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
when Mr Eugene Osipov, Registrar,
Considering the complaint filed on March 23, 2016 and registered on the same date
,
examining the notification referred to in plenary 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 1 para. (2) c) of Law no. 121 of 25 May 2012 on ensuring equality raised by lawyer Doina Ioana Străisteanu in case no. 3-49 / 16, before the Court Buiucani mun. Chişinău.
2. The referral was submitted to the Constitutional Court on 23 March 2016 by Mrs Vasilisa Muntean, judge of the District Court Buiucani mun. Chişinău, 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 exception of unconstitutionality claimed, essentially, that Article 1 para. (2) c) of Law no. 121 of 25 May 2012 on ensuring equality contradict the provisions of Articles 4 para. (2), 7, 8 para. (1), 10 par. (2), 15, 16 para. (2), paragraph 26. (2) and 31 par. (1) and (3) of the Constitution.
4. By the Constitutional Court decision of March 23, 2016 notification 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. Also, the opinion was asked Metropolitan of Chisinau and All Moldova.
June. In a public session of the Court, the notification was backed by lawyer Doina Ioana Străisteanu, 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 Mr Eduard Serbenco, deputy minister of justice.

CIRCUMSTANCES main proceedings 7. 24 February 2014, the petitioner Angela Frolov filed a complaint with the Council for preventing and eliminating discrimination and ensuring equal (hereinafter - Council), alleging that a TV show has been subjected to discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and religious belief of by Gennady Văluţă, who committed a religious ritual.
August. After examining the complaint the complainant, the Council issued the Decision of 19 May 2014 which decided that the facts stated in the complaint is incitement to discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and belief, in accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Law no. 121 of 25 May 2012 on ensuring equality, and that will bring public apology Gennady Văluţă petitioner.
September. On 28 May 2015 Gennady Văluţă filed with Buiucani, mun., In the proceedings administrative disputes a claim in court against the Council, including third party intervener accessory Frolov Angela, which requested the annulment of the decision of 19 May 2014 is manifestly illegal and abusive.
10. In the hearing on 15 March 2016, the representative of accessory intervener exception of unconstitutionality of Article 1 para. (2) c) of the law on equality, arguing that the exclusion of religious cults and their component parts in respect of the religious convictions under the law contrary to the Constitution and international treaties on human rights.
11. 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 12. The relevant provisions of the Constitution (republished in the Official Gazette, 2016 No. 78, art. 140) are:
Article 4Drepturile and freedoms


"(1) Constitutional provisions on the rights and freedoms are interpreted and applied in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, with the covenants and other treaties to which Moldova is party.

(2) Where any inconsistencies exist between the covenants and treaties on fundamental human rights to which Moldova is a party and its domestic laws, international regulations have priority. "

Article 10Unitatea people the right to identity

"[...]
(2) The State recognizes and guarantees the right of all citizens to preserve, develop and express their ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious identity."
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 31Libertatea consciousness


"(1) Freedom of conscience is guaranteed. It must be manifested in a spirit of tolerance and mutual respect.
(2) All religions are free and are organized according to their own statutes under the law.
(3) The relations between religious denominations prohibited any manifestation of discord.
(4) Religious cults are autonomous, independent state and enjoy its support, including the facilitation of religious assistance in the army, hospitals, prisons, asylums and orphanages. "
13. The relevant provisions of Law no. 121 of 25 May 2012 on Equality (OJ 2012, no. 103, art. 355) are:

Article 1Scopul law and the scope

"(1) The purpose of this law is to prevent and combat discrimination and ensure equality for all persons in the Republic of Moldova in the spheres of political, economic, social, cultural and other spheres of life, irrespective of race, color, nationality ethnic origin, language, religion or belief, sex, age, disability, political affiliation or any other similar criteria.
(2) The provisions of this law shall not extend to and may not be construed to affect:
[...]
c) religious cults and their component parts in the part related to religious beliefs. "|| |
Article 7 Prohibition of discrimination in employment

