The Constitutional Court, acting as part of Mr. Victor PALMER, Chairman of the meeting, Mr. Aurel BĂIEŞU, Mr. Igor DOLEA, Zadrahimi, judges, with the participation of Mrs. Eugenia Mîța, Registrar, considering the appeal filed on 19 December 2016, recorded at the same time, examining the admissibility of the referral, taking into account the laws and proceedings, Acting on 19 December 2016 in the Chamber Council Pronounce the following decision : in fact 1. The origin of the case lies the plea of unconstitutionality of:-art. 78 para. (2) of law No. 317-XV of 18 July 2003 on the regulatory acts of the Government and of other authorities of Central and local public administration;
-art. 13(2). (1) of the law on administrative courts no. 793 of 10 February 2000;
-art. 2 (2) (2) and article 3. 7 para. (3) and (5) of law No. 837-XIII of 17 May 1996 regarding public associations;
-art. 53 para. (1) and (5) and article 3. 73 para. (1) of the code of civil procedure of the Republic of Moldova nr. 225-XV of 30 May 2003, the exception raised by Andrei Leslie in file No. 3-1402/16, pending the Court Center, mun. Chisinau.
2. The plea of unconstitutionality has been lodged with the Constitutional Court on 19 December 2016 by the judge within the Ion Țurcanu, Center Court. Chisinau, 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 June 10, 2015, hereinafter referred to as "the Congress of the Republic of Moldova", represented by Andrei Adebowale, filed at the Courthouse Center, mun. Chisinau, a third trial against the City Council of Chisinau and intervenientului enhancement Ltd "Gonvaro-Con", by which it requested the annulment of the decision of the Chisinau municipal Council No. 11/20 of 18 December 1986 on the approval of detailed urban plan of the recovery district table of contents in the Horn-str. Drumul Taberei-Durlești River, as well as the cancellation of the urbanism certificate for design and construction permit issued to SRL Gonvaro-Con ".
4. Sitting in judgment of 3 October 2016, Leslie has asked Andrei raising the constitutionality of article exception. 78 para. (2) of the law on normative acts of the Government and of other authorities of Central and local public administration, art. 13(2). (1) of the law on administrative courts, art. 2 (2). (2) and article 3. 7 para. (3) and (5) of the law on public associations, as well as the interpretation of art. 39 in paragraph 1. (1) article 52 para. (1) and art. 53 of the Constitution.
5. Subsequently, on 1 December and 7 December 2016 through Court Chancellery, he requested additional, which called for the lifting of non-constitutionality exception of art. 53 para. (1) and (5) and article 3. 73 para. (1) of the code of civil procedure, and interpretation of art. 26 of the Constitution.
6. By December 2016, the Court ordered the lifting of non-constitutionality exception and referral to the Constitutional Court for settlement.
B. relevant Legislation 7. The relevant provisions of the Constitution (republished in the Official Gazette, no. 2016, 78, art. 140) are as follows: Article 20Accesul to justice "(1) Any person shall be entitled to effective satisfaction on the part of competent courts against acts which violate the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests.
(2) no law may restrict the access to justice. "
8. The relevant provisions of the code of civil procedure of the Republic of Moldova nr. 225-XV of 30 May 2003 (reprinted in the Official Gazette, no. 2013, 130-134, section 415) are as follows: Article 53Procedura to resolve the objection application "(1) the motion objecting shall be examined by the Court in which the action. The Court shall hear the person whose recusation is requested, if it wants to give explanations, and listens to the opinion of the participants in the process. The query is not permitted as a means of proof of the reasons for the objection, nor carry out procedural acts.
[…]
(5) the Court shall decide on the challenges in the deliberation by a reasoned conclusion, which is not subject to any appeal than once with the judgment or decision. "


Article 73Pornirea in protection of rights, freedoms and lawful interests of other persons "(1) in the cases provided by law, public authorities, organizations, individuals can address the court action (request) in the protection of rights, freedoms and lawful interests of other persons, at their request, or to protect the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of an unlimited number of individuals. Action in defending the interests of a person incapacitated may be instituted independently of the existence of the application of an interested person or by its legal representative.
