Inadmissibility Of Referral No. 3A/2016 On Notification Constitutionality Control Parliament Judgment. 1 Of 20 January 2016 For The Approval Of The Government's Activity Program And Vote Of Confidence Of The Government And Of The Pre Decree

Original Language Title: de inadmisibilitate a Sesizării nr. 3a/2016 privind controlul constituționalității Hotărârii Parlamentului nr. 1 din 20 ianuarie 2016 pentru aprobarea Programului de activitate al Guvernului şi acordarea votului de încredere Guvernului și a Decretului Pre

Read the untranslated law here: https://www.global-regulation.com/law/moldova/5967519/de-inadmisibilitate-a-sesizrii-nr.-3a-2016-privind-controlul-constituionalitii-hotrrii-parlamentului-nr.-1-din-20-ianuarie-2016-pentru-aprobarea-progr.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.
inadmissibility of Referral No. 3A/2016 on notification constitutionality control Parliament Judgment. 1 of 20 January 2016 for the approval of the Government's activity Program and vote of confidence of the Government and of the Decree of the President of the Republic of Moldova nr. 1915-20 January 2016 to appoint Government (Government appointment)



Published: 29.01.2016 in Official Gazette No. 20-24 art Nr: 3 date of entry into force: 22.01.2016 Constitutional Court, acting as part of Mr. Alexandru Tanase, President, Mr. Aurel BĂIEŞU, Mr. Igor DOLEA, Mr. Victor POPA, judges, with the participation of Mrs. Sadik Munteanu, Registrar, taking into account the appeal lodged on 21 January 2016, recorded at the same time, examining the admissibility of the referral, taking into account the acts and proceedings of the dossier , Acting on 22 January 2016 in closed session Pronounce the following decision: in fact 1. On 21 January 2016, Igor Dodon, Deputy Vladimir Turcan, Corneliu Batrincea as Fork, Vlad Adrian Vasile Ladani Bae and Gandhi addressed the Constitutional Court Novac a referral requesting notification constitutionality control the decision of the Parliament. 1 of 20 January 2016 for the approval of the Government's activity Program and vote of confidence of the Government and of the Decree of the President of the Republic of Moldova nr. 1915-20 January 2016 to appoint the Government.
A. reasons for referral 2. The authors have applied for annulment of the referral appealed, citing violations of these offices of the Government, which would be contrary to articles 2 and 98 para. (3) of the Constitution.
B. relevant Legislation 3. The relevant provisions of the Constitution (Official Gazette, no. 1, 1994) are as follows: Article 2Suveranitatea and State power "(1) national sovereignty belongs to the people of the Republic of Moldova, who shall exercise it directly and through its representative bodies in the forms laid down in the Constitution.
(2) no individual, no part of any social group, political party or other public party may exercise State power in their own name. The usurpation of State power constitutes the gravest crime against the people. "


Article 68Mandatul representative "(1) In the exercise of their deputies are in the service of the people.
(2) Any imperative mandate is null. "


Article 77Preşedintele the Republic of Moldova, the Chief of State "(1) the President is the head of State.
(2) the President of the Republic of Moldova represents the State and is the guarantor of national independence, sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of the country. "


Article 94Actele of the President "(1) in the exercise of his powers the President of the Republic of Moldova issues decrees whose execution is compulsory throughout the State. The decrees shall be published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Moldova. [...]”


