On behalf of the Republic
Constitutional Court, sitting as the composition:
Mr. Alexandru Tanase, President, Mr. Aurel
BĂIEŞU, Mr. Igor
DOLEA, Mr. Tudor
Panţiru, judges
with Ms Eugenia bribes, Registrar,
Considering the complaint lodged on 6 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 in the objection of unconstitutionality of Article 191 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Iachimciuc raised by Mr Alexander, a lawyer in case no. 1-1056 / 2014, before the Central Court, mun. Chişinău.
2. The referral was submitted to the Constitutional Court on 6 April 2016 by the panel (Palanciuc Catherine, Mary Black, Gheorghe Stratulat), pursuant to 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 exception of unconstitutionality claimed, essentially, that Article 191 of the Criminal Procedure Code violates Articles 4 para. (1), 7, 8, 16, 21, 23 para. (2), 25 and 27 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. The public plenary of the Court, the notification was supported by Mr Alexander Iachimciuc, author of the objection of unconstitutionality. Parliament was represented by Mr Sergiu Buffalo, Head of Division in the Directorate General Legal. The government was represented by Mr Eduard Serbenco, deputy minister of justice.

CIRCUMSTANCES main proceedings 7. On 4 July 2014, the defendant Oleg Timofti was arrested and charged with offenses under Articles 283, 145 para. (2) a), b), d), g), i), j), m), and Articles 27, 145 paragraph. (2) a), b), d), g), i), j), m) of the Criminal Code.
August. By a resolution of the Central Court, mun., For the defendant was applied preventive detention, which was extended successively to the prosecutor responsible for the case.
September. By decision of 1 March 2016 following the examination by the defense counsel of the defendant's appeal, the Court of Appeal revoked the preventive measure of arrest, establishing preventive measure against the defendant provisional release under judicial control.
10. In examining the merits of the criminal case by the Central Court, mun., Counsel defendant filed an application for revocation of the preventive measure - temporary release under judicial control.
11. Also in the hearing of April 5, 2016, counsel defendant raised an objection of unconstitutionality of Article 191 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, arguing that it is not limited period whereabouts judicial control, contrary to the Constitution and the European Convention human rights and fundamental freedoms.
12. 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.

RELEVANT LAWS 13. The relevant provisions of the Constitution (republished in the Official Gazette, 2016, no. 78, Article 140) are as follows:

Article 23 right of everybody to know their rights and duties


"[...] (2) The State shall ensure the right of everybody to know his rights and duties. For this purpose the State shall publish and make accessible all laws and other regulations. "

Article 25 Individual freedom and personal security

"(1) Individual freedom and security of person are inviolable.
[...]
(4) Arrest shall be made under a warrant issued by a judge for a maximum period of 30 days. The lawfulness of the warrant may be challenged under the law in a higher court. The period of detention may be extended only by a judge or by the court, under law, to no more than 12 months.
[...]

(6) Release detained or arrested person is obligatory if the reasons for detention or arrest have disappeared. "

Article 27 right to free movement

"(1) The right to free movement in the country is guaranteed.
(2) Every citizen of the Republic of Moldova is guaranteed the right to establish his domicile or residence anywhere in the country, to leave, to emigrate and to return to his country. "

Article 28 Intimate, family and private

"The State respects and protects intimate, family and private life."

Article 54Restrângerea exercise 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. "
14. The relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Moldova no. 122-XV of 14 March 2003 (republished in the Official Gazette, 2012 nr.263-269, art.855) are:

Article 175Noţiunea and categories of preventive measures

"[...]
(5) The provisional release under judicial control and bail are alternative preventive measure of arrest and can only be applied to the person against whom a submission for arrest or to suspect, accused already arrested. "

Article 191Liberarea pending trial

"(1) release pending trial may be granted by the judge or, where appropriate, by the court and is accompanied by one or more obligations under par. (3).
(2) release pending trial is not granted the suspect, the defendant if he has criminal records for serious, very serious or extremely serious or no indication that he will commit another crime, will try to influence witnesses or destroy evidence, hide from the prosecution, the prosecutor or, where appropriate, by the court.
(3) The provisional release under judicial control is accompanied by one or more of the following obligations:
1) not to leave the town of residence except under the conditions set by the judge or, where appropriate, the court;
2) communicate to the criminal investigative body or, where appropriate, the court of any change of address;
3) not to go to certain places;
4) to report to the prosecuting authority or, where appropriate, to the court whenever summonsed;
5) does not come into contact with certain persons;
6) not to commit acts capable of hindering the discovery of the truth;
7) not to drive cars, not to exercise any profession of the kind he used to commit the offense;
8) to surrender passport judge or court.
(4) of the police in whose jurisdiction resides the suspect, the defendant temporarily released by controls the observance of the obligations set by the court.
(5) Judicial control over provisionally released person may be high, totally or partially, for good reasons, as established for the measure. "
15. The relevant provisions of the Protocol. 4 to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (signed at Rome on 4 November 1950 and ratified by the Parliament of Moldova nr.1298-XIII of 24 July 1997) are:
Article 2Libertatea movement


