The Constitutional Court, sitting in composition:
Mr. Alexandru Tanase, President, Mr. Aurel
BĂIEŞU, Mr. Igor
DOLEA,
Mr. Victor POPA, judges
when Mr Eugene Osipov, Registrar,
Considering the complaint filed on 14 April 2016
Registered on the same date
examined the admissibility of the referral mentioned
Considering documents and materials,
deliberated on 29 April 2016 in the room the council
Delivers the following decision: tHE FACTS

1. The case originated exception is inconsistent-tuţionalitate point 7 of the Regulation on the application of facilities for flood cleanup in the summer of 2010, approved by Government Decision no. 765 of 20 August 2010 (hereinafter - Regulation) and the annex thereto, the lawyer raised by Mircea Patrachi in case no. 3-225 / 15 pending before the Court Botanica, mun. Chişinău.
2. The referral was submitted to the Constitutional Court on 14 April 2016 by the District Court judge Nicholas Sova within Botanica, mun. Chisinau, under Article 135 para. (1) a) and g) of the Constitution, as interpreted by the Constitutional Court Decision no. 2 of 9 February 2016 and the Regulation on the procedure for examining complaints lodged with the Constitutional Court.
A.
Three main circumstances in the proceedings. On March 10 2015-10 July 2015 Chisinau customs inspectors carried out a subsequent review planned by post clearance audit LLC "Polymer Gas Construction". Upon checking to verify the conditions of granting exemption on importation of goods for liquidation of consequences of floods in the summer of 2010, and if the goods were exempt for this purpose.
4. On July 14, 2015 by an act of postvămuire audit found that goods imported exemptions by LLC "Polymer Gas Construction" are not in the list of goods destined for liquidation of consequences of floods in the summer of 2010, approved by the Government.
May. Thus, the control body found that, pursuant to art. 12 711 para. (L) letter с), art. 12 713, art. 129, art. 2023 par. (2) (E) and art. 2027 of the Customs Code must be recalculated and collected customs duties, amounting to 73706.37 MDL and delay penalties.
June. 28 September 2015, disagreeing with the documents issued by the customs office Chisinau, LLC "Polymer Gas Construction" filed in the Court of Botanica, mun., For a lawsuit against Customs Office Chisinau, which requested the annulment of administrative and reimbursement received in the amount of 97750.32 lei.
July. In the hearing on 2 March 2016 the applicant's representative exception of unconstitutionality of the section. 7 of the Regulation on the application of facilities for flood cleanup in the summer of 2010, approved by Government Decision no. 765 of 20 August 2010, and the Annex to the Regulation.
August. By the end of the same day, the court ordered the lifting of the objection of unconstitutionality and transmission of referral to the Constitutional Court for resolution.
B.
Relevant legislation in September. The relevant provisions of the Constitution (republished in the Official Gazette, 2016, no. 78, Article 140) are as follows:
Article 6Separaţia and cooperation of powers


"In Moldova the legislature, executive and judiciary are separate and cooperate in the exercise of their powers under the Constitution."

Article 60Parlamentul supreme representative and legislative

"(1) Parliament is the supreme representative body of the people of Moldova and the sole legislative authority of the state.
[...] "
Article 102Actele Government


"[...]
(2) The decisions are adopted to carry out the laws.
[...] "
Article 130Sistemul credit-financial


"(1) Formation, administration, use and control of financial resources of the State, territorial-administrative units and public institutions shall be regulated by law.
[...] "
Article 132Sistemul fiscal


"(1) Taxes, duties and other revenues of the state budget and state social security budget, the budgets of districts, towns and villages are established by law, the respective representative bodies.
(2) Any other provision is forbidden. "

10. The relevant provisions of Law no. 191 of 15 July 2010 on the granting of facilities for flood cleanup in the summer of 2010 (published in the Official Gazette, 2010, no. 138-140, art. 494), are:
"Art.1. - Value added tax does not apply to goods, works and services for liquidation of consequences of floods in the summer of 2010.
Art.2. - Are exempted from customs duties and taxes for customs procedures imported goods and services, intended for liquidation of consequences of floods in the summer of 2010.
[...]
Art.5. - Government within 10 days to approve:
list of localities falling under this law and works to be carried liquidation of consequences of floods in summer 2010;
Regulation on the application of this law. "
11. The relevant provisions of the Regulation on the application of facilities for flood cleanup in the summer of 2010, approved by Government Decision no. 765 of 20 August 2010 (published in the Official Gazette, 2010, no. 153-154, art. 849), are:
"6. VAT exemption of customs duty, excise duty and customs procedures, according to this Regulation shall apply to goods imported for liquidation of consequences of floods in the summer of 2010, from 6 August 2010.
July. VAT exemption of customs duty and tax for customs procedures referred to in paragraph 6 of this Regulation applies to the goods specified in the Annex to this Regulation. "
" Annex to the Regulation on the application of facilities for liquidation of consequences floods in the summer of 2010. "


LIST goods imported for liquidation of consequences of floods in the summer
2010







Heading


Commodity name




1


2





Building materials




Chapter 25


Mineral products




Chapter 32


Paints and varnishes




382 450



Mortars and concretes



3916, 3918, 3925


Plastic products for construction




4403-4412


wood




Chapter 68


Articles of stone, plaster, cement




6901-6908


Ceramics




7003-7005


Glass and glassware




Chapter 72


Profiles, wires and bars




Chapter 73


Articles of iron or steel




9406


Prefabricated buildings






THE LAW A. The author of the objection of erratic-tuţionalitate
12. In motivating the exception of unconstitutionality, the author argues that point 7 of the Rules approved by Government Decision no. 765 of 20 August 2010 and the Annex to the Regulation mentioned explicitly lay down the list of goods which are exempt from import duties, in order to be used to liquidate the consequences of floods in the summer of 2010, while Law no. 191 of 15 July 2010 on the granting of facilities for flood cleanup in summer 2010 did not limit the types of cargo.