"(1) prohibits any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on criteria established by this Law, which have the effect of limiting or undermining equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or dismissal, direct work and training. Prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation applies in the field of employment and employment.
[...]
(5) Any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference about a particular job does not constitute discrimination where, by the specific nature of the activity in question or the conditions under which this activity is performed, there are some genuine and determining occupational requirement, provided that the requirements to be legitimate and proportionate.
(6) the professional activities of religious cults and their component parts differential treatment does not constitute discrimination based on religion or belief when a person's religion or belief constitutes an occupational requirement, legitimate and justified. "

Article 9Interzicerea discrimination in education

"(1) Educational institutions ensure the principle of non-discrimination:
a) by providing access to educational institutions of all types and levels;
B) in the educational process, including evaluation of accumulated knowledge;
C) in science teaching;
D) by developing teaching materials and curricula;
E) information and training of teachers on the application of methods and means to prevent acts of discrimination and referral to appropriate authorities.
(2) Educational institutions may not establish admission principles to certain restrictions based studies, except in cases stipulated by law.
(3) educational institution refusal to admit to study a person whose qualifications did not correspond to the level needed to succeed not a limitation of the right to education.

(4) The provisions of this Article shall not constitute a restriction of educational institution that prepares a certain religious personnel to deny the application of a person whose religious status does not meet the requirements established for access to the institution. "
14 . The relevant provisions of Law no. 125-XVI of 11 May 2007 on freedom of conscience, thought and religion (MO, 2007, no. 127-130, art. 546) are:

Article 4Libertatea of ​​conscience, thought and religion

"(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall be exercised in a spirit of tolerance and mutual respect and shall include freedom to belongs to a particular religion, to have or not have certain beliefs, to change his religion or belief, to profess religion or beliefs individually or jointly, in public or in private, in teaching, practice, worship and observance. Everyone religious community can freely join any religious denomination.
(2) Exercising the right to freedom to manifest religious beliefs or belief may be restricted by law only if that restriction pursues a legitimate aim and is in a democratic society, necessary safety measures public, public order, health or morals or for the protection of rights and freedoms.
[...] "
Article 5Drepturi and general obligations


"(1) No one may be prosecuted for belief, thought, belief or religious unbelief.
(2) beliefs, thinking, religious faith, work within a religious denomination can not be an obstacle to the acquisition and exercise of civil or political rights. "


Religious association Article 6Libertatea
"(1) No one may be compelled to practice or exercise of religious cult, join or not to any cult, to contribute or not spending any religious denomination.
[...] "
15. The relevant provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted on 10 December 1948 in New York, to which Moldova joined by Parliament Decision no. 217-XII of 28 July 1990) are:
Article 1


"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. "
Article 2


"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind such as, for example, the difference of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, origin national or social origin, property, birth or other status. [...] "
Article 7


"All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. "
16. The relevant provisions of 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 9Libertatea of ​​thought, conscience and religion

"1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom to manifest religion or belief individually or collectively, in public or in private, through worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations prescribed by law that in a democratic society, are necessary for the protection of public order, health, morals, rights and freedoms others. "
Article 14Interzicerea discrimination


"The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, color, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status. "

17. The relevant provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted on 16 December 1966 in New York and ratified by Moldova on 28 July 1990 by the Parliament Decision no. 217- XII) are:
Article 26


"All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. "

tHE LAW 18. From the content of the notification, the Court observes that it essentially aims to exempt religious cults and their component parts in respect of the religious convictions of enforcement of the Law on Equal.
19. Thus, the notification relates to a number of factors and constitutional principles and international interrelated, such as the principle of equality and non-discrimination, proportionality and right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
A.
ADMISSIBILITY 20. By decision of 23 March 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)
21 of the Constitution. Under Article 135 para. (1) a) of the Constitution, the constitutionality of laws, namely Law no. 121 of 25 May 2012 on ensuring equality within 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
22. Being raised by lawyer Doina Ioana Straisteanu the accessory intervener in case no. 3-49 / 16, which is pending before the Court Buiucani mun. Chişinău, notification on the objection of unconstitutionality formulated by the legally authorized topic.
(3) The provisions challenged to be applied to solving the case
23. 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.
24. The Court observes that the object of the objection of unconstitutionality is the art. 1 para. (2) c) of Law no. 121 of 25 May 2012 on ensuring equal.
25. Court accepts the arguments of the author exception of unconstitutionality, that the contested provisions to be applied to solving the case and are crucial to deciding on the cancellation of the administrative act by which it was decided to penalize incitement to discrimination.
(4) There is an earlier judgment of the Court covering
26 contested provisions. The Court notes that the contested provisions were not previously subject to review constitutionality.
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. The Court reiterates that, in Case no. 55 of 14 October 1999 concerning the interpretation of certain provisions of Article 4 of the Constitution, stated that "this provision carries legal consequences, assuming first that law enforcement bodies, including the Constitutional Court [...] I am entitled to apply to the examination of concrete cases international law [...], with the event of a conflict, the provisions of international priority. "

