Anunţă-mă când se modifică Fişă act Comentarii (0) Trimite unui prieten Tipareste act

DECIZIE Nr

DECIZIE   Nr. 546 din  4 decembrie 1997

referitoare la exceptia de neconstitutionalitate a dispozitiilor art. 149 alin. 3 si ale art. 300 alin. 3 din Codul de procedura penala

ACT EMIS DE: CURTEA CONSTITUTIONALA

ACT PUBLICAT IN: MONITORUL OFICIAL  NR. 98 din  2 martie 1998


SmartCity3


    Ioan Muraru            - presedinte
    Mihai Constantinescu   - judecator
    Nicolae Popa           - judecator
    Lucian Stangu          - judecator
    Florin Bucur Vasilescu - judecator
    Victor Dan Zlatescu    - judecator
    Ioan Griga             - procuror
    Doina Suliman          - magistrat-asistent

    Pe rol, pronuntarea asupra exceptiei de neconstitutionalitate a dispozitiilor art. 149 alin. 3 si ale art. 300 alin. 3 din Codul de procedura penala, invocata din oficiu de Tribunalul Militar Bucuresti in Dosarul nr. 142/1997.
    Dezbaterile au avut loc in sedinta publica din data de 27 noiembrie 1997 si au fost consemnate in incheierea din aceeasi data, cand, avand nevoie de timp pentru a delibera, Curtea a amanat pronuntarea pentru data de 4 decembrie 1997.

