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. Vasile Oprea, Registrar, taking into account the appeal lodged on 26 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 article 101 of the law nr. 1308-XIII of 25 July 1997 on normative price and sale-purchase of land, raised by attorney Gregory Bîrcă in file No. 2 c -724/14, pending at the Court of Botanica, Chisinau municipality. Chisinau.
2. The plea of unconstitutionality has been lodged with the Constitutional Court on 26 December 2016 by judge E. Galuşceac within the Court of Botanica, Chisinau municipality. Chişinău, 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, and of the regulation on the procedure for examining complaints lodged with the Constitutional Court.
A. the main dispute Circumstances 3.  July 30, 2010, Chisinau municipal Council has adopted decision No. 9/23 "With respect to the determination of the annual payment for the use of municipal land property".
4. On 16 July 2014, Chisinau City Hall, addressed with the original judgment against the cooperative construction of Garage No. 14/B on payment of the debt for the use of land public property.
5. According to the reasons given in the request, the cooperative construction of Garage No. 14/B will pay the payment for land use related thereto, as provided for in art. 101 of the law concerning the normative price and sale-purchase of land.
6. In the process of examining the application in court, attorney Gregory Bîrcă has called for the lifting of non-constitutionality exception to article 101 of the law concerning the normative price and sale-purchase price of land.
7. by the conclusion of 19 December 2016, the Court upheld the application of the exception of unconstitutionality and ordered the Constitutional Court to transmit the referral resolution.
B. relevant Legislation 8. The relevant provisions of the Constitution (republished in d. o. No. 78 of 29 March 2016) are as follows: Article 58Contribuţii "(1) all citizens are required to contribute, through taxes and impositions to public spending.
(2) the legal taxation System must ensure the fair settlement of the tax burdens.
(3) Any other benefits are forbidden other than those established by law. "


Article 132Sistemul of the tax "(1) Taxes, fees and any other revenue of the State budget and State social insurance budget, budgets of districts, towns and villages shall be determined in accordance with the law of their respective representative bodies.
(2) Any other provision are prohibited. "
9. The relevant provisions of law No. 1308-XIII of 25 July 1997 on normative price and sale-purchase of land (republished in 2001, Official Gazette, no. 147-149, art. 1161) are as follows: Article 101Plata for land use public property privatized enterprises objectives related and private targets "(1) where the owners of the privatized enterprises or goals and objectives have not purchased private or leased land related objectives and undertakings, from them, in the manner and time limits laid down in accordance with the legislation, the annual payment will be charged for the use of land, fixed unilaterally by the local councils, not less than the annual lease payment calculated in accordance with article 10(1). (11) and not more than 10% of the Earth's normative price, calculated for the destination in question. The specified payment will be charged within the time limits set by local councils, for the period that follows the moment of adoption of the corresponding decision of the City Council until the conclusion of the contract of sale and purchase or lease.
 (2) the payment referred to in paragraph 1. (1) shall apply only to the land required for the activity related to the objectives and the uncompleted construction specified in art. (1) (a). a). Other land previously used by the owners and construction, on a proposal from them, passing the Reserve Fund of the public authority concerned is not entitled to refuse taking over them. "
10. The relevant provisions of the land code no. 828-XII of December 25, 1991 (reprinted in the Official Gazette, 2001, no. 107, Article 817) are as follows: Article 34Plata for the use of land and facilities at the receipt of this payment "payment for the use of land shall be levied annually in the form of land tax or rent payment, determined depending on the quality and location of the land on the basis of documents of land evaluation.
[…]”
In the author's Arguments exception. constitutionality 11. In the non-constitutionality exception, reasoning the author argues that the payment for the use of public lands. 101 of the law nr. 1308-XIII of 25 July 1997 on normative price and sale-purchase of land, is abusive, on the grounds that it is not found in the text of articles. 34 para. (1) the land code.
12. In this connection, the author claims that the exception of unconstitutionality rule challenged is contrary to art. 132 of the Constitution.
B. Assessment Of Court 13. Examining the admissibility of the referral regarding constitutionality exception, the Court notes the following.
14. In accordance with paragraph 1 of article 135. (1) (a). the control of the Constitution), on notification constitutionality of laws, in particular of the law nr. 1308-XIII of 25 July 1997 on normative price and sale-purchase of land, is the responsibility of the Constitutional Court.
15. the Court finds that the appeal relating to the exception of unconstitutionality, being raised by attorney Gregory Bîrcă in file No. 2 c -724/14, on the role of the Court of Botanica, Chisinau municipality. Chisinau, is in charge of the subject with this right under 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.

16. 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 laws 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.
17. Note that the object of the Court of constitutionality is the exception provisions of article 101 of the law concerning the normative price and sale-purchase price of land, establishing an annual collection of payment for land use related property privatized public objectives.
18. In this connection, the author claims that the disposal of the exception in question contravenes the provisions of article 132 of the Constitution.
19. the court notice that a legal provision may constitute the object of the constitutional jurisdiction only where the alleged constitutional rules have impact on the contested rules.
20. According to article 24, paragraph 1. (2) of the law on the Constitutional Court and article 39 of the code of constitutional jurisdiction, the appeal shall be reasoned and contain subject matter and circumstances based on their subject matter requirements.
21. In this regard, the Court notes that a necessary condition for existence on notification constitutionality control constitute arguments to support the unconstitutionality of the impugned provision.
22. In the present case, the Court retains the author referral has not driven the incidence of constitutional rule in article 132 on the disputed rule.
23. the Court finds that, in essence, the author's claims about the referral is based on the absence of similar provisions in rule challenged in article. land code 34.
24. Thus, with regard to these claims, the Court emphasized that the task of interpreting and applying the laws, to corroborate is beyond the control of the constitutionality of the statutory provision relied upon.
25. Therefore, in view of the stated supra, the Court finds that the plea of unconstitutionality 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 article 101 of the law nr. 1308-XIII of 25 July 1997 on normative price and sale-purchase of land, built in dossier attorney Gregory Bîrcă nr. 2 c -724/14, pending at the Court of Botanica, Chisinau municipality. Chişinău.
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