On behalf of the Republic
Constitutional Court, sitting as the composition:
Mr. Alexandru Tanase, President, Mr. Aurel
BĂIEŞU, Mr. Igor
DOLEA, Mr. Tudor
Panţiru, Mr. Victor
POPA, judges
with Ms Aliona Balaban, Registrar,
Considering the complaint filed on 14 April 2016
Registered on the same date mentioned in the notification
plenary examining public
Considering documents and materials,
deliberated in closed session
Delivers the following judgment: PROCEDURE

1. The case originated exception of unconstitutionality are the phrases "work houses" in Article 5 para. (2) and "excluding housing service 'in Article 17 para. (1) of the Law on Privatization of housing stock nr.1324-XII of 10 March 1993 raised by lawyer Constantin Lazar folder nr.3-153 / 2016 before the Court Buiucani mun. Chişinău.
2. The referral was submitted to the Constitutional Court on 14 April 2016 by Judge Andrei Niculcea by the Buiucani District, 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.
March. Author plea alleged that the contested provisions, which prohibit the transmission of privately owned housing service, contrary to Articles 1 para. (3) 4 par. (2), 7, 9, 15, 16, 18, 20, 46 and 54 of the Constitution.
4. By decision of April 29, 2016 Constitutional Court on the plea of ​​unconstitutionality complaint was admissible, without prejudging the merits.
May. In examining the notification, the Constitutional Court requested the opinion of Parliament, the President of Moldova and the Government.
June. Public plenary of the Court the exception of unconstitutionality was presented by lawyer Constantin Lazar, author of the objection of unconstitutionality. Parliament was represented by Mr Sergiu Buffalo, Head of Division in the Directorate General of Legal Parliament Secretariat. The government was represented by Ms Dorina Cebotarean, deputy director of the Public Property Agency.

CIRCUMSTANCES main proceedings 7. During 2014-2015, Mr. Igor Moraru, Staţenco Vera Ivancenco Marta, Natalia Cioran, Solonaru Valentina Aliona brook, Diftirenco Vitalie, Nicu Svetlana, Vicol Liuba, Volter Tatiana, Ludmila Stajilova, Tîrchilă Vladislav, Ghitmanenco Ina, Macarius Igor, Bacal Radu Rusu Liuba, Nicolae Rotaru and Pîntea Constantin, addressing the Penitentiary Department and Ministry of Justice, requested authorization to privatize housing service that have been made available by SE "Rusca" in the exercise of powers under this functional state institutions, subject to the Prisons Department.
August. The requests were rejected on the grounds that there is no legal basis for the privatization of housing service since Law no. 278 of 7 December 2012 amending some legislative acts were amended Articles 5 and 17 of the Law on privatization housing stock is prohibited privatization of housing service from 11 January 2013.
September. On 16 October 2015, the petitioners disagree with the decision, filed in domestic court mun. Chisinau procedure administrative disputes a claim in court against the Ministry of Justice and the intervener accessory, Department of Penitentiary Institutions, for an order that the Ministry of Justice to issue administrative act, enabling them to privatize service apartments.
10. On April 5, 2016, their lawyer, Constantin Lazar, called for raising the exception of unconstitutionality of provisions of art. 5 paragraph. (2) and art. 17 para. (1) of the Law on Privatization of housing stock, citing the fact that the amendments to the law on 7 December 2012 is without prejudice to the Constitution and international treaties on human rights.
11. By the end of 7 April 2016, the court ordered the lifting of the objection of unconstitutionality and transmission of referral to the Constitutional Court for resolution.

RELEVANT LAWS 12. The relevant provisions of the Constitution (republished in the Official Gazette, 2016 No. 78, art. 140) are:
Article 16Egalitatea



"1) to respect and protect the person is a primary duty of the state.
(2) All citizens of Moldova are equal before the law and public authorities irrespective of race, nationality, ethnic origin, language, religion, sex, political affiliation, wealth or social origin. "|| |
Article 46 right to private property and its protection

"(1) The right to private property and state bonds are guaranteed.
(2) No one may be expropriated except in the public interest, established by law, against just compensation paid in advance.
[...]. "