    CURTEA,
avand in vedere actele si lucrarile dosarului, constata urmatoarele:
    Prin Incheierea din 5 iunie 1997, pronuntata in Dosarul nr. 142/1997, privind pe inculpatii Pascale Nicusor si Dobrin Laurentiu, Curtea Constitutionala a fost sesizata cu solutionarea exceptiei de neconstitutionalitate a art. 149 alin. 3 si a art. 300 alin. 3 din Codul de procedura penala, invocata din oficiu de catre Tribunalul Militar Bucuresti.
    Instanta a pus in discutie constitutionalitatea dispozitiilor legale mentionate in raport cu prevederile art. 23 alin. (4) din Constitutie.
    Cu privire la dispozitiile art. 149 alin. 3 din Codul de procedura penala, instanta afirma ca acestea sunt interpretate in practica in doua sensuri diferite. Unul este acela dat si de Curtea Constitutionala prin Decizia nr. 60 din 25 mai 1994, definitiva prin Decizia nr. 20 din 15 februarie 1995, anume ca textul in discutie este constitutional cand este interpretat in sensul ca masura arestarii preventive poate fi luata si in cursul judecatii, dar devine neconstitutional, daca este interpretat in sensul ca masura astfel luata ar putea depasi durata de 30 de zile stabilita la art. 23 alin. (4) din Constitutie. In acelasi sens este mentionata si Decizia Curtii nr. 1 din 9 ianuarie 1996, definitiva prin nerecurare, prin care s-a decis ca hotararea instantei, luata in urma verificarii din oficiu, la prima infatisare si inainte de expirarea mandatului emis de procuror, a regularitatii arestarii preventive, de a mentine aceasta masura, echivaleaza cu luarea masurii arestarii preventive in cursul judecatii, masura care nu poate depasi, nici ea, durata de 30 de zile.
    Intr-o alta interpretare, care, in opinia instantei, este dominanta in practica judiciara, o data sesizata instanta, inauntrul duratei mandatului de arestare emis de procuror sau al ultimei prelungiri dispuse de instanta in faza de urmarire penala, arestarea se prelungeste de drept pana la solutionarea cauzei, fara sa fie nevoie de o "statuare explicita in acest sens a instantei, desigur cu observarea prevederilor art. 300 alin. 3 din Codul de procedura penala". Se arata ca deciziile Curtii Constitutionale in materie sunt lamuritoare in privinta posibilitatii luarii masurii arestarii preventive si de catre instanta judecatoreasca. In practica insa masura arestarii se ia, de regula, in faza de urmarire penala, iar sesizarea instantei se face inainte de expirarea mandatului emis de procuror sau a ultimei prelungiri acordate de instanta in faza de urmarire penala.
    Instanta mai arata ca invocarea dispozitiilor art. 300 alin. 3 din Codul de procedura penala nu este acoperitoare, deoarece Constitutia stabileste, prin dispozitiile art. 23 alin. (4), ca masura arestarii se poate lua numai prin mandat emis de magistrat, cu o durata de cel mult 30 de zile. Or, verificarea din oficiu, facuta de instanta cu privire la regularitatea luarii masurii arestarii si a mentinerii acesteia, nu poate inlocui mandatul cerut imperativ de dispozitiile constitutionale mentionate. Este de principiu, precizeaza instanta, ca masura arestarii poate fi luata o singura data.
    In consecinta, Curtea Constitutionala ar urma sa se pronunte inca o data asupra constitutionalitatii dispozitiilor art. 149 alin. 3 din Codul de procedura penala, in sensul precizarii daca instanta are obligatia constitutionala de a dispune prelungirea duratei arestarii preventive, cand masura a fost luata de procuror, iar instanta este sesizata inainte de expirarea duratei mandatului sau a prelungirii duratei arestarii in conditiile art. 155 si urmatoarele din Codul de procedura penala.
    Cu privire la neconstitutionalitatea dispozitiilor art. 300 alin. 3 din Codul de procedura penala, instanta arata ca, spre deosebire de situatia in care masura arestarii a fost dispusa de procuror si pentru care dispozitiile art. 155 si urmatoarele din Codul de procedura penala prevad procedura prelungirii, legea nu prevede procedura prelungirii duratei arestarii in faza de judecata, astfel incat s-ar impune aplicarea, prin analogie, a procedurii prelungirii arestarii din faza de urmarire penala. Avand in vedere insa dispozitiile art. 23 alin. (4) din Constitutie, care consacra, in materia arestarii preventive, institutiile "mandatului" si "prelungirii", se ridica problema constitutionalitatii art. 300 alin. 3 din Codul de procedura penala, teza finala, care se refera la "mentinerea" acestei masuri.
