inadmissibility of referral No. 54 g/2016 regarding exception of unconstitutionality of certain provisions of the law with regard to size, procedure and deadlines for payment of premiums for healthcare insurance mandatory no. 1593-XV of 26 December 2002, the law on mandatory health insurance no. 1585-XIII of 27 February 1998 and the law on compulsory insurance funds healthcare for the year 2014 nr. 330 of 23 December 2013 (conditions for payment by the lawyers of the first compulsory medical assistance)



Published: 12.08.2016 in Official Gazette No. 256-264 art no: 68 date of entry into force: 14.06.2016 Constitutional Court, acting as part of Mr. Alexandru Tanase, President, Mr. Aurel BĂIEŞU, Mr. Mr. Talal Igor DOLEA, GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION, Mr. Victor POPA, judges, with the participation of Mrs Abdow Balaban, Registrar, considering the appeal filed on May 3, 2016, recorded at the same time, examining the admissibility of the referral, taking into account the acts and proceedings of the dossier , acting on 14 June 2016 into Council Pronounce the following decision: in fact 1. The origin of the case lies the plea of unconstitutionality of the articles 7, 16 and 22, para. (l) and (2) of the law on size, procedure and deadlines for payment of premiums for healthcare insurance mandatory no. 1593-XV of 26 December 2002 and point 2 of the annex. 2 the Law, art. 17 of the law on compulsory health care insurance no. 1585-XIII of 27 February 1998 and art. (3) of the law on compulsory insurance funds healthcare for the year 2014 nr. 330 of 23 December 2013, raised by the lawyer Liliana Arpenti in file No. 2-1064/2016, on the role of the Buiucani, mun. Chişinău.
2. The exception of constitutionality was lodged with the Constitutional Court on 3 may 2016 by Judge Maria Muruianu within of the Buiucani, mun. 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 26 November 2015, the National Company for health insurance (hereinafter-CNAM) at Buiucani, mun. Chisinau, a third trial against a lawyer Tatiana Obasi on payment of compulsory insurance for medical assistance on 2014, the fixed sum calculated in absolute value of MDL, 4056 paid only in part.
4. motivation of the request, the CNAC argues that Ms. Tatiana Olteanu, exercising the profession of lawyer, according to art. 22 paragraph 1. (1) of law No. 1593-XV of 26 December 2002 and point 2 of annex 2 to this Act, shall be assigned to the category of paying premiums for healthcare insurance mandatory in a fixed amount, which shall be individually and to pay in full the first compulsory medical assistance, within 3 months from the date of entry into force of the law on compulsory insurance funds for medical assistance for the year 2014.
5. On 9 February 2016, in court, lawyer Liliana Arpenti has called for the lifting of non-constitutionality exception to articles 7, 16 and 22, para. (1) and (2) of the law on size, procedure and deadlines for payment of premiums for healthcare insurance mandatory no. 1593-XV of 26 December 2002 and point 2 of the annex. 2 the Law, art. 17 of the law on compulsory health care insurance no. 1585-XIII of 27 February 1998 and art. (3) of the law on compulsory insurance funds healthcare for the year 2014. 330 of 23 December 2013.
6. By decision of 9 February 2016, the Court upheld the approach regarding constitutionality exception raising and sent the referral to the Supreme Court of Justice. On 29 February 2016, the Supreme Court returned the dossier, in the context of the judgment of the Constitutional Court No. 2 of 9 February 2016.
7. During the meeting of April 27, 2016, lawyer Liliana Arpenti repeatedly raised the exception of constitutionality.
8. By the same date, the Court has ordered the lifting of the exception of unconstitutionality and send referral to the Constitutional Court for settlement.
B. relevant Legislation 9. The relevant provisions of the Constitution (republished in the Official Gazette, no. 2016, 78, art. 140) are as follows: Article 16 Equality "(1) respect and protect the human person constitutes a duty of the State.
