The Constitutional Court, acting as part of Mr. Alexandru Tanase, President, Mr. Aurel BĂIEŞU, Mr. Mr. Talal Igor DOLEA, GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION, Mr. Victor PALMER, Mr. Zadrahimi, judges, with the participation of Mr. Gagnon renita, Registrar, taking into account the appeal lodged on 27 December 2016, recorded at the same time, examining the admissibility of the referral, taking into account the laws and proceedings, Acting on 19 January 2017 in the Chamber Council the next decision, a decision: in fact 1. The origin of the case lies the plea of unconstitutionality of the phrase "in force at the time of committing the offence" in paragraph 1 of article 126. (1) and paragraphs 1 and 2. (11) of the penal code, raised by Attorney Earl Buguța in file No. 1a -936/2015, pending at the Court of appeal.
2. The plea of unconstitutionality has been lodged with the Constitutional Court on 27 December 2016 by the Panel of judges within the Chisinau Court of appeal (Ulianovschi, Xenofon Svetlana Balmuș and John Keane), pursuant to article 135 paragraph 1. (1) letter a) and g) of the Constitution, as interpreted by the decision of the Constitutional Court No. 2 of 9 February 2016, as well as the regulation on the procedure for the examination of complaints lodged with the Constitutional Court.
A. the main dispute Circumstances 3. On the role of the Court of appeal of Chisinau lies cause criminal No. 1A -936/2015 of accusation: PS committing the crime set out in article 190 paragraphs 1 and 2. (5) paragraphs 1 to 4, 332. (1) paragraphs 1 and 2, 327. (1) of the penal code; G.d. of committing offences covered by articles 190 paragraphs 1 and 2. (5) paragraph 1 and 27, 190. (5) of the penal code; B.e. committing offences referred to in articles 190 paragraphs 1 and 2. (5) and para. 361 (2) letter b) and d) of the criminal code; T.i., for committing the crime set out in article 27, paragraph 1, 190. (5) paragraphs 1 to 4, 332. (1) paragraphs 1 and 2 and 327. (1) of the penal code and of the M.V. committing the crime set out in article 27, paragraph 1, 190. (5) and para. 361 (2) letter b) and d) of the criminal code.
4. At the hearing of the Court of 7 December 2016, lawyer Elena Buguța has raised the plea of unconstitutionality of the phrase "in force at the time of committing the offence" in paragraph 1 of article 126. (1) and paragraphs 1 and 2. (11) of the penal code.
5. By the same date, the Court upheld the claim about constitutionality exception raising and ordered the Constitutional Court to referral to the transmission.
B. relevant Legislation 6. The relevant provisions of the Constitution (republished in the Official Gazette, no. 2016, 78, art. 140) are as follows: Article 16Egalitatea "[...]
(2) all citizens of the Republic of Moldova are equal before the law and public authorities, without distinction of race, nationality, ethnic origin, language, religion, sex, opinion, political affiliation, wealth or social origin. "


Article 22Neretroactivitatea of law no one may be sentenced for actions or omissions which, at the time they were committed, did not constitute an offence. It also will not apply to any punishment harsher than the one that was applicable at the time of committing the Act offense. "


Article 23Dreptul of everybody to know your rights and duties "(1) every person has the right to recognize legal personality.
(2) the State ensures the right of everybody to know their rights and duties. For this purpose the State publishes and makes accessible all laws and other regulations. "
7. The relevant provisions of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Moldova No. 985-XV of 18 April 2002 (reprinted in the Official Gazette, 2009, nr. 72-74, art. 195) are as follows: Article 5Principiul democratismului "(1) persons who have committed offences are equal before the law and are subject to criminal liability irrespective of sex, race, colour, language, religion, political opinions or any other opinions, national or social origin, membership of a national minority , wealth, birth or any other situation.
[…]”


Article 126Proporţii very large, large, considerable damage and damage to essential "(1) a large amount of stolen assets, acquired, received, produced, used, transported, stored, sold, passed across the customs border, damage inflicted on value to a person or group of persons, exceeding the monthly average wages of 20 economy forecast, set by decision of the Government in force at the time of committing the offence.
(11) it is considered very large amount of stolen assets, acquired, received, produced, used, transported, stored, sold, passed across the customs border, damage inflicted on value to a person or group of persons which exceed 40 average monthly wages per economy forecast, set by decision of the Government in force at the time of committing the offence.
[…]”
In the author's Arguments exception. neconsti-tuționalitate 8. The author argues that the exception of unconstitutionality article 126 para. (1) and (11) of the penal code, which determines the proportions of large and very large in proportion to the amount of average monthly wage, set by the Government, in effect at the time of committing the Act, establishes a discriminatory treatment.
9. In the author's opinion, the exception that the size of the average monthly wage on economy forecasted is approved every year by the Government, being the legal norm, unpredictability and generates accordingly affect the principle of retroactivităţii of the criminal law.
10. According to the author, the provisions of the contested exception violated the provisions of article 16 paragraph 1. (2) and 23 of the Constitution.
B. Assessment Of The Court 11. Examining the admissibility of the referral regarding constitutionality exception, the Court notes the following.
12. In accordance with paragraph 1 of article 135. (1) (a). a) of the Constitution, on notification constitutionality control over laws, in particular the Criminal Code of the Republic of Moldova No. 985-XV of 18 April 2002, is the responsibility of the Constitutional Court.
13. the Court finds that the appeal relating to the exception of unconstitutionality, being raised by Attorney Earl Buguța in file No. 1a -936/2015, pending the appellate court of Chișinău, is sought by the regulated subject to this law, pursuant to article 135 paragraph 1. (1) (a). a) and g) of the Constitution, as interpreted by the decision of the Constitutional Court No. 2 of 9 February 2016, as well as the regulation on the procedure for the examination of complaints lodged with the Constitutional Court.