13. The author argues that the exception under Article 5 of Law no. 191 of 15 July 2010, the Government had only to approve the list of localities falling under the law and works to be carried liquidation of consequences of floods in the summer of 2010 and the rules on the enforcement of the law.
14. The author claims that the plea through an exhaustive list of goods which will apply tax and customs government has exceeded its authority granted by Law no. 191 of 15 July 2010.
15. According to the author of the objection of unconstitutionality, the contested provisions infringe Articles 6, 60 para. (1), 66 lit. c) 102 para. (1) and paragraph. (2), paragraph 130. (1) and 132 para. (1) of the Constitution.
B. The Court's assessment
16. Examining the admissibility of the notification regarding the exception of unconstitutionality, the Court finds as follows.
17. Under Article 135 para. (1) a) of the Constitution, Article 4 para. (1) a) of the Law on Constitutional Court and Article 4 para. (1) a) of the Code of Constitutional Court shall, upon appeal, the constitutionality of Government decisions and ordinances.
18. The Court notes that the notification regarding the exception of unconstitutionality, being raised by the lawyer Mircea Patrachi in case no. 3-225 / 15 pending before the Court Botanica, mun., Is made the subject of legally authorized, under Article 135 para. (1) a) and g) of the Constitution, as interpreted by the Constitutional Court Decision no. 2 of 9 February 2016
19. The Court reiterates that the power to handle exceptions of unconstitutionality, which was vested by Article 135 para. (1) letter g) of the Constitution requires the correlation between the contested rules and the Constitution, taking into account the principle of the rule and its relevance the contested provisions for resolution of the dispute in the courts.
20. The Court notes that under the exception of unconstitutionality concerns the correlation between the rules contained in Law No. 191 of 15 July 2010 on the granting of facilities for flood cleanup in the summer of 2010 and point 7 of the Rules approved by Government Decision no. 765 of 20 August 2010 and the Annex thereto, which was established list of goods imported for liquidation of consequences of floods in the summer of 2010, which are exempt from VAT, customs tax and fees for customs procedures.
21. The Court finds that the author of the objection of unconstitutionality submitted that the approval of the Decision no. 765 of 20 August 2010 the Government found regulatory limits under the law, thus violated Articles 6, 60 para. (1), 66 lit. c) 102 para. (1) and paragraph. (2), paragraph 130. (1) and 132 para. (1) of the Constitution.
22. The Court notes that Article 60 para. (1) of the Constitution, Parliament is the supreme representative body of the people of Moldova and the sole legislative authority of the state.
23. The Court also recalls that in terms of separation and collaboration of powers (Art. 6 of the Constitution) Government, according to art. 102 par. (2) of the Constitution, makes decisions for the application of laws. Thus, the legislature, as the supreme delegate executive powers by law to achieve internal and external policy of the state.
24. At the same time, the Court notes that additional limits prescribed by constitutional rules invoked by the Government shall be empowered in the field of regulation, the rule of law (as enshrined in Article 1 of the Constitution) requires that empower the executive to adopt administrative acts in -a field or another are sufficiently determined and limited by law, by content, object, purpose, so that its interventions are predictable and quantifiable citizen.
25. The Court notes that Article 2 of Law no. 191 of 15 July 2010 shall be exempt from customs duties and taxes for customs procedures imported goods and services, intended for liquidation of consequences of floods in the summer of 2010. Also, Article 1 of the law states that VAT does not apply to goods works and services for liquidation of consequences of floods in the summer of 2010.

26. However, Article 5 of the Act, Parliament authorized the Government to approve (1) the list of localities falling under the law and works to be carried liquidation of consequences of floods in summer 2010; (2) Regulation on the application of the law.
27. In this context, the Court holds that the Government approved Resolution no. 765 of 20 August 2010 to enforce the provisions of Law no. 191 of 15 July 2010.
28. The Court emphasizes that the second paragraph of Article 5 regulations, the legislature has awarded the Government a general power to regulate the liquidation of consequences of floods in the summer of 2010.
29. The Court finds that regulate the application of exemptions from customs duty, customs duty and VAT procedures, the Government established exhaustive list of goods imported for liquidation of flood consequences
summer 2010, thus establishing clear rules for all the subjects mentioned .
30. Given the above, the Court notes that it is not competent ratione materiae to rule on the desirability of establishing the legislator has certain powers of government in the management of imported goods for flood cleanup, nor the limits regulated by Government Decision no . 765 of 20 August 2010
31. Thus, under the above, the Court finds that the complaint does not meet the conditions of admissibility for the constitutionality and can not be accepted for examination.
For these reasons, pursuant to Articles 26 para. (1) and 31 of the Law on Constitutional Court, Articles 61 para. (3) and 64 of the Code of Constitutional Court Constitutional

DECIDED:

1. Declare inadmissible complaints concerning the exception of unconstitutionality of the provisions of section 7 of the Regulation on the application of facilities for flood cleanup in the summer of 2010, approved by Government Decision no. 765 of 20 August 2010, and the Annex thereto, the lawyer raised by Mircea Patrachi, in case no. 3-225 / 15 pending before the Court Botanica, mun. Chişinău.
2. This decision is final, can not be subject to any appeal, shall enter into force upon adoption and shall be published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Moldova.

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT PRESIDENT Alexandru Tanase