    In opinia instantei, necesitatea verificarii constitutionalitatii deriva si din alte considerente, cum ar fi acela ca "mentinerea" starii de arest, asa cum este prevazuta in prezent, nu este supusa unei durate, functionand sine die, sau faptul ca, in marea majoritate a cazurilor, primul termen de judecata, cand instanta efectueaza operatiunile prevazute la art. 300 din Codul de procedura penala, se situeaza dupa expirarea duratei arestarii preventive (a mandatului sau a prelungirii), asa incat, nemaiexistand nici o continuitate a acestei masuri, verificarea regularitatii luarii si mentinerii masurii arestarii nu mai poate echivala cu luarea acesteia de catre instanta.
    In scopul solutionarii cauzei, potrivit prevederilor art. 24 alin. (1) din Legea nr. 47/1992, republicata, s-au solicitat puncte de vedere presedintilor celor doua Camere ale Parlamentului si Guvernului.
    In punctul de vedere al Guvernului se apreciaza ca exceptia de neconstitutionalitate este intemeiata, deoarece dispozitiile art. 149 alin. 3 si ale art. 300 alin. 3 din Codul de procedura penala contravin prevederilor art. 23 alin. (4) din Constitutie, care prevad ca arestarea se dispune de magistrat, pe o durata de cel mult 30 de zile, iar prelungirea arestarii se aproba numai de instanta de judecata. Prevederile Constitutiei statueaza ca arestarea, indiferent cand se produce, in faza urmaririi penale sau in cursul judecarii cauzei, poate dura cel mult 30 de zile. Rezulta ca, si in cazul in care arestarea inculpatului s-a dispus in faza judecatii, ea nu poate sa dureze pana la solutionarea definitiva a cauzei, intrucat masura luata de instanta nu poate fi exclusa de la respectarea regulilor instituite prin dispozitiile art. 23 alin. (4) din Constitutie.
    In acest sens se face trimitere la deciziile Curtii Constitutionale nr. 60/1994, nr. 20/1995, nr. 92/1995 si nr. 1/1996, in care s-a precizat ca dispozitiile art. 149 alin. 3 din Codul de procedura penala nu trebuie interpretate izolat, ci numai in corelatie cu prevederile art. 23 alin. (4) din Constitutie. Or, textul nu distinge intre fazele procesului penal si, de aceea, a interpreta acest text, in sensul ca el s-ar aplica numai in faza urmaririi penale, ar insemna sa se limiteze campul sau de aplicabilitate, ceea ce este inadmisibil.
    Cu privire la art. 300 alin. 3 din Codul de procedura penala, Curtea Constitutionala nu s-a pronuntat inca, in mod explicit, daca dispozitiile acestui articol sunt sau nu constitutionale, insa, in considerentele Deciziei nr. 1/1996, Curtea a aratat ca existenta prevederilor art. 300 alin. 3 nu are nici o relevanta in ceea ce priveste dispozitiile art. 149 alin. 3 din Codul de procedura penala, deoarece "mentinerea starii de arest este echivalenta, sub aspectul garantiilor constitutionale ale libertatii individuale, cu luarea acestei masuri in cursul judecatii".
    Guvernul arata ca, din punctul sau de vedere, este in afara de orice discutie ca arestarea inculpatului nu poate functiona in afara regulilor constitutionale, adica fara sa fie supusa duratei de 30 de zile, iar daca subzista motivele arestarii dupa expirarea acestui termen, instanta urmeaza sa prelungeasca durata arestarii, dar de fiecare data pana la cel mult 30 de zile. Aceasta obligatie o au instantele de judecata in toate cazurile in care s-a dispus masura arestarii de catre procuror in cursul urmaririi penale sau de judecatori in cursul judecarii procesului. Intrucat prevederile art. 23 alin. (4) din Constitutie nu fac nici o distinctie intre arestarea dispusa in cursul urmaririi penale si aceea dispusa in cursul judecatii si nici in ceea ce priveste prelungirea duratei acestei masuri preventive, prelungirea masurii fiind necesara in ambele faze ale procesului, rezulta ca dispozitiile art. 149 alin. 3 si ale art. 300 alin. 3 din Codul de procedura penala, care prevad primul text in mod explicit, iar al doilea, in mod implicit, ca "Arestarea inculpatului in cursul judecatii dureaza pana la solutionarea definitiva a cauzei", contravin prevederilor constitutionale.
    Actuala reglementare din Codul de procedura penala este criticabila si pe considerentul ca, in mod cu totul nejustificat, aceasta instituie o procedura diferita in materia prelungirii arestarii, dupa cum dosarul se afla in faza de urmarire penala, cand prelungirea masurii preventive din 30 in 30 de zile este obligatorie, sau in cursul judecatii, cand arestarea poate fi mentinuta pana la solutionarea definitiva a cauzei, nemaifiind obligatorie prelungirea ei de catre instanta.
    In concluzie, Guvernul considera ca exceptia de neconstitutionalitate a dispozitiilor art. 149 alin. 3 si ale art. 300 alin. 3 din Codul de procedura penala este fondata, deoarece aceste dispozitii contravin prevederilor art. 23 alin. (4) din Constitutie.
    Presedintii celor doua Camere ale Parlamentului nu au comunicat punctele lor de vedere.

