Inadmissibility Of Referral No. 43B/2015 For Interpretation Of Articles 96 Paragraph 1. (2) Paragraphs 2 And 3, 98. (3) And 106 Of The Constitution Of The Republic Of Moldova And Exercise Control On Notification Constitutionality Ruling Parliament. 181...

Original Language Title: de inadmisibilitate a sesizării nr. 43b/2015 pentru interpretarea articolelor 96 alin. (2), 98 alin. (3) şi 106 din Constituţia Republicii Moldova și exercitarea controlului constituționalității Hotărârii Parlamentului nr. 181 din 29 octombrie 2015 privin

Read the untranslated law here: https://www.global-regulation.com/law/moldova/5966084/de-inadmisibilitate-a-sesizrii-nr.-43b-2015-pentru-interpretarea-articolelor-96-alin.-%25282%2529%252c-98-alin.-%25283%2529-i-106-din-constituia-republicii-mold.html

Subscribe to a Global-Regulation Premium Membership Today!

Key Benefits:

Subscribe Now for only USD$20 per month, or Get a Day Pass for only USD$4.99.
    The Constitutional Court, acting as part of Mr. Alexandru Tanase, President, Mr. Aurel BĂIEȘU, Mr. Igor DOLEA, Mr. Victor POPA, judges, with the participation of Mrs Abdow Balaban, Registrar, considering the appeal filed on 4 November 2015, recorded at the same time, examining preliminary referral referred to, taking into account the laws and proceedings, Acting to 9 November 2015 in closed session, Pronounce the following decision: in fact 1. November 4, 2010, deputies from the parliamentary Liberal Democratic Party asked the Constitutional Court to interpret the referral of articles 96 paragraph 1. (2) paragraphs 2 and 3, 98. (3) and 106 of the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova.
2. By the same date on which lawmakers have requested notification constitutionality control the decision of the Parliament. 181 of 29 October 2015 on the expression of no confidence vote to the Government.


A. reasons for referral 3. The authors have requested interpretation articles referral 96 para. (2) paragraphs 2 and 3, 98. (3) and 106 of the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova in relation to the following questions: 1. Can be removed from Office by the Government through a no-confidence motion which has the purported theme of corruption suspicions, which have not been proved?
2. Can be adopted by the Parliament on a motion of censure based on suspicions of corruption against a specific person, what holds the post of Prime Minister of the time member of the Government, without holding or there is information from the prosecution on a reasonable in this respect? "
4. Invoking the principle of the rule of law, in article 1, paragraph 1, successful. (3) of the Constitution, the Parliament considers that the decision of referral No. 181 of 29 October 2015 on the expression of no confidence vote the Government is unconstitutional.


B. relevant Legislation 5. The relevant provisions of the Constitution (Official Gazette, no. 1, 1994) are as follows: Article 1Statul "[...]
(3) the Republic of Moldova is a democratic State of law, in which human dignity, rights and freedoms, the open development of human personality, justice and political pluralism represent supreme values and shall be guaranteed. "


Article 96 Role "(1) the Government shall ensure that the internal and external policy of the State and exercises the General management of public administration.
(2) in exercising the powers of the Government are guided by its programme of work, approved by the Parliament. "


Article 98Învestitura "[...]
(3) the work schedule and the list of the Government debating upon sitting in Parliament. This trust of the Government by a majority vote of the elected deputies.
[…].”


Article 100Încetarea member function of the Government "as a member of the Government shall be terminated in cases of resignation, revocation, incompatibility or death."


Article 103Încetarea of the mandate "(1) the Government shall exercise its mandate up to the date of validation of the elections for a new Parliament.
(2) the Government, if the expression of no confidence vote by the Parliament, resignation of the Prime Minister or in the conditions of paragraph (1), meets only management functions public affairs until the oath of the members of the new Government. "


Article 106Exprimarea no confidence "(1) the Parliament, at the proposal of at least one quarter of the members can express their distrust in the Government by a majority vote of Deputies.
(2) the expression of no confidence in the initiative will be examined after 3 days from the date of referral to Parliament. "


IN THE RIGHT HAND CORNER. The arguments of the authors of the referral 6. According to the authors of the referral, the withdrawal of confidence from the Prime Minister for alleged reasons of corruption, which have not been approved, puts the entire cabinet of Ministers in the situation of political incompatibility and therefore unable to exercise the functions specific to the executive power.
7. referral to the Authors argue that the motion of censure, which has the theme of corruption suspicions against the Prime Minister, unconfirmed by official data by the prosecution or other documents, cannot be passed and represents a defiance of the principles of the rule of law.
8. For these reasons, the authors of the referral considers unconstitutional Judgment No. 181 of 29 October 2015, whereby Parliament has expressed no-confidence vote on the Government's work.