"1. Anyone lawfully within a State has the right to circulate freely and to choose freely his residence.
2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.

March. The exercise of these rights shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society for national security, public safety, public order, prevention of crime, protection of health or morals, or for the protection of rights and freedoms of others.
4. In specific areas the rights recognized in paragraph 1 may be subject to limitations as are prescribed by law and justified by the public interest in a democratic society. "

THE LAW 16. From the content of the objection of unconstitutionality, the Court observes that it essentially aims absence of a maximum duration for which can be applied as a preventive measure for release pending trial by the court in a criminal trial.
17. Thus, the notification relates to a number of factors and principles with constitutional value related, such as freedom of movement, right to privacy and family life, the principle of legality of criminal proceedings and protection against arbitrary, proportionality and reasonableness of the preventive measures - release pending trial.
A.
ADMISSIBILITY 18. 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)
19 of the Constitution. Under Article 135 para. (1) a) of the Constitution, the constitutionality of laws, namely the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Moldova no. 122-XV of 14 March 2003 the competence of the Constitutional Court.
(2) exception is raised by a party or its representative, or indicate that it is raised by the court of its own motion
20. Being raised by lawyer Alexander Iachimciuc in case no. 1-1056 / 2014, which is pending before the Central Court, mun., On the plea of ​​unconstitutionality complaint is made the subject of legally authorized.
(3) The provisions challenged to be applied to solving the case
21. 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.
22. The Court observes that the object of the objection of unconstitutionality is the provisions of Article 191 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
23. Court accepts the arguments of the author exception of unconstitutionality, that the contested provisions to be applied to solving the case, as under the sway of them were born legal relations which remain in effect and are crucial to deciding on the person's release under judicial control, as preventive applied by the Court of Appeal on 1 March 2016.
24. At the same time, the Court observes that the provisions of paragraph (2) of Article 191 of the Code of Criminal Procedure expressly refers to situations when provisional release under judicial control can not be granted by the judge or, where appropriate, by court pleadings. Thus, the provisions have no bearing on the criminal case was raised exception, since the release pending trial of the defendant already been granted.
25. At the same time, the Court notes that paragraph (4) of Article 191 of the Criminal Procedure Code indicates the body responsible for carrying out control of the obligations set by the court, but without having any competence to waive, in whole or in part, judicial the released person. That provision also has no bearing on the dispute.
26. In Decision no. 2 of February 9, 2016 the Court emphasized that the exception of unconstitutionality is a procedural action defense by the Constitutional Court before it on inconsistency with the Constitution of the legal provisions applicable in the case before the court.
27. Therefore, the objection of unconstitutionality is inadmissible in respect of the paragraphs (2) and (4) of Article 191 of the Criminal Procedure Code because they have no bearing on the criminal case the exception is raised.

