disposition.
- Resumen
- Author means a natural person; protection concerns objectively expressed original intellectual creation without registration; components may qualify separately; technical, material or auxiliary help is not creative contribution. Untransposed EU acts are non-binding and CJEU case law may be used as recommendation.
- Antecedentes
- Institutional interpretive guidance for courts applying repealed Law 139/2010; it has no adversarial parties or case-specific facts. It surveys general copyright principles, protected objects, originality, coauthorship and evidence.
- Historia procesal
- Adopted by the CSJ Plenary on 25 April 2016 and expressly amended on 4 December 2017. It is not an individual judgment and predates Law 230/2022.
- Cuestión jurídica
- How Moldovan courts should identify authors, original works and creative contributions under the former copyright statute, and what weight to give untransposed EU law and CJEU case law.
- Criterio
- Author means a natural person; protection concerns objectively expressed original intellectual creation without registration; components may qualify separately; technical, material or auxiliary help is not creative contribution. Untransposed EU acts are non-binding and CJEU case law may be used as recommendation.
- Fundamento decisivo
- Only a natural person's intellectual contribution expressed in the claimed form can ground authorship; formal registration, quality, novelty or technical assistance cannot substitute for originality.
- Límites
- It interprets repealed Law 139/2010, is not a GenAI ruling and is used here only where its propositions are textually compatible with Law 230/2022. Its references to CJEU authorities remain persuasive/recommendatory in Moldova rather than national holdings.
- Relevancia
- administrativo
- Referencias relacionadas
- Peso del precedente
- Author is a natural person; copyright protects original expression without registration; originality reflects intellectual effort/personality; components may qualify separately; technical, material or auxiliary help is not creative contribution. The plenary decision also labels CJEU case law recommendatory for Moldovan courts rather than binding as such. Integración/votación: Institutional plenary guidance; the published text does not disclose a numerical vote or separate dissent.
- Fuente
- Referencia
- CSJ Plenary Decision no. 1 of 25 April 2016, modified by no. 36 of 4 December 2017
- Enlace
- Consultar fuente
- Autoridad
- Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of Moldova
- Tipo
- national judicial guidance under repealed Law 139/2010, retained only where textually consistent with Law 230/2022
- Tipo de evidencia
- primary_full_text
- Localizador
- paras. 2-3 and 52-56; official PDF pp. 3-4 and 20-22
- Verificación documentada
- Sí