Article 54 Restriction of certain rights or freedoms

"(1) In the Republic of Moldova can not adopt laws that would suppress or weaken fundamental rights and freedoms of man and citizen.
(2) The exercise of rights and freedoms can not be subjected to any restrictions other than those prescribed by law and which meet generally accepted principles of international law and are necessary in the interests of national security, territorial integrity, economic welfare, public order, to prevent mass riots and crimes, protecting the rights, freedoms and dignity of others, preventing disclosure of confidential information or guarantee the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
[...]
(4) The restriction must be proportionate to the situation that caused it and can not touch the existence of the right or freedom. "
13. The relevant provisions of the privatization of housing stock nr.1324-XII of 10 March 1993 (republished in MO, special edition of 27 June 2006) are:
"Art.1. - (1) The privatization of the housing stock is a process of alienation conducted by state authorities, in housing belonging to the state, public organizations, over which the state has declared ownership, other associations and cooperative enterprises state built from the funds allotted from the state budget, privately owned Moldovan citizens and their associations (joint stock companies and economic companies, other companies) to meet the needs in housing and the formation of mastering real the right to freely dispose of the property .
(2) the housing in this law are understood buildings and dwellings in buildings owned by the state, regardless of department affiliation, housing state farms and other state agricultural enterprises, including the reorganized after the implementation of the Law on privatization and housing built by the funds of state enterprises and organizations with other types of property. "
[...]
" Art.5. - (1) Citizens of the Republic of Moldova can be sold or transferred for free to private ownership in particular dwellings in which they live and belong fund state and public which the State has declared ownership and in buildings belonging units, whether such units are included in the privatization list.
(2) can not be sold or transferred for free privately owned buildings that are closed military towns, homes, housing services, housing and irreparable damaged houses to be demolished, cantons and other Building which is the balance or the property of the state forest.
[...] "
" Art.17. - (1) The houses of state and departmental service except dwellings, transmitted, within the rules of this law, private property:
[...]. "
14. The relevant provisions of Law 278 of 7 December 2012 amending and supplementing certain acts (OJ 2013, no. 6-9, art. 32) are:
"Art. II. - Law on Privatization of housing stock nr.1324-XII of 10 March 1993 (republished in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Moldova, special edition of 27 June 2006), as amended, is amended and supplemented as follows:
1. In Article 5 (2) the text "(whose residents have worked more than 10 years in that unit)" is excluded.
2. Article 17 (1), in the introduction, after the words "state and departmental" the words "excluding housing service."

Art. III. - Applications for privatization of housing service submitted in accordance with art. 11 (1) of the Law on Privatization of housing stock nr.1324-XII of 10 March 1993 to the date of entry into force of this law will be examined in accordance with the legal force at the time of submission. "
15. The relevant provisions of Law No.75 of 30 April 2015 on housing (MO, 2015 nr.131-138, 249) are:
Article 4Noţiuni main


"In this law the following terms mean:
[...]
Company housing - housing lease granted under the law, certain categories of persons by them during their functional duties;
[...]. "
Article 21Locuinţele service


"(1) Housing service is provided to persons and their families do not own a home if the property in the same administrative unit at the time the lease agreement. Getting to the person of another housing constitute grounds for terminating the tenancy.
(2) The list of positions and professions that provide entitlement to housing service is established by the Government, unless the law provides otherwise.
(3) The use of service housing is provided for in the lease agreement as per Chapter. VIII.
(4) If after the expiry of the employment contract between the employer and labor relations tenant was prolonged by another contract of employment, housing tenant service shall retain the right to extend the shelf life of the lease the duration of the new employment contract.
[...]
(7) dwellings built or purchased service budgets from state or local sources can not be sold or passed to other housing.
[...]. "

Article 22Evacuarea of ​​work houses

"(1) After expiry of the tenancy of the home service, the tenant and his family members and former members of the family must leave the property within up to 3 months, otherwise they will eviction in court.
[...]. "
16. The relevant provisions of the Protocol. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (signed at Rome on 4 November 1950 and ratified by the Parliament of Moldova no. 1298-XIII of 24 July 1997) are:
Article 1Protecţia property