(4) There is an earlier judgment of the Court covering
28 contested provisions. The Court notes that the contested provisions were not previously subject to constitutional control.
29. 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 case law European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter - the European Court).
30. The Court therefore considers that the notification 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.
31. The Court notes that the author exception of unconstitutionality invoked Article contested incompatibility with Articles 4 paragraph. (1), 7, 8, 16, 21, 23 para. (2), 25 and 27 of the Constitution.
32. Referring to the use of Articles 4, 7 and 8 of the Constitution, the Court holds that the constitutional act generic, is imperative general-binding behind any legislation or constitute separate and individual landmarks.
33. However, the constitutional provision contained in Article 16 has no independent meaning and will be applied in combination with the constitutional rules that guarantee a fundamental right.
34. As regards invoking the constitutional principle of presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court notes that it is incident contested rules. Or, not guilt proper defendant determined revoke the preventive measure, but changing the conditions that were taken into consideration the date of disposition provisional release under judicial control, a situation such as to justify the fear that, because of criminal behavior, he could commit another offense will try to influence witnesses or destroy evidence, hide from the prosecution, the prosecutor or, where appropriate, by the court.
35. Meanwhile, in its case, the European Court noted that a restriction on freedom of movement of an individual resulting from a special surveillance measure does not constitute a deprivation of liberty under Article 5 § 1 (Nagy v. Hungary, demand no. 6437/02, decision of 6 July 2004).
36. In this context, the Court notes that Article 25 of the Constitution were not applicable in this case because the provisional release of the person under judicial control shall be applied by the court as an alternative to arrest.
37. Thus, to elucidate the issues raised in the objection of unconstitutionality, the Court will examine the provisions of Article challenged in relation to Articles 23 para. (2) and 27 in conjunction with Article 54 of the Constitution.
B.
I MERITS OF THE CASE. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 23 para. (2) AND 27 OF THE CONSTITUTION
38. Author exception of unconstitutionality claims that Article 191 of the Criminal Procedure Code are contrary to Article 23 para. (2) of the Constitution, stating:
"[...]
(2) The State shall ensure the right of everybody to know his rights and duties. For this purpose the State shall publish and make accessible all laws and other normative acts. "
39. Similarly, the author of the objection claims contravene Article contested Article 27 of the Constitution, which states:
"(1) The right to free movement in the country is guaranteed.
(2) Every citizen of the Republic of Moldova is guaranteed the right to establish his domicile or residence anywhere in the country, to leave, to emigrate and to return to his country. "
1. Arguments author exception of unconstitutionality
40. The author claims that the objection of unconstitutionality of Article 191 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not meet quality requirements of the law, being contrary to Article 23 para. (2) of the Constitution.
41. He argues that the regulation exposed by the legislature, courts were given the right to have unlimited time a preventive measure, which essentially affects a person's right to free movement.
42. The author also cites in support of its arguments exception existing collision between the rules contained in Articles 191 and 178 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
2. arguments authorities

43. In his written opinion, Parliament claimed that the provisional release under judicial control is an alternative to arrest, not being subject to arrest. Thus, judicial provisionally released on a person is a preventive measure distinct and whereabouts term judicial control can not be included in pre-trial detention period, the first being limited by constitutional rules.
44. According Parliament argued that art. 191 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not violate the right to free movement, stated in Article 27 of the Constitution, because, according to art. 178 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the person liable to leave the city in which he resides permanently or temporarily, with the approval of the court which ordered the measure, can circulate freely, including may change their domicile, only it obliged to inform the court about it.
45. In the opinion of the President of Moldova, release pending trial can not be conceived without a pre-existing custody. The meaning given provisional release under judicial control is nothing but a considerable attenuation of the state of detention, since, contrary arrest, provisional release requires a non-custodial status of the person. Therefore, interdependence legally established between these preventive measures, and the use by the legislature in the context of that article to "temporary", which implies an action that only takes some time, clearly shows that the provisional release under judicial control can be applied only in place and only remand for the maximum period of 12 months provided for in Article 25 para. (4) of the Constitution.
46. However, the President of Moldova considers that the complaint on collision between art. 191 and Art. 178 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not the competence of the Constitutional Court.
47. The government says that preventive measures, given that they require, aimed at including a restriction on the personal freedom as a fundamental right and, in particular, operating restrictions and on its composition - the right to free movement or by "amputation "if preventive measures involving deprivation of liberty or by" limiting "if non-custodial preventive measures.
48. The Government considers that the deadline for applying preventive measures - temporary release under judicial control - is a reasonable time and the maximum duration of application may not exceed a reasonable time.
March. Findings of the Court
49. The Court notes that individual freedom as a fundamental human right, is totally or partially affected in its exercise by taking a preventive measure, aiming thereby ensuring the smooth conduct of the trial.
50. Designed as a foundation of legal institutions procesual- criminal to reconcile two social values, the provisional release under judicial control is a measure intended to reconcile individual freedom (avoiding detention) social protection, imposing control over individual freedom (through establishment of certain obligations or restrictions).
51. The Court observes that, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, provisional release under judicial control is a measure custodial preventive and constitutes an alternative to arrest, which can be applied only to the person against whom it submitted a request for arrest or to suspect, accused already arrested. This measure may be taken by the judge or court, if there is evidence or indications which point to the reasonable suspicion that he had committed a crime and if the measure is necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the criminal trial of preventing absconding accused from prosecution or trial or to prevent commission of another offense (art. 175 and 191 para. (1) CPC).