29. In the same vein, in Case no. 10 of 16 April 2010 to review the judgment of the Constitutional Court no. 16 of 28 May 1998 "On the interpretation of art. 20 of the Constitution "in the wording of Resolution no. 39 of 9 July 2001, the Constitutional Court stated that "international legal practice [...] is mandatory for Moldova, as a State party to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms".
30. The Court therefore considers that the objection 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.
31. The Court notes that the objection of unconstitutionality raised by the incompatibility of the contested law with the provisions of Articles 4 para. (2), 7, 8 para. (1), 10 par. (2), 15, 16 para. (2), paragraph 26. (2) and 31 par. (1) and (3) of the Constitution.
32. In its case, the Court noted that Article 16 of the Constitution complements the other substantive provisions of the Constitution and does not have an independent existence, applying only to exercise rights and freedoms guaranteed by constitutional provisions. While it can operate without a violation of other constitutional provisions and, to that extent, can have an independent meaning, Article 16 of the Constitution applies only if the situation falls within the scope of at least one of the constitutional provisions aimed at exercising rights and fundamental freedoms (see, inter alia, Case no. 12 of November 1, 2012 to review the constitutionality of some provisions of article 32 par. (4) letter j) of Law no. 162-XVI of 22 July 2005 on the status of the military, Case No. 15 of 13 September 2011 on reviewing the constitutionality of Article 18 para. (3) of Law no.152-XVI of 8 June 2006 on the National Institute of Justice).
33. Thus, to elucidate the issues raised in the objection of unconstitutionality, the Court will examine the rule challenged in the light of Article 16 taken together with Article 31 of the Constitution - in part related to the principle of equal rights and freedom of thought, conscience and religion, other constitutional provisions invoked by the author of the objection is irrelevant in relation to the contested provisions.
B. MERITS OF THE CASE
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 16 IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 31 OF THE CONSTITUTION
34. The author argues that the plea of ​​unconstitutionality art. 1 para. (2) c) of the Law on Gender contrary to Article 16 para. (2) of the Constitution, stating:
"(2) All citizens of Moldova are equal before the law and public authorities irrespective of race, nationality, ethnic origin, language, religion, sex, opinion, politics, wealth or social origin. "
35. Similarly, the author of the objection claims that the contested rule contravenes Article 31 para. (1) and (3) of the Constitution, which states:
"(1) Freedom of conscience is guaranteed. It must be manifested in a spirit of tolerance and mutual respect.
[...]
(3) The relations between religious denominations are prohibited any manifestation of discord. "
1. Arguments author exception of unconstitutionality
36. The author argues that the plea of ​​unconstitutionality of the provisions under review do not meet quality constitutionality of the law.
37. Author plea essentially alleges that the rule of law laid down in art. 1 para. (2) c) of the Law on Gender confers freedom of religion and freedom to manifest religion absolute, contrary to the Constitution and international treaties to which Moldova is party.
38. Also author of the objection of unconstitutionality claims that no international court, in its case, not prioritize freedom to manifest religion contrary to the freedom of the other to have their own beliefs, not to be subjected to religious practices that they share and to be free from discrimination by instigating this reason.
2. Arguments authorities
39. In the opinion of the President of Moldova, para meaning of Article 1. (2) c) of the law on equality is to give religious communities in Moldova entitled to practice autonomously chosen cult without certain advantages or disadvantages it may create law concerned.