[…]”
9. The relevant provisions of law No. 317-XV of 18 July 2003 on the regulatory acts of the Government and of other authorities of Central and local public administration bodies (Official Gazette, 2003, no. 208-210, 783) are as follows: Article 78Actele the local public administration authorities ' [...]
(2) where the regulatory acts of the local public administration authorities do not comply with the legislation in force, the Government or another body empowered them, subject to appeal proceedings in accordance with the law. "
10. The relevant provisions of the law on administrative courts no. 793 of 10 February 2000 (republished in M.O., 2006 Special Edition) are as follows: Article 13Excepţia of illegality "(1) the legality of an administrative act with regulatory nature issued by a public authority, can be investigated at any time within a process in a common law, about exception, ex officio or at the request of the party concerned.
[…]”
11. The relevant provisions of law No. 837-XIII of 17 May 1996 on public associations (republished in the Official Gazette, 2007, nr. 153-154) are as follows: Article 2Scopurile of the establishment and activity of public associations "[...]
(2) public associations are associations of public benefit and once once mutual benefit associations.
[…]”


Article 7Apărarea the right of Association of persons. Legal protection of public associations "[...]

(3) the State guarantees public associations defending their legitimate rights and interests.
[…]
(5) to protect the rights and legitimate interests of public associations, as well as the interests of public importance, shall be carried out by judicial process, if the law does not stipulate otherwise.
[…]”
In the author's Arguments AS a. exception unconstitutionality 12. In the non-constitutionality exception, reasoning the author claims it is possible for the Court to resolve the pricinii to apply the wrong article. 78 para. (2) of the law on normative acts of the Government and of other authorities of Central and local public administration, art. 13(2). (1) of the law on administrative courts, art. 2 (2). (2) and article 3. 7 para. (3) and (5) of the law on public associations, because they are not clear and may be interpreted differently.
13. in addition, the author considers that the provisions of art. 53 para. (1) and (5) of the code of civil procedure, limiting the possibility of challenging the judge's conclusion that the application for objection resolved, it has violated the right to an impartial judge and the right to an effective appeal.
14. The author claims that the exception laws criticized are contrary to articles 1 para. (3), 4, 7, 15, 16, 18 and 20 of the Constitution.
15. At the same time, the author requests the exception and interpreting constitutional rules contained in article 7. 26 concerning the right of defence, article. 39 in paragraph 1. (1) on the right of administration, art. 52 para. (1) on the right and article 52. the injured person's 53 concerning the right of a public authority.
B. Assessment Of The Court 16. Examining the admissibility of neconsti-tuționalitate exception, please note the following.
17. 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. 317 of 18 July 2003 on the regulatory acts of the Government and of other authorities of Central and local public administration, the law on administrative courts no. 793 of 10 February 2000, law No. 837-XIII of 17 May 1996 on public associations and the code of civil procedure of the Republic of Moldova nr. 225-XV of 30 May 2003, is the responsibility of the Constitutional Court.
18. the Court finds that the plea of unconstitutionality, being raised by Andrei Leslie in file No. 3-1402/16, pending the Court Center, mun. 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.
19. In the present case, the Court observes that the author calls constitutionality exception; 78 para. (2) of the law on normative acts of the Government and of other authorities of Central and local public administration, art. 13(2). (1) of the law on administrative courts, art. 2 (2). (2) and article 3. 7 para. (3) and (5) of the law on public associations, art. 53 para. (1) and (5) and article 3. 73 para. (1) of the code of civil procedure.
20. the court notice that the author has invoked exception, although the alleged infringement of art. 1 (1). (3), 4, 7, 15, 16, 18 and 20 of the Constitution essentially argues that the contested rules affect access to justice.
21. According to article 24 para. (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.
22. Thus, the Court noted that the plea of unconstitutionality exige a specific structure comprising three elements, inherent and intrinsic, namely: the text objected from the viewpoint of constitutionality (legal provision), the text of reference allegedly violated (constitutional provision) and motivating the exception to contrarietate relationship between the two texts, i.e. the text motivating about criticizing.