52. The Court also notes that paragraph (3) of article 191 of the Criminal Procedure Code establishes certain restrictions and obligations to be met by the person against whom was imposed provisional release under judicial control, namely: do not leave the place of his domicile, only under conditions set by the judge or, where appropriate, by the court; communicate the criminal investigative body or, where appropriate, the court of any change of address; not to go to certain places; to report to the prosecuting authority or, where appropriate, to the court whenever summonsed; do not come into contact with certain persons; not to commit acts capable of hindering the discovery of the truth; not to drive cars, not to exercise any profession of the kind he used to commit the offense; his passport to the investigating judge or court.
53. Analyzing the nature of the measures above, the Court finds that they constitute interference with fundamental rights and freedoms, such as freedom of movement, the intimate, family and private life, etc.
54. The Court held that fundamental rights are not absolute set by their nature, they can be subjected to reasonable and proportionate limitations through legal regulation.
55. In this regard, according to European Court case law, the obligation to carry an identity document, to be presented to the police on request (Case Reyntjens v. Belgium, decision of 9 September 1992), or the obligation on the person accused or convicted of criminal a- and submit passport to gain entry to "provisional" or "conditional" in freedom (because X v. Germany, decision of 6 March 1984) are not considered restrictions on the right to free movement and is, under certain conditions, measures necessary to ensure public order or to prevent the perpetration of crimes.
56. At the same time, the Court notes that Article 191 of the Criminal Procedure Code establishes certain restrictions for individual rights and freedoms without regulating the duration for which can be ordered preventive measure - temporary release under judicial control. This creates a situation of uncertainty for people provisionally released under judicial control, they will be unable to adapt their behavior and to defend their procedural rights.
57. The Court notes that the legal rules governing provisional release under judicial control must meet certain requirements of stability, predictability and clarity, and failure to indicate the period for which it can be applied to determine a state of legal uncertainty.
58. The Court notes that the right of everybody to know his rights and duties enshrined in art. 23 of the Basic Law, involving, inter alia, that the legislator clear procedural rules, which prescribe precise terms and conditions in which individuals can exercise their rights.
59. In this respect, Decision no. 26 of 23 November 2010, the Court held that:
"To meet the three criteria of quality - affordability, predictability and clarity - the rule of law must be formulated with sufficient precision to enable the citizen to decide on conduct and provide for its reasonably, depending on the circumstances, the consequences of such conduct. Otherwise, although the law contains a rule of law that apparently describes the personal conduct in the circumstances, a person can claim to be unaware of their rights and obligations. In this interpretation, the rule does not correspond to the criteria of clarity is contrary to Article 23 of the Constitution, which stipulates the state's obligation to guarantee every citizen the right to know their rights. "
60. Also, in the case of Rotaru v. Romania, The European Court held that "a norm is predictable only if it is formulated with sufficient precision so as to enable any individual - if need be, can call on expert advice - to regulate his conduct "and in the case Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom, the European Court held that" [...] citizen must have sufficient information on the legal norms applicable in a given case and be able to predict a reasonable extent, the consequences that may arise from a determined act. "