14. the Court reiterates that the prerogative to address the exceptions of unconstitutionality, which has been vested in it by article 135 paragraph 1. (1) (a). g) of the Constitution, requires correlation of contested norms and the Constitution, taking into account the principle of the supremacy of its provisions and to address the relevance of the contested dispute in the courts.
15. A legal provision may constitute the object of the constitutional jurisdiction only where the constitutional provisions cited have impact on the contested rules, and not at all comparing provisions several laws to each other or to the provisions contained in the same law and reporting the findings resulting from this comparison to the provisions of the Constitution principles times.
16. In the present case, the Court retains the author invokes the unconstitutionality of the exception phrase "in force at the time of committing the offence" in paragraph 1 of article 126. (1) and paragraphs 1 and 2. (11) of the penal code.
17. the Court note that the author's claim that exception provisions criticized constitutional breach contained in article 16(1). (2) with respect to equality before the law, and article 23, concerning the right of everybody to know their rights and duties.
18. In its jurisprudence, the Court held that the criminalization of acts in criminal sentencing laws for them, as well as other rules, relating to the jurisdiction of Parliament and is founded on the grounds of criminal policy.
19. the Court notes that the law No. 197 of 29 July 2016 for the modification and completion of some legislative acts (in force since 7 November 2016), inter alia, the provisions of article 126 (1) of the penal code, which covers the concept of "large", were exhibited in a new editorial board. In addition, article 126 of the penal code was supplemented with paragraph 11, which defines the notion of "very large".
20. the Court shall retain that through the new regulations, the legislature dropped the concept of criminal law to determine the proportions of large and very large according to the criterion of conventional units (overcoming of 2500 conventional units for large proportions, and 5000 respectively, surpassing the conventional units for particularly large proportions), applicable until the operation concept of the amendments set out.
21. Thus, the determination of large proportions, and especially the legislature has laid down as a basis for calculating the average salary on economy forecasted, established by decision of the Government, in effect at the time of committing the offence (20 large proportions to determine wages and salaries for 40 determination of particularly large proportions).
22. the Court notes that the Government approved annually and published in the Official Gazette the amount of average monthly wage on economy forecasted for each year, which actually represents a constant value and a basis for more regulations.
23. Therefore, the court notice that, according to the legal provisions laid down in relation to time, which is determined by the amount of large proportions, and especially big expressis verbis has a regulatory and not create uncertainties. In this regard, the Court cannot retain the author's constitutionality exception alegația that the words "in force at the time of committing the offence" in paragraph 1 of article 126. (1) and paragraphs 1 and 2. (11) of the penal code would be contrary to the principle of previzibilității of the law guaranteed by article 23 of the Constitution.
24. With regard to the author's allegations that the exception is approved every year by the Government to the size of the average monthly wage on economy forecasted it affects the principle of retroactivităţii of the criminal law, the Court finds that they are unfounded.
25. the Court notes that, in accordance with article 8 of the penal code, the criminal nature of the offence and the punishment for this criminal shall be determined by the law in force at the time the offence was committed.
26. According to article 10 para. (2) of the criminal code, penal law that tightens the punishment or worsens the situation of the person guilty of committing a crime does not have retroactive effect.
27. Thus the court notice that the retroactive effect of criminal law pertains to the applicability of the new criminal laws are more favourable in relation to the previous law. This principle being inextricably linked to that of legality, which is a characteristic of the rule of law.
28. Therefore, the court notice that law enforcement principle mitior (lex mitior) there is no incident of reason law No. 207 provisions of 29 July 2016, who set up certain method of calculating proportions in criminal law, namely by determining the size of large proportions, and particularly large depending on the size of the average monthly wage on economy forecasted, set annually by the Government decision.
29. At the same time, the court notice that legislative option to take into account the medium monthly salary on economy forecasted, established by decision of the Government in force at the time of committing the Act, to determine the proportions of large and very large for recipients not establish criminal law a differential treatment. Or, in identical or comparable situations shall apply the same mechanism for calculating the proportions of large and very large.
30. In the context of those mentioned, the Court of constitutionality note that exception is unfounded and cannot be accepted for examination.
For these reasons, pursuant to article 26 of the law on the Constitutional Court, articles 61 para. (3) and 64 of the code of constitutional jurisdiction and the PT 28 lit. d) of the regulation on the procedure for examining complaints lodged with the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court DECIDES: 1. To be declared inadmissible the appeal regarding plea of unconstitutionality of the phrase "in force at the time of committing the offence" in paragraph 1 of article 126. (1) and paragraphs 1 and 2. (11) of the penal code of the Republic of Moldova No. 985-XV of 18 April 2002, raised by Attorney Earl Buguța in file No. 1a -936/2015, pending at the Court of appeal.
2. this decision is final, cannot be subject to any appeal, shall enter into force on the date of its adoption and shall be published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Moldova.

The PRESIDENT Of The CONSTITUTIONAL COURT Alexandru Tanase