    CURTEA,
examinand incheierea de sesizare, punctul de vedere al Guvernului, raportul intocmit de judecatorul-raportor, concluziile procurorului, dispozitiile atacate, raportate la prevederile Constitutiei si ale Legii nr. 47/1992, republicata, constata urmatoarele:
    In temeiul art. 144 lit. c) din Constitutie si al art. 23 din Legea nr. 47/1992, republicata, Curtea este competenta sa solutioneze exceptia de neconstitutionalitate cu care a fost legal sesizata.
    In legatura cu exceptia invocata, este de mentionat ca art. 149 alin. 3 din Codul de procedura penala a mai facut obiectul controlului de constitutionalitate. Astfel, Curtea, prin Decizia nr. 60 din 25 mai 1994, ramasa definitiva prin Decizia nr. 20 din 15 februarie 1995, publicate in Monitorul Oficial al Romaniei, Partea I, nr. 57 din 28 martie 1995, a constatat ca dispozitiile art. 149 alin. 3 din Codul de procedura penala sunt neconstitutionale in masura in care se interpreteaza in sensul ca durata arestarii, dispusa de instanta in cursul judecatii, poate depasi 30 de zile, fara a fi necesara prelungirea, in conditiile art. 23 din Constitutie.
    Astfel, s-a retinut ca aceste dispozitii legale trebuie interpretate in corelatie cu prevederile art. 23 alin. (4) din Constitutie, potrivit carora durata arestarii este de cel mult 30 de zile.
    Textul din Constitutie se refera la arestare, in general, astfel ca prevederile sale trebuie respectate ori de cate ori se dispune arestarea unei persoane, masura ce afecteaza grav libertatea acesteia, indiferent daca se produce in faza de urmarire penala sau in cursul judecarii cauzei. Asa fiind, la expirarea termenului de 30 de zile, instanta are obligatia constitutionala sa verifice, din oficiu, daca se mai impune mentinerea arestarii preventive si, in caz afirmativ, sa dispuna prelungirea acesteia cu inca cel mult 30 de zile. Daca motivele arestarii subzista dupa expirarea acestui termen, instanta are posibilitatea, in aceleasi conditii prevazute la art. 23 din Constitutie, sa prelungeasca durata arestarii, dar de fiecare data pana la cel mult 30 de zile.
    Sensul deciziei sus-mentionate este acela ca arestarea preventiva, fara distinctie, dupa cum s-a facut in cursul urmaririi penale sau al judecatii, este conforma cu art. 23 alin. (4) din Constitutie, daca nu depaseste 30 de zile, si ca orice prelungire a arestarii nu se poate face decat, cum prevede aceeasi dispozitie constitutionala, pentru o durata ce nu poate depasi, de asemenea, 30 de zile.
    Pentru a se curma orice posibilitate de interpretare contrara a acestei prevederi constitutionale, Curtea constata, in mod direct, neconstitutionalitatea dispozitiilor art. 149 alin. 3 din Codul de procedura penala.
    Cat priveste exceptia de neconstitutionalitate a art. 300 alin. 3 din Codul de procedura penala, aceasta nu poate fi admisa, deoarece dispozitiile sale nu contravin prevederilor art. 23 alin. (4) din Constitutie. Dimpotriva, obligatia instantei de a verifica din oficiu, la prima infatisare, regularitatea luarii si mentinerii starii de arest a inculpatului, este in concordanta cu acele dispozitii, regularitatea masurii verificandu-se tocmai in raport cu prevederile constitutionale si cu dispozitiile din Codul de procedura penala in materie.
    Obligatia verificarii din oficiu, la prima infatisare, a regularitatii arestarii si a necesitatii mentinerii acestei masuri este o garantie legala a respectarii principiului libertatii individuale prevazut la art. 23 din Constitutie, indeosebi a prevederilor alin. (6) din acest articol, potrivit carora eliberarea celui arestat este obligatorie, daca motivele arestarii au disparut.