(2) all citizens of the Republic of Moldova are equal before the law and public authorities, without distinction of race, nationality, ethnic origin, language, religion, sex, opinion, political affiliation, wealth or social origin. "


Article 54Restrângerea the exercise of certain rights or freedoms "(1) in the Republic of Moldova cannot be adopted laws suppressing or violating fundamental rights and freedoms of man and citizen.
(2) the exercise of rights and freedoms may not be subject to restrictions other than those prescribed by law and which correspond to the widely recognized norms of international law and are necessary in the interests of national security, territorial integrity, economic well-being of the country, public order, in order to prevent mass unrest and crime, protection of rights, freedoms and dignity of other persons, preventing the disclosure of confidential information or to ensure the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
(3) the provisions of paragraph (2) do not allow the restriction of the rights stipulated in articles 20-24.
(4) the restriction must be proportional to the situation that caused it, and may not affect the existence of that right or freedom. "
10. The relevant provisions of law No. 1585-XIII of 27 February 1998 concerning the mandatory health insurance (Official Gazette, 1998, no. 38-39, art. 280) are as follows: Article 17 compulsory insurance premiums nursing "(1) the first of the mandatory health insurance represents a fixed amount or a percentage contribution from salary and other rewards, which the insured person is obliged to pay the insurer to the insured risk as outlined in the legislation.
(2) mandatory insurance premiums for healthcare financial contributions shall be established as in sufficient quantities in order to meet unique Program and activity of the insurer.
(3) the amount of insurance premiums in the form of a fixed amount and percentage contribution from salary and other rewards shall be determined annually by the law the mandatory health insurance funds for medical assistance.
(4) the size of the insurance premium in the form of a lump sum shall be calculated by applying the insurance premium in the form of percentage contribution to projected average annual salary for that year, on the basis of macroeconomic indicators.
(5) the payment of premiums for compulsory insurance for health care of the population employed is made at the expense of the employer and employee contributions.
(6) the participation of the employee to payment of the premium shall be determined differentially depending on the size of his salary, and begins from the moment of conclusion of the contract of employment.
(7) the size, mode and time limits for payment of the insurance premiums shall be fixed by law. "
11. The relevant provisions of law No. 1593-XV of 26 December 2002 regarding the size, mode and time limits for payment of the insurance premiums for the compulsory health care (Official Gazette, 2003 No 18-19, art. 57) are the following: "7. -Compulsory insurance premiums for medical care for the categories of persons listed in annex No.2 shall be calculated in absolute value, in accordance with article 17, paragraph 2. (4) of the law on mandatory health insurance. "
[…]
"Article 16.-(1) the categories of payers set out in annex No.2 shall pay insurance premiums for the compulsory health care individually.
(2) Units in charge of track categories of payers of healthcare insurance mandatory, set out in annex No. 2, presents the premium payers lists after the model and the deadlines laid down in the agreement concluded with the national company for health insurance. "
[…]
"Article 22.-(1) individuals included early discharge in the paying classes referred to in annex No.2 shall pay in full a mandatory health insurance in the amount fixed in the run up to March 31 of the year of discharge.
(2) the law on compulsory insurance funds for medical care is a reduction in the premium for mandatory health insurance in the amount fixed for certain categories of persons liable as referred to in annex No. 2 where they will pay the insurance premium within the time limit laid down in paragraph 1. (1).
[…]”.


Annex No. 2 categories of paying premiums for healthcare insurance mandatory in a fixed amount, which shall be individually:

"2. public Notaries, bailiffs and lawyers unemployed, regardless of the legal form of organisation of activity, having obtained the license in the manner established by law.
[…].”
12. The relevant provisions of the law on compulsory insurance funds healthcare for the year 2014 nr. 330 of 23 December 2013 (Official Gazette, no. 9 2014-17, art. 20) are as follows: "4. -(1) the first of the mandatory health insurance in the form of percentage contribution to salary and other rewards for paying categories set out in annex No. 1 to the law No. 1593-XV of 26 December 2002 regarding the size, mode and time limits for payment of the insurance premiums for the compulsory health care is established at 8% (4% for each and every category of payers).