"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and under the conditions provided by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not affect the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties. "
|| THE LAW | 17. Content notification regarding the exception of unconstitutionality, the Court notes that it aims essentially the privatization of housing service.
18. Thus, the exception of unconstitutionality refers to a range of factors related constitutional principles such as the right to housing service and the right to private property and guarantees it.
A.
ADMISSIBILITY 19. By decision of 29 April 2016, the Court examined the admissibility following conditions are met:
(1) Subject plea falls into the category of documents contained in Article 135 para. (1) a)
20 of the Constitution. Under Article 135 para. (1) a) of the Constitution, the constitutionality of laws, namely the Law of privatization housing stock nr.1324-XII of 10 March 1993 the competence of the Constitutional Court.
(1) exception is raised by a party or its representative, or indicate that it is raised by the court of its own motion
21. Being raised by lawyer Constantin Lazar folder nr.3-153 / 2016 which is pending in Court Buiucani mun. Chişinău, notification on the objection of unconstitutionality shall be made subject 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
(2) The provisions challenged to be applied to solving the case

22. The Court held that the power to handle exceptions of unconstitutionality, which was vested by Article 135 para. (1) g) of the Constitution requires establishing the correlation between the laws and the Constitution, taking into account the principle of the primacy and relevance of its contested provisions for resolution of the dispute in the courts.
23. The Court observes that the object of the objection of unconstitutionality is the words "work houses" in art. 5 paragraph. (2) and "excluding housing service" in art. 17 para. (1) of the Law on Privatization of housing stock.
24. Court accepts the arguments of the author exception of unconstitutionality, that the contested provisions to be applied to solving the case because under their empire were born legal relations which remain in effect and are crucial to deciding on privatization of housing service.
(3) There is an earlier judgment of the Court covering
25 contested provisions. The Court notes that the contested provisions were not previously subject to constitutional control.
26. Therefore, the Court notes that the plea of ​​unconstitutionality can not be dismissed as inadmissible and there is no other reason to stop the process, in accordance with Article 60 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Code.
27. Following its previous case, the Court will address the constitutionality of the contested provisions, relative to the actual circumstances of the dispute mainly through constitutional norms invoked by the author of the objection, taking into account the principles enshrined in the Constitution and law, and stated in European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter - the European Court).
28. Articles 1 para. (3) 4 par. (2), 7, 15, 18 and 20 of the Constitution, are irrelevant in relation to the disputed rules will not be applied.
29. Thus, to elucidate the issues addressed in the complaint, the Court will operate with Article 46 combined with Articles 16 and 54 of the Constitution.
B. MERITS OF THE CASE
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 46 IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLES 16 AND 54 OF THE CONSTITUTION
30. The author believes that the objection of unconstitutionality of the contested rules infringe Article 46 of the Constitution, which states:
"(1) The right to private property and state bonds are guaranteed.
[...]. "
31. According to the author exception of unconstitutionality, criticized legal provisions violate Article 16 of the Constitution, which states:
"(1) to respect and protect the person is a primary duty of the state.
(2) All citizens of Moldova are equal before the law and public authorities irrespective of race, nationality, ethnic origin, language, religion, sex, political affiliation, wealth or social origin. "|| | 32. Similarly, the author claims that the laws contravene Article 54 of the Constitution, which states:
"(1) In the Republic of Moldova can not adopt laws that would suppress or weaken fundamental rights and freedoms of man and citizen.
(2) The exercise of rights and freedoms can not be subjected to any restrictions other than those prescribed by law and which meet generally accepted principles of international law and are necessary in the interests of national security, territorial integrity, economic welfare, public order, to prevent mass riots and crimes, protecting the rights, freedoms and dignity of others, preventing disclosure of confidential information or guarantee the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
(3) The provisions of paragraph (2) do not restricting the rights proclaimed in Articles 20 to 24.
(4) The restriction must be proportionate to the situation that caused it and can not touch the existence of the right or freedom. "
1. Arguments author exception of unconstitutionality
33. In motivating the exception of unconstitutionality, the author claimed that the changes made by Law no. 278 of 7 December 2012 in Articles 5 para. (2) and 17 par. (1) of the Law on Privatization of housing stock without prejudice to the constitutional provisions and international treaties to which Moldova is a party, because people who have been granted housing service are deprived of the right to privatize the housing. Thus, according to the author exception, rules criticized violates property rights and not proportionate.