40. However, the President of Moldova said that the legal norm criticized out of the scope of the law only religious structures and their parts, not believers or leaders of these structures, and only in terms of ownership of the latter with a particular religion, ie a complex visions, ideas, principles, doctrines and religious dogmas, propagated in cults.
41. Moldovan President believes that, in essence, the author exception of unconstitutionality does not, de facto, an issue of unconstitutionality, but criticized legal interpretation of the provision, which is outside the competence of the Constitutional Court.
42. In his written opinion, Parliament stated that Article 1 para. (1) of the Law on Gender reveal the purpose of the law, which is to prevent and combat discrimination by certain criteria, which are expressly provided for in Articles 16 and 14 of the Constitution of the European Convention.
43. Parliament also considers that the content of Article 1. (2) of the Act we must understand that the law does not extend to and shall be interpreted as affecting religious cults and their component parts in the part related to religious beliefs. However, the opinion stresses that not every event that has anything to do with the religious beliefs of a person falling within Article 9 of the European Convention. Similarly, it states that, under Article 2 of the UN Declaration of 1981 on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, no person shall be subjected to discrimination on grounds of religion or belief by state institutions, groups of people or individuals. Finally, it states that the challenged rule is fully consistent with constitutional norms.
44. According to the Government, the essence of the contested law is that the right of religious denominations, the ethos of which is based on religion or belief, to require an attitude of good faith and loyalty to the organization's ethos (eg staff working for them) not constitutes discrimination, given the nature of the religious cult.
45. Equally, the Government argued that the rule in art. 1 para. (2) c) of Law no. 121 of 25 May 2012, the legislature intended to exclude situations that actually reasons other than religion and conscience individual basis for determining a condition of employment, even if it is religious cults.
46. Moldovan Orthodox Church said that in his opinion the ministers or clergy of the Orthodox Church of Moldova in the media space not exercise the priestly or sanctifying action.
March.
Court's assessment in March. 1. General principles 3. 1. 1. The principle of equality and non
47. The Court notes that respect and protect the human person is the foremost duty of the State (Article 16 para. (1) of the Constitution). According to paragraph (2) of the same article, all Moldovan citizens are equal before the law and public authorities irrespective of race, nationality, ethnic origin, language, religion, sex, political affiliation, wealth or social origin.
48. Originated in postulate General of the equal dignity of all human beings, as set out in Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the principle of non-discrimination is a principle matrix of international protection of human rights expressed by all international instruments for the proclamation of human rights to which the Republic Moldova is a party.
49. Under Article 2 of the Universal Declaration, "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in the Declaration without any distinction as, for example, without distinction of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. "and Article 7 declares that" all men are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. ".

50. Also, Article 14 of the European Convention provides that the exercise of all rights and freedoms that it recognizes them to be secured without discrimination on ground such as sex, race, color, language, religion, political or other opinion , national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.
51. In similar terms, discrimination is recognized by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which enshrines this principle in Article 26: "All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. ".
52. Discrimination thus allows the scope of equality to be defined in concrete terms: it consists of all relevant rights protected by the Convention and the prohibition of discrimination applies only to the extent that a right guaranteed by the Convention is subject thereof.
53. Thus understood, freedom from discrimination guaranteed by Article 14 of the European Convention has no independent existence as it applies only to the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention but, according to the case has independent significance (Eweida and Others v. The United Britain, January 15, 2013).
54. In this context, the European Court stated that the list of rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the European Convention is not exhaustive, is any discrimination, regardless of the criteria underlying them (Rasmussen v. Denmark, § 34, judgment of November 28, 1984 , A.87).
55. According to the jurisprudence of the European Court, to question the applicability of Article 14 of the Convention, it should be noted a difference in treatment between persons placed in comparable situations. Such a distinction is discriminatory if it has no objective and reasonable justification, that if you do not pursue a legitimate aim or if there is a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought. Contracting States have a wide discretion to determine whether and to what extent differences between similar situations justify a distinction in treatment (Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, § 96, Burden v. The United Kingdom, § 60).
56. However, Article 14 of the European Convention does not prohibit a member state to treat differentiated groups (religious) in order to correct "factual inequalities" between them; Indeed, in certain circumstances, failure to attempt to correct inequality through different treatment may in itself give rise to a violation of article. Treatment difference, however, is discriminatory if it has no objective and reasonable justification.
57. In this context, the Court notes that the expression of opinions and religious beliefs may be an obligation to avoid as far as possible expressions that are groundless and offensive to others and thus causes a violation of rights, not contribute as no form to a public debate likely to promote progress in human relationships (Gündüz v. Turkey judgment of December 4, 2003, § 37).
March. 1. 2. Freedom of conscience
58. Article 31 para. (1) of the Constitution provides that freedom of conscience is guaranteed. It must be manifested in a spirit of tolerance and mutual respect.
59. The Court held that freedom of conscience is a fundamental right guaranteed by international treaties that relate to fundamental human rights and involves moral responsibility and conscience for the thoughts expressed. Responsibility, including legal, occurs only when the thought or opinion expressed, in which can harm the dignity, honor or freedom of thought of another subject of law or social order or rule of law. Therefore freedom of conscience is closely related to freedom of expression, the latter being just recognized human possibility to share their thoughts.
60. So, conscience has a complex content expressed legal point in three dimensions: freedom of thought, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.

