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. Marcel Lupu, Registrar, considering the appeal filed on 31 January 2017, recorded at the same time, examining the admissibility of the referral, taking into account the laws and proceedings, Acting on 7 February 2017 in the Chamber Council the next decision, a decision: in fact 1. The origin of the case lies the plea of unconstitutionality of articles 4, 8 and 22 of the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova, built by Morris, Maximum part in file No. 10-412/16 on the role of the Court of Justice, the seat of the Centre.
2. The plea of unconstitutionality has been lodged with the Constitutional Court on 31 January 2017 by judge S. Ravindran, 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. On august 25, 2016, Maxim filed candidacies Tcaci, the headquarters of the Centre, a complaint against the Ordinance of 29 July 2016, issued by a Prosecutor of the Prosecutor General's Office, which denied his request to commence prosecution.
4. Subsequently, on 23 November 2016, through Court Chancellery, he filed an application by which it sought the lifting of non-constitutionality exception of articles 4, 8 and 22 of the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova.
5. by the conclusion of 26 December 2016, the Court ordered the erection of the main exception and referral to the Constitutional Court for settlement.
B. relevant Legislation 6. The relevant provisions of the Constitution (republished in the Official Gazette, no. 2016, 78, art. 140) are as follows: Article 4Drepturile and human freedoms "(1) constitutional provisions for human rights and freedoms shall be interpreted and applied in accordance with the Universal Declaration of human rights, and with other conventions and treaties endorsed by the Republic of Moldova is a party.
(2) If there are inconsistencies between covenants and treaties regarding fundamental human rights to which Moldova is a party and its internal laws, international regulations have priority. "


Article 8Respectarea of international law and international treaties "(1) the Republic of Moldova pledges to respect the Charter of the United Nations and the treaties to which it is a party, to base its relations with other States the unanimously recognized principles and norms of international law.
(2) the entry into force of an international treaty containing provisions contrary to the Constitution shall be preceded by a review of it. "


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 135Atribuţiile "[Constitutional Court] (1) the Constitutional Court: a) enforces, constitutionality of laws and decisions of the Parliament, Presidential decrees, Government decisions and ordinances, as well as international treaties to which Moldova is a party;
[...]”
In the author's Arguments exception. constitutionality 7. In the non-constitutionality exception, reasoning the author claims that the perpetrators of ill-treatment not can be held criminal responsibility pursuant to article 13. 1661 of the penal code, since, although art. 4 and 8 of the Constitution provide for the priority of international regulations, however, art. 22 of the Constitution guarantees that no one shall be sentenced for actions or omissions which, at the time they were committed, did not constitute an offence.
8. In this context, the author requests the exception provisions of constitutional confrontation of articles 4 and 8 of article 22.
B. Assessment Of The Court 9. Examining the admissibility of the referral concerning the Court of constitutionality exception, please note the following.
10. In accordance with paragraph 1 of article 135. (1) (a). the Court of the Constitution), enforces Constitutional, constitutionality of laws and decisions of the Parliament, Presidential decrees, Government decisions and ordinances, as well as international treaties to which Moldova is a party.
11. the Court finds that the appeal relating to the exception of unconstitutionality, being raised by a maximum of Morris, part in file No. 10-412/16 on the role of the Court of Justice, the headquarters of the Centre, is made by the subject in charge 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.
12. 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.
13. In the present case, the Court shall require that the author retains the exception dealing rules of constitutional articles 4 and 8 of article 22, without challenging certain legal provisions in relation to constitutional provisions.
14. the Court noted that the exception of procedural constitutionality is the means put at the disposal of any part of a lawsuit pending to support, in front of the Constitutional Court, its duties through injury incidence in the cause to a legislation deemed unconstitutional.
15. in Judgement No. 2 of 9 February 2016, the Court held that the ordinary judge won't rule on the determination of referral or on conformity with the Constitution of the contested rules, but will be limited exclusively to the verification meeting certain conditions, including whether the exception object comes into the category of acts covered by article 135 paragraph 1. (1) (a). of the Constitution, and) the provisions being challenged to be applied to the settlement of the dispute.

16. Therefore, the Court finds that the Court upheld the application of the exception of unconstitutionality and ordered the Constitutional Court to transmit the referral resolution, although the claims put forward in the complaint did not constitute an object of non-constitutionality exception. However, the exception of constitutionality means of defense against the rules which are in contradiction with the provisions of the Constitution, and not confrontation between constitutional provisions of articles 4, 8 and 22.
17. Therefore, the Court of constitutionality note that exception, being devoid of object, does not meet the conditions for eligibility 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) and (e)) 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 articles 4, 8 and 22 of the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova, built by Morris, Maximum part in file No. 10-412/16 on the role of the Court of Justice, the seat of the Centre.
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