34. Also author of the objection alleged that creates a situation of discrimination against citizens who no longer have the right to privatize housing service, even if they had that right until 11 January 2013 and continues to live today in these housing service. Also, the author argues that, contrary to housing service, state and departmental apartments can be privatized.
35. According to the author of the objection, citizens were not informed that they will be deprived future, the right to privatize housing service and not given sufficient time to exercise the rights that they previously held, contrary to the principles predictability and accessibility law.
2. Arguments authorities
36. In the opinion of the President of Moldova, the contested provisions do not go beyond constitutional. In particular, the law meets all quality and legislature intervention falls within the acceptable limits of Article 54 of the Constitution, since the contested provisions are prescribed by law and are necessary in the interests of national security and economic welfare.
37. At the same time, the Moldovan president argued that limiting the right to privatize housing service through the modification of Law privatization of housing stock can not be regarded as an infringement of Articles 46 and 54 of the Constitution, because they do not have an absolute character. Thus, even though people had the right to privatize lodgings, failure to apply for rights exploitation can be considered an unsuitable conditions provided by law. Accordingly it can not be called into question legitimate expectation to acquire a property right.
38. According to written, Parliament stated that the termination of the privatization of housing service did not constitute a violation of housing rights, namely the right to property as the result of option legislature and is based on exercising the right that the state has to decide on property owned by it.
39. Parliament also argued that the privatization of housing service has been in force for over 20 years, the Law of privatization housing stock is available, therefore, it was possible that people who met the law to legalize necessary papers obtaining of ownership to 11 January 2013, the date on which entered into force amendments to the Law no. 1324-XII of 10 March 1993.
40. According to the Government, invoking the author of a violation of constitutional rights by excluding privatization of housing service is unwarranted, insofar as the acquisition of the right of private ownership of housing as a result of the privatization process, not a fundamental right.
41. The Government also noted that the development and adoption of the legislative act public authorities ensured compliance with the principles of transparency and publicity, and the purpose of these amendments is essentially finalizing the concept home service.
March.
Court's discretion 3.1. General principles
42. The Court notes that Article. 9 of the Constitution establishes the existence of private ownership of property and intellectual, and according to art. 46 of the Constitution, the right to private property is guaranteed.
43. The Court notes that enshrine private property holder the right to possess, use and dispose of property exclusively, absolute and perpetual, within the limits set by law.
44. The Court notes that Article 1 of Protocol. l European Convention enshrines the right to property.
45. Thus, any natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided by law and by the general principles of international law. The preceding provisions shall not affect the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest.
46. The Court notes that as "good", protected by Article 46 of the Constitution and Article 1 of Protocol. l European Convention, recognizable element of the assets of any person who has economic value.

47. The Court also notes that the Commission has decided that the former can not be considered goods that enter the scope of art. 1 of Protocol no. l European Convention on those property values ​​complainant can not pretend to have at least a "legitimate expectation" of them materialized (see Case Mayer and Others vs. Germany on 4 March 1996). However, in the case Kopecky vs. Slovakia on 28 September 2004, the European Court held that a claim can be considered an "asset" within the meaning of art. 1 of Protocol no. 1 to the Convention only when it has a sufficient basis in law, for example, a statutory provision, or the existence is confirmed by a well-established jurisprudence of the courts.
48. Also, the Court retains European Court, which states that art. 1 of Protocol no. One does not recognize the right to become the owner of a property, applying only to current assets (due Lupulet vs. Romania), and does not guarantee the right to acquire a property (Case Linde vs. Sweden).
49. The Court notes that both art. 46 of the Constitution and art. 1 of Protocol no. l European Convention guarantees the right to become the owner of a property and are limited in their effectiveness by the fact that only recognize current law, not entitled to obtain ownership of an asset.
50. The Court notes that the ownership can not be regarded as an absolute right. The legislator may establish an interference with the right to property, provided that it is prescribed by law, pursue a purpose to serve the public interest and be proportionate to the aim pursued.
51. The Court notes that the establishment of a legislative measure must be justified by a legitimate aim, so keep a fair balance between the rights and interests of all participants who are in identical situations, without privileges and discrimination, thus respecting the constitutional principle equality and non-discrimination.
52. The Court also notes that various categories of persons, under exceptional circumstances, may be treated differently, depending on the objective pursued by the legislature, without such measures run counter to the provisions of Article 16 of the Constitution.
3.2. Applying the principles in examining the case
53. The Court notes that the dwelling can be an object of property. The provisions governing the right to housing are included in Law no. 75 of 30 April 2015 on housing.
54. According to art. 1 para. (2) of the Law on housing, the state ensures people's right to social housing, service, maneuver type fireplace, hotel-seekers with special status (protocol), according to criteria established by this law, within housing available.
55. The Court notes that according to the Law on housing, housing service within the categories of housing provided by the state, under the law, and are used to domiciliation certain categories of persons during performance of functional tasks by them.
56. Article 21 para. (3) of the Law on Housing states that use housing service is provided for in the lease, and according to art. 22 para. (1) after expiry of the tenancy, the tenant and his family members and former members of the family must leave the property within up to 3 months, otherwise they are to be evicted by court.
57. Consequently, the Court holds that housing service, by their nature, not intended for alienation by tenants having a special purpose law. Housing service is assigned for use exclusively, employees and their family members in the exercise by them of functional tasks, according to legal provisions.
58. In this respect, the Court reiterates that the use of service housing is closely related to the existence of labor relations between employees and owners of these homes and lasts as long as there relations.
59. By Law No privatization of housing stock. 1324-XII of 10 March 1993, the legislature established a specific way of acquiring privately owned housing in public ownership.