B. Assessment Of The Court 9. Note that the Court, pursuant to article 135 paragraph 1. (1) (a). a) and subparagraph (c). (b)) of the Constitution, article 4 para. (1) (a). a) and subparagraph (c). b) of the law on the Constitutional Court and to article 4 para. (1) (a). a) and subparagraph (c). (b) constitutional jurisdiction) of the code, on notification constitutionality control of decisions interpreting the Constitution and Parliament are the competence of the Constitutional Court.
10. the Court noted that a Deputy in Parliament is empowered with the right to refer the matter to the Constitutional Court, in accordance with articles 25 lit. g) of the law on the Constitutional Court and 38 para. (1) (a). g) of the code of constitutional jurisdiction.
11. Note that the prerogative Court who has been granted under article 135 paragraph 1. (1) (a). (b)) of the Constitution requires the genuine meaning and of constitutional norms, which can be done through textual interpretation or functioning, insofar as they can be inferred from the text of the Constitution, taking into account the generic nature of the norm. The need for interpretation must be confirmed by the essence of the problem of law resulting from the uneven nature of the constitutional provisions.
12. At the same time, keep in mind that the interpretation of constitutional provisions Act officially and legally binding character for all the subjects of legal relations.
13. Given the importance of interpreting constitutional norms, the Constitutional Court deals with complaints of this nature with a particular requirement. Therefore, they can be accepted for the examination only if the constitutional disposition, whose interpretation is sought, is uncertain, ambiguous or incomplete.
14. Note that the Appeal Court presented aimed at interpretation of articles 96 paragraph 1. (2) paragraphs 2 and 3, 98. (3) and 106 of the Constitution, in terms of evaluating whether it can be removed from Office by the Government through a no-confidence motion, taking as a basis the alleged suspicions of corruption, which have not been approved by the competent law-enforcement authorities.
15. Also with reference to the questions formulated and with the invocation of the principle of the rule of law, was asked on notification constitutionality control Parliament Judgment. 181 of 29 October 2015 on the expression of no confidence vote to the Government.
16. the Court noted that article 96 paragraph 2. (2) of the Constitution establish that, in the exercise of duties, the Government is guided by its programme of work, approved by the Parliament. At the same time, in compliance with article 98 para. (3) of the Constitution, the action program of the candidate to the Office of Prime Minister shall be debated in the Parliament session.
17. In the light of the object of regulatory provisions of articles 96 paragraph 1. (2) paragraphs 2 and 3, 98. (3) of the Constitution, the Court finds that the questions raised by the authors of the referral may not be reported to the rules whose interpretation is requested, or, they will concern solely the business of the Government.
18. as to the interpretation of article 106 of the law note that Supreme Court recounted: "the Parliament, at the proposal of at least one quarter of the members can express their distrust in the Government by a majority vote of Deputies. The initiative for the expression of no confidence shall be examined after 3 days from the date of referral to Parliament. "
19. the Court noted that a constitutional norm has three conditions for expressing by Parliament has passed a vote of no confidence in the Government, namely: 1) proposal to be initiated by at least one fourth of the deputies; 2) expressing disbelief is made by a majority of Deputies; 3) proposal on the expression of no confidence shall be examined after 3 days from the date of its presentation to the Parliament.
20. the Court points out that, according to the constitutional standard set out in the constituent legislator has not made conditional expressions of distrust towards the Government of the existence of certain reasons. Respectively, the Parliament can express its vote of no confidence in the Government in the absence of any basis and only subject to the conditions contained in article 106 of the Constitution.
21. Also note that Court article 106 of the Constitution shall be applied separately without being in conjunction with other constitutional rules.
22. In Judgement No. 4 of 22 April 2013, the Court noted: "79. By taking the vote of no confidence, the mandate of confidence granted by the Parliament shall cease, and the Executive is dismissed. It appears that the mandate of trust not only has significance, on the basis of his investiture, to the Executive, but also the necessity that, throughout his Ministry, that it will enjoy the support of the parliamentary majority through voting which was formed. When this support, and so the trust that a supposed, no longer exists, vote of no confidence creates the possibility that, through the formation of a new balance between the Executive, the legislative and the Executive power to be restored. Thus, the motion of censure is the legal instrument through which Parliament may withdraw confidence granted to the Executive branch. "

23. In conclusion, the Court finds that the constitutional provisions whose interpretation is requested, do not contain ambiguities, inaccuracies or ambiguities, which is why you do not need to be interpreted by the Constitutional Court.
24. At the same time, the authors note that the claims about the referral to Parliament on notification constitutionality control Judgment. 181 of 29 October 2015 on the expression of no confidence in the Government's vote, by the way, are based on the arguments put forward in support of this interpretation is requested, the appeal cannot be accepted for examination.
For these reasons, pursuant to article 26, paragraph 2. (1) of the law on the Constitutional Court, articles 61 para. (3) and 64 of the code of constitutional jurisdiction, the Constitutional Court D E C I D E: 1. It is hereby declared inadmissible the referral of the Liberal Democratic Party from Moldova to the interpretation of articles 96 paragraph 1. (2) paragraphs 2 and 3, 98. (3) and 106 of the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova and on notification constitutionality control Parliament Judgment. 181 of 29 October 2015 on the expression of no confidence vote to the Government.
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