Article 98Învestitura "(1) after consulting parliamentary factions, the President of the Republic of Moldova designates a candidate for the post of Prime Minister.
(2) the candidate for the post of Prime Minister will be asked, within 15 days from designation, the vote of confidence of Parliament upon the work programme and the entire list of the Government.
(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.
(4) on the basis of the vote of confidence granted by the Parliament, the President of the Republic of Moldova appoints the Government. [...]”
In the authors ' Arguments AS a. referral to the 4. The authors claim that they do not report I had at its disposal sufficient time to review the Government program and the list of members of the Government, being rejected by Parliament a three-hour break and being deprived of the opportunity to ask questions.
5. In support of their claims, the authors cited "lack of referral to the legitimacy and the share of uncertain Government sworn", and "the legitimacy of the Parliament", adding the date an opinion poll and press articles.
6. In addition, the authors of the Court referral advertising that "parliamentary and extra-parliamentary opposition leaders (Igor Dodon, Renato Usatîi and Adrian Năstase)" have been subpoenaed for the hearing at the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the 21st of January 2016, 8.30.
B. Assessment Of The Court 7. Examining the admissibility of the referral, please note the following.
8. pursuant to paragraph 1 of article 135. (1) (a) of the Constitution), article 4 para. (1) (a). a) of the law on the Constitutional Court and to article 4 para. (1) (a). the constitutional jurisdiction of the code), the appeal concerning the constitutionality of decisions of the Parliament and Presidential decrees, the competence of the Constitutional Court.
9. Articles 25 lit. g) of the law on the Constitutional Court and 38 para. (1) (a). g) of the Code empowers the constitutional jurisdiction of Parliament in Parliament with the right to refer the matter to the Constitutional Court.
10. In the present case, the authors note that referral alleging breach of procedure essentially these offices of the Government.
11. Note that the prerogative Court was vested in it by article 135 paragraph 1. (1) (a). of the Constitution requires) correlation of the rules/laws, Constitution and challenged the text taking into account the principle of the supremacy of the latter.
12. the Court noted that Government investment is governed by article 98 para. (3) of the Constitution, according to which the work programme and the list of the Government debating upon sitting in Parliament, which granted confidence to the Government by a majority vote of the elected deputies.
13. Thus, the Court is competent to examine solely the observance of constitutional rank, the condition of the majority vote in the current meeting of deputies elected under article 98 para. (3) of the Constitution. The Court note that this aspect of the Government's 2009 procedure has not been disputed by the authors challenged/referral.
14. With regard to jurisdiction ratione materiae to examine the Government's acts of these offices, the Court reiterates that it held in its previous jurisprudence as follows: "it is worth noting that, by its nature, Parliament's legal Judgment of the investiture of the Government has no regulatory character. It constitutes an expression of the political will of the legislature, granting a vote of confidence of the work schedule and the entire list of Government [...].
Parliament, in view of the debate proposed work programme of the Executive does not approve by an act of his own, but it accepts, in the sense that the submission and acceptance in principle of the programme are, in fact, elements of the investiture procedure of the Government. "
[HCC No. 34 of 5 November 1998] 15. Thus, following its previous case-law (HCC No. 34 of 5 November 1998), the Court that Parliament retains no. 1 of 20 January 2016, which expressed a vote of confidence, an eminently political act, it is not likely the control of constitutionality.
16. as part of the "debate" of the work schedule and the list of Government note that this Court is a procedure pertaining to the exclusive parliamentary autonomy, being developed by the Parliament regulation. In this context, the Court recalls that, in its constant case-law relating to alleged violations of the regulations, Parliament stated the following: "[E] ste under the Constitution and the practice of the Constitutional Court that the control of constitutionality does not extend the scope of the provisions of the regulations. Application of the regulation is a task of the Parliament. Any interference in this activity from public authorities, including from non-constitutional court, can be qualified as a violation of the autonomy of the legislative body. If it comes up for action implementation of the regulation, is the use of constitutional and parliamentary proceedings exclusively. "
[The decision of the Constitutional Court No. 5 of 28.09.2000] 17. Therefore, the Court finds the lack of competence ratione materiae to examine procedures for these offices of the Government in the context of the exercise of autonomy.
18. For the same reasons, the Court is not competent to verify the constitutionality of an act eminently political statement issued by the President of the Republic of Moldova in the process of the investiture of a Government.
19. Moreover, the Court does not have jurisdiction to check the constitutionality of quoting citizens named in the referral by the Interior Ministry, which is the exclusive competence of the courts of common law. 
20. as part of the claims regarding "lack of legitimacy and uncertain share" of the Parliament and the new Government, the Court retains that shall examine exclusively, and not the constitutionality of the legitimacy of the acts. Note that the Court is unable to infer the meaning of the sintagmelor ' share ' and ' uncertain legitimacy reduced ", just as it is unable to provide the basis of constitutionality control polls or press articles.

21. In this context, the Court finds that the appeal does not meet the eligibility conditions for exercising the constitutionality and, therefore, cannot be accepted for examination.
For these reasons, in accordance with the provisions of article 26 para. (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 appeal of Deputies Igor Dodon, Vladimir Turcan, Corneliu Batrincea as Fork, Vlad Adrian Vasile Ladani Bae and Gregory Novac on notification constitutionality control of Parliament for the ruling No. 1 of 20 January 2016 for the approval of the Government's activity Program and vote of confidence of the Government and of the Decree of the President of the Republic of Moldova nr. 1915-20 January 2016 to appoint the Government, as filed in contravention of its competence ratione materiae.
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