61. As protected by Article 9 of the European Convention, freedom of conscience in three forms - of thought, conscience and religion - is the foundation of a democratic society. This freedom is the religious dimension of the fundamental elements of the identity of believers and their conception of life, but also of atheists, agnostics, skeptics or indifferent. That freedom entails, inter alia, the accession or not a religion and the practice it or not (Kokkinakis v. Greece, May 25, 1993, § 31, Buscarini and Others v. San Marino, February 18, 1999, § 34, Leyla Şahin v. Turkey (MC) § 104, SAS v. France 11 October 2010).
62. However, Article 9 of the European Convention does not protect any act motivated or inspired by a religion or belief and does not always guarantee a person's right to behave in the public domain in a manner dictated or inspired by religion or belief .
63. In a democratic society, where several religions coexist within one and the same population, it may be necessary manifestation of religion or belief freedom is subject to restrictions in order to reconcile the interests of different groups and enforce beliefs of each person.
64. The European Court has often emphasized the fundamental role played by the state as organizer neutral and impartial exercise of various religions and beliefs and stated that this role favors public order, religious harmony and tolerance in a democratic society, especially among groups in in opposition. Duty of neutrality and impartiality of the state is incompatible with a certain discretion from the state on the legitimacy of religious beliefs or ways of expressing them (Manoussakis and Others v. Greece, September 26, 1996, § 47, and Hassan and Tchaouch c . Bulgaria, § 78). In accordance with its established case law, the European Court recognizes the States Parties a certain margin of discretion to judge the existence and extent an interference is necessary (Manoussakis and others, cited above, § 44, Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova, §119 and Leyla Şahin v. Turkey, §110).
65. In the same context, the Court notes the provisions of European Union Guidelines on the promotion and protection of freedom of religion or belief, adopted on 24 June 2013 the EU Council, stating that:
"[...]
2. All persons have the right to manifest religion or belief, either individually or jointly with others, both in public and in private, through worship, observance, practice and teaching without fear of intimidation, discrimination, violence or attacks . People who change or renounce religion or belief, and those followers of non-theistic beliefs of atheistic should be equally protected, so people who do not profess a religion or belief.
[...]
July. [...] The EU focuses on an individual's right to believe or not to believe and, alone or together with others, to manifest their beliefs freely. EU does not evaluate the fundamentals of different religions or belief or lack thereof, but shall ensure that the right to believe or not to believe is guaranteed.
[...]
12. To have or not to have a religion or belief is an absolute right and can not be restricted under any circumstances.
[...]
18. Freedom of religion or belief protects the right of every human being to believe or to have a non-theistic or atheistic conviction and to change his religion or belief.
[...] "
66. Theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess a religion or belief are also protected by Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights.
March. 1. 3. The principle of state secularism
67. The main feature of secular state is refraining from interference with religious cults, and ensuring equal rights and duties of citizens in the state, regardless of religion professed. Thus, secularism is the cornerstone of the state organization, designating political power and administrative separation of state and religion, applying the basic principle of democracy, namely the separation of powers.
68. Meanwhile, secularism does not imply indifference of the state towards religion, but rather the state guarantees the protection of religious freedom in a regime of religious and cultural pluralism.