60. Thus, Law no. 1324-XII of March 10, 1993 defines privatization as a process of alienation conducted by state authorities, in housing belonging to the state, public organizations, over which the state has declared ownership, other associations and cooperative enterprises state built from the funds allotted from the state budget, privately owned Moldovan citizens and their associations (joint stock companies and economic companies, other companies).
61. The Court notes that the Law on privatization of housing fund sets out the principles and basic conditions of privatization of the housing stock.
62. According to art. 5 paragraph. (1) of that Act supra, Moldovan citizens can be sold or transferred for free to private property, especially homes in which they live and belong fund state and public which the State declared right property.
63. However, the Court notes that the legislature has the power to regulate the regime of privatization according to different categories of housing. Thus, the provisions of Article 5 para. (2) of the Law on Privatization of housing stock, modified by Law 278 of 7 December 2012 that have not sold or transferred for free privately owned buildings that are closed military towns, homes, housing service, housing and irreparable damaged houses to be demolished, cantons and other buildings that are in balance or state forest property.
64. In this regard, the Court notes that Article. 21 para. (7) of the Law on Housing states that work houses built or purchased from local sources state budgets or can not be sold or passed to other housing.
65. From the mentioned legal provisions, the Court concludes that housing service falling under the categories of housing which, by their regime are excluded from housing liable to privatization.
66. The Court held that the right to privatize housing service is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution and the legislator is free to choose, depending on government policy and financial resources, which are measures applicable to property owned.
67. Thus, the Court notes that the exclusion of housing service can be privatized housing can not be regarded as a violation of art. 46 of the Constitution, because housing service does not constitute an "existing", ie a good in employee heritage. Or, "legitimate expectation" on a "good" can not be invoked as "asset".
68. Regarding allegations author of the objection about discrimination against people who no longer have the right to privatize housing service after the entry into force of the amendments made, the Court concludes that the measures imposed by the state does not contravene the principle of equality, since they are applied uniformly, without any distinction . Meanwhile, the above provisions of the law that allowed the privatization of housing service were applicable for 20 years, and those who met the necessary conditions have been able to implement this right. Or, inadequate use of the right to privatize housing service without prejudice to those principles.
69. The Court also points out that if, according to legal provisions, some people can get into unfavorable situations, assessed subjectively through their own interests, this does not constitute discrimination which affect the constitutionality of provisions.
70. The Court finds that by adopting these measures legislator intervention is proportionate and was based on economic interest: to protect the rights and interests of other persons. Or, if the privatization of housing service would continue, their number would be reduced considerably and the State would not have been able to provide its officers with housing service.
71. Thus, referring to the contested provisions on the housing belonging to the state, the Court notes that it is the prerogative of the legislature to decide how to exercise state law on property owned by it.
72. In conclusion, the Court holds that the contested provisions contained in Art. 5 paragraph. (2) and art. 17 para. (1) of the Law on Privatization of housing stock does not infringe Article 46 combined with Articles 16 and 54 of the Constitution.

For these reasons, pursuant to Articles 135 paragraph. (1) a) and g) and 140 of the Constitution, 26 of the Law on Constitutional Court, 6, 61, 62 lit. a) and e), and 68 of the Code of Constitutional Court Constitutional

DECIDES:

1. Rejecting the objection of unconstitutionality raised by the lawyer Constantin Lazar in case no. 3-153 / 2016 pending before the domestic court mun. Chişinău.
2. Recognize the constitutional terms "housing service" in Article 5 para. (2) and "excluding housing service 'in Article 17 para. (1) of the Law on Privatization of housing stock nr.1324-XII of 10 March 1993. 3
. 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.