61. In this context, the Court notes, the contents of the instrument should allow the person concerned to conduct reasonably foresee that it should adopt, clarity and predictability are sine qua non elements of the constitutionality of a rule. Also, the law should regulate in a uniform manner to ensure a logical connection between the legal provisions it contains, in the case of a complex legal institutions provide elements that distinguish their peculiarities.
62. Moreover, the European Court reiterated its case that the person against whom criminal proceedings are conducted is entitled to receive care, particularly in respect of the examination of his case. Thus, the predictability of the enactment is closely related to the guarantees of a fair trial, which are designed to avoid placing a person for a long time, in a state of uncertainty regarding the outcome of the examination of the case (Case Nakhmanovich v. Russia, judgment 2 March 2006, § 89, because of Hajibeyli v. Azerbaijan, July 10, 2008 judgment, § 51).
63. The Court notes that the application by the judicial authorities of non-custodial preventive measure, measure constitutes a limitation of personal freedom, must respect proportionality between the objective of the measure in question and its layout.
64. Thus, on the principle of proportionality guaranteed by Article 54 of the Constitution, the Court finds that provisional release under judicial control is provided by law, namely art. 191 of the Criminal Procedure Code is necessary to protect the values ​​of law and pursues a legitimate aim, namely the smooth running of the trial.
65. In respect of the observance of a balance between public interest and the individual, the Court holds that the challenged rule may affect the principle of proportionality in so far as it determines how long can not be ordered.
66. The Court also notes that, according to art. 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the preventive measure - interdiction to leave the locality and not leaving the country shall apply for a period not exceeding 30 days period to be met and the extension of this measure.
67. In these circumstances, the Court finds that while the measure contained in Article 191 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which provides including nepărăsirea village, does not indicate the period for which it applies, to the extent similar to art. 178 this term is specified.
68. The Court also observes that art. 195 par. (5) pt. 1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure that preventive measures ceases as the deadlines provided by law or determined by the prosecuting authority or court, if not extended in accordance with the law.
69. The Court notes that although article 191 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not expressly provide for a deadline to be willing provisional release under judicial control, however the court, taking into account art. 195 par. (5) pt. 1), it should set a deadline for the measure.
70. The Court held that failure to indicate the application of the provisional release under judicial control measure is a legislative omission contrary to the constitution.
71. In this context, the Court holds that, being in the presence of a legislative omissions in its role as guarantor of the supremacy of the Constitution, can not ignore unconstitutional flaws existent because just this omission is one that generates, eo ipso, violation of the constitutional right of the person to know their rights and duties. However, the Constitutional Court under Art. 134 of the Basic Law guarantees the supremacy of the Constitution, which requires, among other things, compliance with the Constitution as a whole.
72. In this context, the Court notes the criticism of unconstitutionality of Article 191 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in respect of the non-regulation within a reasonable time which can be ordered preventive measure provisional release under judicial control since the very omission and imprecision of laws are generating breach of the fundamental right that is allegedly infringed.

73. Consequently, systematic interpretation of the rules of criminal procedure, which establishes deadlines for the application of other preventive measures, there should be regulation in art. 191 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the term may be ordered preventive measure - temporary release under judicial control.
74. The Court notes that the procedural remedy will ensure a fair balance between the public interest and the individual. However, preventive measures have an exceptional nature, the inherent limitation of fundamental rights or freedoms, and this involves, necessarily, and their temporary nature, limited in time.
75. Thus, considering the above, to remedy the deficiency of regulation and eliminate vice of unconstitutionality, the Court will issue an address to Parliament, to make changes in the Criminal Procedure Code, taking into account those rationales.
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. It admits partial exception of unconstitutionality raised by lawyer Alexander Iachimciuc in case no. 1-1056 / 2014, pending on Centre Court, mun. Chişinău.
2. Declare unconstitutional Article 191 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Moldova no. 122-XV of 14 March 2003 in respect of the failure to regulate the period for which judicial review may be ordered maximum duration of such measures.
March. Until correction regulator established by this decision and removing the vice of unconstitutionality by correctives brought meaning shown by this judgment, Article 191 of the Criminal Procedure Code remain in active fund legislation, release pending trial, like other deprivation of liberty preventive measures, to be decided by the judge for a limited period.
4. Given the findings in this judgment, in accordance with Article 281 of Law no. 317-XIII of 13 December 1994 on the Constitutional Court, Parliament is expected to adopt the necessary changes to Article 191 of the Criminal Procedure Code as a priority.
May. 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 Chairman Alexander Tanase


N. 17. Chisinau, May 19, 2016.


Chisinau, May 19, 2016




Moldovan Parliament ADDRESSES


On May 19, 2016 Constitutional Court judgment no. 17 on the plea of ​​unconstitutionality of Article 191 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
By this judgment, the Court declared unconstitutional Article 191 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Moldova no. 122-XV of 14 March 2003 in respect of the failure to regulate the period for which judicial review may be ordered maximum duration of such measures.
In that judgment the Court held that the right of everybody to know his rights and duties enshrined in art. 23 of the Constitution implies, inter alia, adoption by the legislature of clear procedural rules, which prescribe precise terms and conditions in which individuals can exercise their rights.
Court held that failure to indicate the application of the provisional release under judicial control measure is a legislative omission contrary to the constitution.
In this context, the Court held that the legislative omission in the presence and in its role as guarantor of the supremacy of the Constitution, can not ignore existing unconstitutional flaws because just this omission is one that generates, eo ipso, violation the constitutional right of the individual to know their rights and duties.
In view of the reasons given in the Decision no. 17 of 19 May 2016, the Court emphasizes the importance and necessity of regulation by Parliament express the deadline for the application of preventive measures provisional release under judicial control.
In accordance with Article 281 of the Law on Constitutional Court, calls for Parliament to examine this and address to be communicated the results of its examination within the time prescribed by law.


President Alexandru Tanase