    Pentru considerentele expuse, in temeiul art. 144 lit. c) si al art. 145 alin. (2) din Constitutie, al art. 3, al art. 13 alin. (1) lit. A.c) si al art. 23 din Legea nr. 47/1992, republicata,

    CURTEA
    In numele legii
    DECIDE:

    Admite exceptia de neconstitutionalitate a art. 149 alin. 3 din Codul de procedura penala, invocata din oficiu de catre Tribunalul Militar Bucuresti in Dosarul nr. 142/1997 si constata ca prevederea potrivit careia "Arestarea inculpatului in cursul judecatii dureaza pana la solutionarea definitiva a cauzei" este neconstitutionala, urmand, in legatura cu durata arestarii, sa se faca aplicarea directa a art. 23 alin. (4) din Constitutie.
    Respinge exceptia de neconstitutionalitate a art. 300 alin. 3 din Codul de procedura penala, invocata, din oficiu, de catre Tribunalul Militar Bucuresti in acelasi dosar.
    Definitiva si obligatorie.
    Pronuntata in sedinta publica din 4 decembrie 1997.

             PRESEDINTELE CURTII CONSTITUTIONALE,
                prof. univ. dr. IOAN MURARU

                                     Magistrat asistent,
                                     Doina Suliman



SmartCity5

COMENTARII la Decizia 546/1997

Momentan nu exista niciun comentariu la Decizia 546 din 1997
Comentarii la alte acte
ANONIM a comentat Legea 166 2014
    HOW TO GET YOUR EX LOVER BACK & HOW I GOT MY EX LOVER BACK MY TRUE LIFE STORY HOW I GOT MY EX LOVER BACK.I  want to thank Dr Omokpo for saving my marriage. My husband  treated me badly and left home for almost 3 month this got me sick and confused. Then I told my friend about how my husband has changed towards me. Then he told me to contact: dromokpo@gmail.com that he will help me bring my husband back to being a good man.Then I gave him a try. after 3 days of casting the spell my husband came back home and i forgive him and today we are living in joy and happiness If you are going through any relationship stress or  broken marriage situation  and you want your Ex lover,  Ex boyfriend, Ex girlfriend or Divorced husband or wife you can reach him via: dromokpo@gmail.com 
ANONIM a comentat OUG 96 2021
    GET YOUR EX LOVER BACK NOW OR GET YOUR BROKEN RELATIONSHIP, MARRIAGE RESTORED. I’m just upset that I have been in pain and crying for so long and many times. Thank you dromokpo@gmail.com I wished I would have found you earlier, you would have saved me from a lot of pain for the past five years my ex lover left me for another woman in just 2 days i contacted you Dr Omokpo you brought my broken relationship back I spent a small fortune enough to take my dream trip to South Carolina but what’s the point in taking a dream trip without the love of my life. Dr Omokpo has given me hope and his honesty is a breath of fresh air, I feel so good and heavy happiness in my heart to get my ex lover back. Who I thought he was gone forever. We are married now as I share my testimony with you. If you have broken relationship or broken marriage or you want to get your ex lover back kindly contact: dromokpo@gmail.com
ANONIM a comentat Decretul 1134 2016
    My Dear friends online, My name is Annisa Agung, And I live in Illinois USA, I have to give this miraculous testimony which is so unbelievable until now. I had a problem with my Ex husband 2 years ago, which led to our break up. I was not myself again, I felt so empty inside me, my love and financial situation became worse, until a close friend of mine told me about a spell caster who helped her in the same problem too. His name is Doctor OGEDEGBE. I whatsapp the spell caster and I told him my problem and I did what he asked of me, to cut the long story short. Before I knew what was happening, less than two days ago my husband gave me a call and told me that he was coming back to me. I was so happy to have him back. The most interesting part of the story is that I am pregnant. Thanks to Doctor OGEDEGBE  for saving my marriage and for also saving others' marriage too. Continue your good work, If you are interested to contact the great spell caster email address: dr.ogedegbe6@gmail.com or contact him on whatsapp +2348109374702
ANONIM a comentat Legea 141 2018
    Aveți nevoie de un împrumut rapid și urgent cu o dobândă relativ scăzută, de până la 3%? Oferim împrumuturi pentru afaceri, împrumuturi personale, împrumuturi pentru locuințe, împrumuturi auto, împrumuturi pentru studenți, împrumuturi de consolidare a datoriilor etc. indiferent de scorul dvs. de credit. Avem garanția că oferim servicii financiare numeroșilor noștri clienți din întreaga lume. Cu pachetele noastre flexibile de creditare, împrumuturile pot fi procesate și transferate împrumutatului în cel mai scurt timp posibil, contactați-ne prin e-mail:(midland.credit2@gmail.com) și asistați la o experiență financiară care vă va schimba viața.
ANONIM a comentat Legea 243 2021
    I'm Rowe Lyndia from USA, i had a nice family; i was married for 11 years to my husband and all of a sudden, another woman came into the picture, the man that used to love me before started picking quarrels with me he was so abusive that when i try to tell him the truth about how i feel and what he is doing is not right for the family, he gets very angry and hits me with any thing he sees around him. but i still loved him with all my heart despite all he has done to me and i wanted him back at all cost. Then he filed for a divorce, my whole life was tearing apart and I didn't know what to do ...... he moved out of the house and abandoned me and the kids. So a very close friend of mine told me about trying a love spell to get my husband back. She also uses Priest Uduebor love spell to get back her divorce husband and told me they are very much happy with their relationship. So she introduced me to the spell caster, at first i was surprised and scared so i decided to give it a try reluctantly.......although i didn't believe in all those things, then when he did the special spells, i was so surprised, after four days my husband came back and was pleading for my forgiveness, he had realized his mistakes, i just couldn't believe it, anyway we are back together now and we are now one big happy family we use to be. I want to tell everyone who is looking for any solution to his or her problem, I advise you to kindly consult this spell caster, he is real, he is powerful and whatever the spell caster tells is what will happen, because all that the spell caster told me came to pass. You can kindly contact him on: his For an immediate response please contact me by. Email ifagbemileke236@gmail.com WhatsApp number (+2349030638317). He also cures all kinds of sickness and such as 1 LOVE SPELL 2 WIN EX BACK 3 FRUIT OF THE WOMB 4 PROMOTION SPELL 5 PROTECTION SPELL 6 BUSINESS SPELL 7 GOOD JOB SPELL 8 HIV AIDS 9 LOTTERY SPELL and COURT CASE SPELL. 10 CANCER 11 STROKE 12 Erectile Dysfunction