23. By examining the exception of constitutionality, the Court finds that the author can't spell unconstitutionality motivates critiques of unconstitutionality in relation to constitutional provisions relied upon in support of the objection. However, the plea of unconstitutionality presented in an elliptical manner, does not indicate in what way the legal provisions of the constitutional rules, contrary to the criticism the author limited to a simple list of them, which equates to a genuine critique of unconstitutionality.
24. Moreover, the Court observes that it is for a law enforcement issue, not the constitutionality of it. This fact follows from the date on which the author of the non-constitutionality exception requiring notification constitutionality control art. 78 para. (2) of the law on normative acts of the Government and of other authorities of Central and local public administration, art. 13(2). (1) of the law on administrative courts, art. 2 (2). (2) and article 3. 7 para. (3) and (5) of the law on public associations and art. 73 para. (1) of the code of civil procedure merely because the Court might possibly interpret and apply statutory provisions mentioned in error.
25. Therefore, the Court of constitutionality in mind that apart from broadening the scope of its legal competence and may not represent a problem of constitutionality that the Constitutional Court may quota by reference to the norms and basic principles, to admit such a situation would be to replace the Court.
26. With regard to the criticism made by the author of the exception concerning the impossibility of challenging the conclusion whereby it resolves the constitutional objection breach the Court finds that it is unfounded, since, although the conclusion of the objection that the judge may not be subject to any separate appeals, however, the provisions of art. 53. paragraphs 1 and 2. (5) of the code of civil procedure shall provide that it may be attacked with the backdrop of the case.
27. At the same time, the Court notes that the procedure for settling a claim objection does not take the form of a contentious that treatment ads to judicial review, as a matter of administration of Justice. The procedure upon the research and trial application for objection is an incidental proceeding, whose article is entirely distinct from the subject of the civil case to which it relates. This procedure is not in the material sense civil jurisdiction, but the judicial-administrative character.

28. Moreover, the Court indicates that the solution dedicated to article 53 paragraph 1. (5) it is justified by the special nature of the procedure established by the code of civil procedure, the legislature in order to provide a procedure and speed in order to be indispensable to the exercise of the optimum conditions of free access to justice.
29. Moreover, the Court noted that no provision of the Supreme Law, invoked by the author, the exception does not cover the right to the exercise of rights of appeal in any matter. In this regard, article 119 of the Constitution establishes that the judgments against the interested parties may exercise their rights of appeal "under the law".
30. With regard to the interpretation of articles 26, paragraph 1, 39. (1) paragraphs 1 and 2, 52. (1) and 53 of the Constitution, the Court indicates that, according to the judgment of 2 February 9, 2016, the plea of unconstitutionality represents a procedural action, through which the Constitutional Court is seised on the inconsistencies with the constitutional provisions of some laws applicable to cases in Court deducted. Thus, the Court shall report to the legal norm in an incident on the particular question at the basic law, taking into account the practice of this standard. Interpretation of the constitutional rules relied upon constitute an approach in abstracto, inadmissible in the context of resolution exceptions of unconstitutionality.
31. In the context of those mentioned, the Court of constitutionality exception notice that 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. (1) and (3) and 64 of the code of constitutional jurisdiction and item 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 relating to the exception of non-constitutionality of:-article 78 (2) of law No. 317-XV of 18 July 2003 on the regulatory acts of the Government and of other authorities of Central and local public administration;
-Article 13 (1) of the law on administrative courts no. 793 of 10 February 2000;
-Article 2 (2) and article 7 (3) and (5) of law No. 837-XIII of 17 May 1996 regarding public associations;
-Article 53 (1) and (5) and article 73 (1) of the code of civil procedure of the Republic of Moldova nr. 225-XV of 30 May 2003, the exception raised by Andrei Leslie in file No. 3-1402/16, pending the Court Center, mun. Chisinau.
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.