Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Address:
28 A. Lpuneanu str.
Secretary General
MD 2004, Chiinu
Press Service
Email: secretariat@constcourt.md
presa@constcourt.md
Press release
the activity of the Constitutional Court, in other words, a violation of the principle of its independence, and it is contrary to the
principles of irremovability and independence of its judges [Articles 134, para. (2) and 137 of the Constitution].
The Court also held that the repealed provisions of the Articles 25 1 of the Law and 71 of the Code have established a new
competence of the Court suspension of the challenged acts, in order to avoid damages and other imminent negative
Address:
28 A. Lpuneanu str.
Secretary General
MD 2004, Chiinu
Press Service
Email: secretariat@constcourt.md
presa@constcourt.md
In light of the above, the removal from office of the Constitutional Court judges by the Parliament is an inadmissible interference in
Press release
consequences; competence which is circumscribed, obviously, in the constitutional framework enshrined by Article 135, let. a) of
the Constitution.
The repealing of this provision had the meaning to exclude the direct reference in the legal norms to the constitutionality of the
individual acts issued by Parliament, President and Government.
The Court held that the provisions of the Article 135 of the Constitution do not establish any difference between decisions that may
be subject to its control, in terms of the field in which they were adopted or under the normative or individual character, which
means that all these decisions are susceptible of being subject to constitutional review.
Establishing the competence for exercising such a constitutional review represents the expression of diversifying and
strengthening the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court, the sole authority of constitutional jurisdiction of the Republic of Moldova,
and an accomplishment in the efforts of achieving a rule of law and democratic state, and of ensuring the separation and balance
of powers in the state.
The Court held that the meaning of the rule enshrined in Article 72, para. (3), lett. c) of the Constitution, of regulating the
organization and functioning of the Constitutional Court, is to allow the legislator to increase and expand the functionality and
mechanisms of the Constitutional Court.
Therefore, the provisions of the Constitution do not allow the legislator to limit, eliminate or reduce the powers conferred to the
Constitutional Court, since that would be equal with depleting its content, respectively with giving up to the purpose of improving
the constitutional democracy, sought by the constituent legislator himself in establishing the competence of constitutional review,
which is absolutely unacceptable.
The Court reiterated that any legal norm or legislative amendment, adopted under Article 72, para. (3), lett. c) of the
Constitution, which would result in blocking, in any form, the functionality of the Court is deemed unconstitutional ab
initio. Therefore, no change can be made to the powers of the Constitutional Court under Article 72 para. (3), lett. c) of the
Constitution if it would result in suppressing one of these competences, in any circumstances and by violating the
fundamental norms.
In this regard, even if the competence on suspending the action of the challenged acts within the constitutional review has been
granted to the Constitutional Court by its organic law, it has obtained constitutional feature under the provisions of the Article 135,
lett. a) of the Constitution.
Address:
28 A. Lpuneanu str.
Secretary General
MD 2004, Chiinu
Press Service
Email: secretariat@constcourt.md
presa@constcourt.md
Press release
Removal of the Constitutional Court competence regarding the suspension of the action of the challenged acts, including those
relating to human rights and fundamental freedoms, under constitutional review is unconstitutional. That is because protection of
freedom and human dignity, against any form of abuse committed by public authorities, represents one of the main principles of
the rule of law state.
Moreover, regarding the establishment of more limited periods of time for examining the applications, the Court held that the
effectiveness of the Courts action, exercised according to the competence enshrined under Article 135 of the Constitution, as in
the case of any litigations or lawsuits, is inseparable from respecting certain reasonable terms. Otherwise, the constitutional
jurisdiction might become an illusory one.
The reasonableness of the terms is determined by several factors: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the court, the parties'
behaviour, the attitude of other authorities concerned.
In this context, the Court noted that para. (6) of the Articles 25 1 of the Law and 71 of the Code lay out that, in case of suspending
the action of the challenged normative act, the Constitutional Court will examine, on the merits, the application within a reasonable
time, which shall not exceed 15 days from registration. If necessary, the Constitutional Court may decide, in a reasoned manner, to
extend the term of 15 days for at most another 15 days.
Therefore, although enshrines the notion of reasonable time, the same rule indicates that this term refers to a maximum of 15
days. In this regard, the rule establishes a legal nonsense, showing a deficient and imprecise wording.
The Court held that these norms might jeopardize the activity of the Constitutional Court, especially given that Parliament has not
provided the necessary resources to support the activity of the Constitutional Court in this regard and their enforcement was made
without consulting the Court and the society or any relevant national and international institution.
The Court held, as a principle, that setting the time limits for examination and for procedures of the Constitutional Court, by laws
issued by the Parliament, is contrary to the principle of independence of the Court. In the practice of other states, normality
consists in statutory autonomy of the Court, which has the right to approve its own rules of procedure. Similarly, the European
Address:
28 A. Lpuneanu str.
Secretary General
MD 2004, Chiinu
Press Service
Email: secretariat@constcourt.md
presa@constcourt.md
Press release
Starting from the reasoning invoked above, the Constitutional Court declared admissible the application and declared
unconstitutional the Law No. 109 of 3 May 2013 on changing and amending certain legislative acts.
Furthermore, the Court declared unconstitutional the provisions regarding the establishment of certain reduced time limits for
Address:
28 A. Lpuneanu str.
Secretary General
MD 2004, Chiinu
Press Service
Email: secretariat@constcourt.md
presa@constcourt.md