69. The Court notes the difficulty of maintaining the state of plurality and neutral attitude when the company de facto religion is homogeneous to a large extent, but neutrality should be a prerequisite to determine all actions of the state, especially in regard to religion.
70. The principle of secularism is not a tool to combat the presence of religion in public or encouraging secularization of the state and civil society. Secularism implies the existence of the system of values ​​of pluralism, equal protection of religious and non-religious people and calls for a neutral attitude by the state towards both.
71. Starting from the premises constitutional enshrined in the Declaration of Independence of the Republic of Moldova, which was decided on its territory should apply only to the Constitution, laws and other normative acts adopted by the legally constituted organs, the Moldovan state was said to be a state law and democracy, which is enshrined in Article 1 of the Constitution.
72. The Court notes that the Republic of Moldova in the Constitution, not expresis verbis defined as a secular state, however, the constitutional provisions contained in Article 31 para. (4) relating to the autonomy of religious denominations and their separation from the state show the secular nature of the state.
73. The Court also notes that keeping neutral attitude toward religion was instituted as the founding principle of the Republic of Moldova. In particular, to avoid taking a state religion and was banned any official state ideology. Thus, it opted for the consecration of religious neutrality and promoting pluralism as constitutional principles. This shows that the principle of secularism is part of the constitutional identity of the Republic of Moldova, which obliges the state to adopt a neutral attitude in the functioning of religious denominations, thus guaranteeing respect for fundamental rights of every person.
74. The Court notes that the problem to be resolved in this case is to determine whether the exemption of religious cults and their component parts in respect of the religious convictions of the application of the Law on Gender prejudice to the principle of equality and non-discrimination, freedom conscience and secular state.
March. 2. Application of the principles of the present case
75. The Court holds that international law on human rights ensures both the right to equality and the right to be free from discrimination on specific criteria listed. At the same time, the state has a certain discretion to justify different treatment in similar situations. Application discretion vary depending on circumstances and context.
76. Decision no. 16 of 12 June 2007 the Constitutional Court stated that:
"[...] the violation of the principle of equality and non discrimination occurs when a treatment is applied differently in cases equal, without any objective and reasonable motivation, or there is a disproportion between the aims and the means used. "
77. The Court emphasizes that pluralism, tolerance and honesty characterizing a "democratic society". Although sometimes you have to subordinate individual interests to those of a group, democracy does not reduce the constant supremacy of the majority opinion, but has a balance that ensures fair treatment of minority individuals and avoids any abuse of a dominant position.
78. The Court notes that on 25 May 2012, Parliament passed Law no. 121 on Equality, the purpose of which is to prevent and combat discrimination and ensure equality for all persons in the Republic of Moldova in the spheres of political, economic, social, cultural and other spheres of life, irrespective of race, color, nationality, ethnic origin, language, religion or belief, sex, age, disability, political affiliation or any other similar criteria.
79. The provision stated above, Article 1, paragraph. (1), is the leading non-discrimination clause of the Law on Gender. The list of specific criteria listed in this article is based on art. 16 para. (2) of the Constitution and art. 14 of the European Convention.
80. At the same time, the Court notes that, under Article 1 para. (2) letter c), the provisions of that law are not extended and can not be interpreted as affecting religious cults and their component parts in the part related to religious beliefs.