(2) the first compulsory medical assistance calculated in a fixed amount in absolute terms for categories of payers set out in annex No. 2 to the law No. 1593-XV of 26 December 2002 shall be at 4056 lei.
(3) the persons referred to in paragraph 1 (a). b), c), (d)) and e) point 3 and point 4 of annex 2 to the law No. 1593-XV of 26 December 2002, which paid within three months from the date of entry into force of this law the first mandatory health insurance established in fixed amount, receive a discount of 50% of the amount laid down in paragraph 1. (2) of this article.
[…].”
In the author's Arguments exception. unconditional-stituționalitate 13. In the non-constitutionality exception, reasoning the author argues that lawyers are discriminated against compared to other categories of paying premiums for healthcare insurance mandatory in a fixed amount, which shall be individually and that the first payment of the mandatory health insurance receive a certain discount, and may pursue other activities simultaneously paid.
14. According to the author, legislator treats unevenly lawyers in relation to other individuals. The author considers that the payment of mandatory health insurance lawyers should benefit from a reduction in the conditions laid down for the other individuals referred to in article 4(4). (3) of the law on compulsory insurance funds healthcare for the year 2014.
15. According to the author, the exception being challenged violates articles 4, 7, 8, 19 and 54 9.16, of the Constitution.
B. Assessment Of The Court 16. Examining the admissibility of the referral regarding constitutionality exception, the Court notes the following.
17. In accordance with paragraph 1 of article 135. (1) (a). the control of the Constitution), on notification constitutionality of laws is the responsibility of the Constitutional Court.
18. the Court finds that the appeal relating to the exception of unconstitutionality, being raised by her lawyer Liliana Arpenti, the No. 2 civilian-1064/2016, on the role of the Buiucani, mun. Chişinău, is made by the subject entrusted 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. 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.
20. Subject to constitutionality exception is some provisions of the law on compulsory health care insurance no. 1585-XIII of 27 February 1998, the law on size, procedure and deadlines for payment of premiums for healthcare insurance mandatory no. 1593-XV of 26 December 2002 and the law on compulsory insurance funds healthcare for the year 2014. 330 of 23 December 2013, aimed at conditions, the categories of payers, size, manner and terms of payment of insurance premium compulsory medical assistance and certain discounts for some categories of payers.
21. the Court note that the author has invoked exception of unconstitutionality alleged infringement of articles 4, 7, 8, 19 and 54 9.16, of the Constitution.
22. By examining the plea of unconstitutionality, the Court finds that the subject of the referral is similar to the subject of referrals No. 11a/2016, nr. 30 g/2016 and no. 48 g/2016, which were declared inadmissible by decision No. 19 of 23 March 2015 and no. 23 and no. 28 of 29 April 2015.
23. Therefore, the Court notes that, whereas the subject of referral No. 54 g/2016 is identical with the subject of referrals No. 11a/2016, nr. 30 g/2016 and no. 48 g/2016 and no new elements have occurred such that Court reconsidering both the solution and the considerations set out in decisions No. 19 of 23 March 2015 and no. 23 and no. 28 of 29 April 2015 applies in this matter.
For these reasons, pursuant to articles 26, paragraph 2. (1) and 31 of the law on the Constitutional Court, articles 61 para. (1) and paragraph 1. (3) constitutional jurisdiction code 64 and point 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 the provisions of articles 7, 16 and 22, para. (l) and (2) of the law on size, procedure and deadlines for payment of premiums for healthcare insurance mandatory no. 1593-XV of 26 December 2002 and point 2 of annex 2 to the abovementioned Law, art. 17 of the law on compulsory health care insurance no. 1585-XIII of 27 February 1998 and art. (3) of the law on compulsory insurance funds healthcare for the year 2014 No. 346 of 23 December 2013, raised by the lawyer Liliana Arpenti in file No. 2-1064/2016, on the role of the Buiucani, mun. 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.