ANONIM a comentat OUG 96 2021
    Hello everyone, my name is Elisa Keily I am so overwhelmed with joy all thanks to Dr Raypower spell. my husband left me for another woman few years back and I was very devastated cause I never did anything wrong to him, I was left with my two kid and a job that pays little.i was almost giving up until I saw a testimony online about Dr Raypower and I decided to contact him.i explained my problem to him and he assured me I'll see a positive result after 24hurs, surprisingly my husband came back the day after the spell begging me to forgive him and promised to never leave. My husband has been back for 6 months now and we've never had any issues, am glad I didn't doubt Dr Raypower cause he sure can solve any problems with fast relief you can also contact him for help now Email: Urgentspellcast@gmail.com or Urgentspellcast@yahoo.com Website: https://urgentspellcast.wordpress.com/  WhatsApp: +14243308109
ANONIM a comentat OUG 96 2021
     I want to use this opportunity to thank Dr Ilekhojie who help me to win a large sum. I have been playing the lottery for the past 5 years now and i have never won. Ever since then i have not been able to win and i was so upset and i needed help to win the lottery. so i decided to go online and search for help, there i saw so many good testimony about this man called Great Dr Ilekhojie of how he have cast lucky spell lotto for people to win the lottery. I contacted him also and tell him i want to win a lottery, he cast a spell for me which i use and i play and won a large amount in dollars. I am so grateful to this man. Just in-case you also need him to help you win, you can contact him through his email: gethelp05@gmail.com and send him a direct message on +2348147400259
ANONIM a comentat OUG 96 2021
    Hello everyone, I want to let the whole world know how Dr. Wale has restored my broken relationship with Wayne. We have been together for 3 years and he told me that he doesn’t love me like he used to. Things have not been good for about 4 months and he ended this about 2 weeks ago. I was miserable and just didn't want to go on anymore. I did text him right after this but he didn’t even respond to me. One day I was searching for a way to get him back on the Internet when I saw a post of a lady testifying of how a love spell caster called Dr. Wale helped her to get back her ex, I was so desperate to get mine back so I messaged him and explained my situation to him and he instructed me to do somethings which I did and 24 hours later my boyfriend Wayne came back kneeling and begging for my forgiveness and I forgive him and our relationship was back to normal again, if your Ex broke up with you or you have any problem then you problem has come to an end because Dr. Wale can solve all marriage and relationship problems. If you need his urgent help WhatsApp/Text him: +1(978) 406-9575 or Email: everlastingspellcast@gmail.com or view his website: https://everlastingspellcaster.website2.me/contact
ANONIM a comentat Decizia 2 2007
    GET YOUR EX LOVER BACK.VIA: dromokpo@gmail.com This is my testimony of life that I will tell everyone. I have been married for 25 years Another woman had a spell to get me away from my lover, My husband left me and the children and we suffered for 2 years until I saw post about where this man Dr Omokpo has helped so many people recover their broken marriages and relationships   to get their ex lovers back. I decided to send him a message about my broken marriage and family  about how my husband left me and  for him to help me bring back my loving husband home, This great man told me what to do and I followed him as he instructed. After 48 hours, as he told me, I saw a car enter the compound. I was shocked when I saw my husband. As I share my testimony with you my husband came back to me and the kids and that's why I'm happy to put all of you to meet this man for solutions to your problem and bring your lover back to you and mend your broken marriage or your relationship restored back to happiness as you wished. Contact this great man via: dromokpo@gmail.com
ANONIM a comentat Decizia 2 2007
    GET YOUR EX LOVER BACK.VIA: dromokpo@gmail.com This is my testimony of life that I will tell everyone. I have been married for 25 years Another woman had a spell to get me away from my lover, My husband left me and the children and we suffered for 2 years until I saw post about where this man Dr Omokpo has helped so many people recover their broken marriages and relationships   to get their ex lovers back. I decided to send him a message about my broken marriage and family  about how my husband left me and  for him to help me bring back my loving husband home, This great man told me what to do and I followed him as he instructed. After 48 hours, as he told me, I saw a car enter the compound. I was shocked when I saw my husband. As I share my testimony with you my husband came back to me and the kids and that's why I'm happy to put all of you to meet this man for solutions to your problem and bring your lover back to you and mend your broken marriage or your relationship restored back to happiness as you wished. Contact this great man via: dromokpo@gmail.com
Alte acte pe aceeaşi temă cu Decizia 546/1997
Coduri postale Prefixe si Coduri postale din Romania Magazin si service calculatoare Sibiu