81. In its case, the Court held, in full agreement with the European Court of Human Rights, that equality does not mean uniformity and that may be established treatments separate legal for certain categories of people if there is an objective and reasonable justification (see Case Rasmussen v. Denmark, cited above).
82. Analyzing the norm criticized, the Court holds that the exception regarding the application of the law is not applicable on cults and their component parts itself, but only in part related to their religious beliefs, which is that complex of ideas, principles and doctrines of faith or religious dogmas in which a person believes they accept voluntarily confesses and then drive alive.
83. The right to have a conviction is a general right, protects the inner forum of the person, ie the personal conviction and religious beliefs, and can not be subject to restrictions, limitations or exceptions conditioning. This right benefits both believers and atheists, "agnostics, skeptics or neutral people".
84. Conscience person gives individuality that distinguishes individual. Precisely for this reason the state should safeguard the privacy of the human being and its consciousness. In the process of thinking man forms his belief, and social life is conducted often public events of these beliefs, both cases falling within the protection conferred by Article 9 of the Convention.
85. The Court notes that the right to have a conviction is, first, the freedom of every person to have or adopt a belief or religion of his choice, without involving free to deny the validity of legislative provisions mandatory, basis -and actions on certain religious beliefs. Also, this law concerning freedom of not having a belief or religion. In this way, in legal terms, the individual is protected against "any duty to directly participate in religious activities against his will" (Darby v. Sweden, ECHR judgment of 9 May 1989, Series A vol. 187).
86. The right to express a conviction legal guarantee freedoms of individuals to change religion or belief without coercion or suffering any injury. In this spirit, the United Nations General Assembly adopted on 25 November 1981 Declaration on the Elimination of all forms of intolerance and discrimination based on religious belief or conviction, which prohibits "any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on religious belief or the belief ".
87. In this context, the Court notes that people who move or renounce religion or belief, those adherents of certain belief non-theistic and atheistic people who are not practicing a religion or belief should equally be protected and not be subjected to discriminatory treatment.
88. The Court held that although Article 31 of the Constitution enshrines the separation of religious cults from the State and proclaimed their autonomy, yet their right to freedom of expression of beliefs or religious belief must meet security and public order, health or morals and the rights and freedoms of others. The right to have a conviction protects the inner forum of the person and not the outward manifestation of his beliefs.
89. Moreover, if we refer to relations between religions, the constitutional provisions of Article 16 to be correlated with Article 31 of the Supreme Law, thus imposing the following principles: 1) equality between believers and unbelievers; 2) cultivating a climate of tolerance and mutual respect; 3) prohibiting any manifestation of discord.
90. The Court observes that constitutional and international norms do not allow to discrimination on grounds of religion or belief. However, in certain situations it can be set for different treatment if there is an objective and reasonable justification.

91. In this respect, Article 4 para. (2) of Council Directive 2000/78 / EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in terms of employment and employment stipulates that national law provision may be made in under which, in the case of occupational activities within churches and other public or private organizations whose professional ethics is based on religion or belief, a difference of treatment based on religion or belief a person does not constitute discrimination where, by the nature of these activities or context in which they are exercised, religion or belief constitutes an occupational requirement, legitimate and justified on the organization's ethos. This difference of treatment shall be implemented taking constitutional provisions and principles of the Member States and the general principles of Community law, and can not justify discrimination on another ground.
92. Art. 4 para. (2) of Directive 2000/78 / EC were transposed in Article 7 para. (6) of the Act to ensure equality, establishing expressly that in the professional activities of religious cults and their component parts are not discriminatory differential treatment based on religion or belief a person when religion or belief constitute a genuine, legitimate and justified.
93. Also, by Article 9 entitled "Prohibition of discrimination in education", the legislature expressly stated in paragraph (4) that its provisions do not constitute a restriction of educational institution that prepares staff of a certain religious to refuse entry a person whose religious status does not meet the requirements established for access to the institution.
94. In this context, the Court notes that the legislature may introduce certain exceptions only in part related to a religious organization, internal business principles, but not from the religions representatives interact outside.
95. Given the stated supra, the Court notes that Article 1 para. (2) c) of the Law on Gender to be applied to the extent that they relate to the teachings, canons and traditions of religious, whose provisions are applicable to their, actions priestly spaces intended, so as not to infringe legislation in force and does not prejudice the rights and fundamental freedoms.
96. In conclusion, the Court finds that, while art. 1 para. (2) c) of the Law on Gender refers to religious denominations and their components in respect of the religious convictions, they are not contrary to the requirements of Article 16 taken together with Article 31 of the Constitution.
For these reasons, pursuant to Articles 135 paragraph. (1) a) and g) and 140 of the Constitution and 26 of the Law on Constitutional Court, Articles 6, 61 para. (1) and (2), 62 lit. a) and lit. e) and 68 of the Code of Constitutional Court Constitutional

DECIDES:

1. Rejecting the objection of unconstitutionality raised by the lawyer Doina Ioana Străisteanu in case no. 3-49 / 16 pending before the domestic court mun. Chişinău.
2. Article 1, paragraph recognizing constitutional. (2) c) of Law No. 121 of 25 May 2012 on ensuring equal.
March. 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.