Cojocaru / Tankulevici / AGEPI, file 3ra-1136/21, 15 December 2021

Expediente y fuentes

Nombre

Cojocaru / Tankulevici / AGEPI, file 3ra-1136/21, 15 December 2021

Cita

Dosarul nr. 3ra-1136/21

Tribunal

Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of Moldova, expanded Civil, Commercial and Administrative Litigation Panel

Instancia

última instancia

Fechas

filing cojocaru

2019-04-04

first instance

2020-10-27

Recurso

2021-06-15

supreme court

2021-12-15

Decisión

2021-12-15

Estado

resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada

Resultado

Cassation admitted; the 15 June 2021 appellate judgment vacated in full; case remanded to a different Chișinău Court of Appeal panel. The CSJ decision was not subject to further appeal.

Resumen

No. The lower courts' conclusions were premature. A representative's self-declaration that the deposited object was original did not attest the truth of the submitted documents, and the courts had not examined decisive signatures, powers, pleadings and evidence.

Antecedentes

Certificate AP 5776/2017 for Tucano Design recorded Ruslan Cojocaru as applicant, author and economic rightholder for 55 colour images. Cojocaru said the filing and authorship entry were made without his instruction. Designer Andrei Tankulevici claimed creation during employment and separately sought registration of 80 works as Этно Мотивы; AGEPI refusal no. 1799/2019 cited the prior entry and pending dispute.

Historia procesal

The Chișinău District Court rejected the connected challenges on 27 October 2020 and the Chișinău Court of Appeal affirmed on 15 June 2021. Tankulevici sought cassation. The CSJ reviewed whether the lower courts had examined the application, powers, signatures, competing authorship positions and third-party requests.

Cuestión jurídica

Could the lower judgments sustain the registration/refusal without determining who filed and signed the application and deposited sheets, the scope of authority, the actual relief sought and the competing authorship evidence?

Criterio

No. The lower courts' conclusions were premature. A representative's self-declaration that the deposited object was original did not attest the truth of the submitted documents, and the courts had not examined decisive signatures, powers, pleadings and evidence.

Fundamento decisivo

A copyright register file and declaration do not carry predetermined or conclusive probative force where authority, signatures and actual authorship are contested; courts must examine the complete evidentiary record and give reasoned answers to decisive claims.

Límites

The CSJ did not determine who authored the designs, did not finally validate or cancel AP 5776, did not order registration of application 1172/2019, applied the former statute and did not address AI. It is an evidentiary/procedural remand, not a substantive copyright grant.

Relevancia

administrativo

Referencias relacionadas

Peso del precedente

A registry application and self-declaration of originality did not by themselves establish authenticity or actual authorship. Courts must evaluate powers, signatures, creation claims and the whole evidence. The Supreme Court vacated the appeal judgment and remanded; it did not resolve who authored the works or validate/cancel the certificate on the merits. Integración/votación: Expanded five-judge civil/commercial/administrative panel; all five judges are named, with no numerical vote or separate dissent published.

Fuente

Referencia

Cojocaru / Tankulevici / AGEPI, file 3ra-1136/21, 15 December 2021

Enlace

Consultar fuente

Autoridad

Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of Moldova, expanded Civil, Commercial and Administrative Litigation Panel

Tipo

individual national judicial review of copyright registry evidence; non-AI and prior statute

Tipo de evidencia

primary_full_text

Localizador

pp. 1-4 (facts and claims), 16-20 (analysis and disposition); declaration at p. 17; disposition at p. 20

Verificación documentada

Sí