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 complaints filed and registered on 18 March 2016 and April 7, 2016,
mentioned complaints in plenary examining public
Considering documents and materials,
deliberated in closed session
Delivers the following judgment: PROCEDURE

1. The case originated exception of erratic-tuţionalitate text "fine of 300 conventional units for legal entities [letters d) and e)] and the person responsible positions [letters a) - f)]" of Article 345 para. (2) of the Offences Code raised by lawyer Vladimir Grosu files nr.5r-110/2016 and 5r-109/2016 pending before the Central Court, mun. Chişinău.
2. Notifications regarding the exception of unconstitutionality were filed at the Constitutional Court on 18 March and 7 April 2016 by Ms Ana and Natalia Cucerescu Polenta, judges of the Central Court, 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 of the objection alleged that the regulation of the sanction of art. 345 para. (2) of the Offences Code is contrary to Articles 20 and 22 of the Constitution.
4. By decisions of the Constitutional Court of March 23 and April 12, 2016, on the objection of unconstitutionality complaints were declared admissible, without prejudging the merits.
May. Given the identity of the object under Article 43 of the Code of Constitutional Court ruled joined into a single file complaints.
June. In examining the case, the Constitutional Court requested the opinion of the President of Moldova, Parliament, Government and the Supreme Court.
July. Public Court in plenary, on the objection of unconstitutionality complaints were supported by Mr Vladimir Grosu, lawyer. The government was represented by Mr Eduard Serbenco, deputy minister of justice. Parliament was represented by Mr Ion Creangă, Head of the Legal Secretariat General of Parliament.
1
CIRCUMSTANCES main proceedings. Circumstances of the case contravention nr.5r-110/2016
August. On 26 January 2016, the Consumer Protection Agency has compiled a report on the sanction business unit manager "VS Goldsmiths' SRL Vitalie Timuş under art. 345 para. (2) e) of the Contravention Code, for lack of legal means of measuring the mass of precious metal articles, by applying to a fine of 300 uc
September. On 9 February 2016, the offender Vitalie Timuş challenged in court the minutes and the decision imposing a fine of 26 January 2016, drawn up by the Agency for Consumer Protection.
10. On 10 March 2016, the lawyer Vladimir Grosu requested the court raising objection of unconstitutionality to verify the constitutionality text "fine of 300 conventional units for legal entities [letters d) and e)] and the person responsible positions [letters a) - f)] "of Article 345 para. (2) of the Offences Code, citing the impossibility of individualising the sanction of the court in the particular circumstances of the case.
11. By the end of the Central Court of 10 March 2016 ordering the suspension process, raising the exception of unconstitutionality and referral submission Constitutional Court for resolution.
2. Circumstances of the case contravention nr.5r-109/2016
12. On 26 January 2016, the business unit "VS Goldsmiths' SRL was sanctioned by the Consumer Protection Agency under art. 345 para. (2) e) of the Contravention Code, being fined him 300 uc
13. On 9 February 2016, the business unit "VS Goldsmiths' SRL challenged in court sanctioning decision of 26 January 2016 issued by the Consumer Protection Agency.

14. In the hearing on 29 March 2016 as the lawyer Vladimir Grosu called for the lifting of the plea of ​​unconstitutionality to verify the constitutionality text "fine of 300 conventional units for legal entities [letters d) and e)] and official person liability [letters a) - f)] "of Article 345 para. (2) of the Offences Code.
15. By the end of the Central Court of 30 March 2016 ordering the suspension process, raising the exception of unconstitutionality and referral submission Constitutional Court for resolution.

RELEVANT LAWS 16. The relevant provisions of the Constitution (published in the Official Gazette, 2016, no. 78, art. 140) are:
Article 1 Moldova State


"[...]
(3) Republic of Moldova is a democratic law, where human dignity, rights and freedoms, free development of human personality, justice and political pluralism represent supreme values ​​and are guaranteed. "
Article 20Accesul to justice


"(1) Everyone has the right to obtain effective protection from competent courts against acts that violate the rights, freedoms and interests.
(2) No law may restrict access to justice. "

Article 54Restrângerea exercise of certain rights or freedoms

"[...]
(4) The restriction must be proportionate to the situation that caused it and can not touch the existence of the right or freedom."
17. The relevant provisions of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Republic of Moldova no. 218-XVI of 24 October 2008 (Official Gazette, 2009 No. 3 - 6 Article 15) are:

Article 9Principiul individualization liability offenses and sanction

"(1) In contravention of law enforcement to take account of the nature and degree of harm of the offense, the perpetrator and the person mitigating or aggravating circumstances."
[...] ".
Article 10Contravenţia


"Any threats deed - action or inaction - unlawful, threatening with a degree of social lower than the offense committed with guilt that threatens the social values ​​protected by law, is provided by this Code and is liable to sanction. "
Article 32Sancţiunea contravention


"(1) The sanctions is a measure of state coercion and a means of correction and reeducation applicable, the name of the law, the person who committed an offense.
[...]
(5) The sanctions applicable legal entity:
a) fine;
B) deprivation of the right to carry out certain activities.
(6) Deprivation of the right to carry out certain activities can be applied as a complementary sanction. "
Article 34Amenda


"(1) A fine is a pecuniary penalty, which applies in cases and within the limits provided by this Code. The fine is established in conventional units. A conventional unit is equal to 20 lei.
(2) The fine applies to individuals from one to 150 conventional units and persons holding responsible positions - from 10 to 500 conventional units.
(21) fine applicable to entities in the limits of the article from the first book of this special code, if applicable:
a) a fine of 10 to 500 conventional units;
B) the magnitude of the fine product, that service is the subject of the contravention, but no less than the upper limit value in conventional units, if this is the norm expressly provided special material from the book first.
[...]. "

Article 41Criteriile General individualization of the penalty

"(1) The sanctions apply depending on the nature and degree of harm of the contravention's characteristics and mitigating and aggravating circumstances.
(2) against a person whose guilt is proven a penalty is applied fairly, within the limits and in accordance with this Code. "

Article 345Încălcarea of ​​metrology rules

"[...]
(2) Violations of metrology rules by:
a) unlawful use of units in areas of public interest;

B) conduct measurements in areas of public interest non-compliant technical regulations and legal metrology regulations, measurements whose results do not conform to national standards or the reference of Moldova or other countries who are traceable to international; or
c) carrying out official measurements with measurement means for measuring illegal and legal procedures, not approved by the national metrology;
D) placing on the market, commissioning and operation of instruments used for measurements in areas of public interest without metrological markings (type approval, metrological) metrological markings or damaged, altered, removed or the term of validity of type approval and metrological verification bulletins expired;
E) failure to metrological legal entities operating in areas of public service provision by them with measuring instruments are inadequate, illegal or unverified or damaged;
F) use of measuring with deliberately modified metrological characteristics or with indications expressed in units of measurement only unlawful under interdiction by the state inspector
is punishable by a fine of 300 conventional units for legal entities {points d) and e)} and {a responsible person points a) -f)}. "
18. The relevant provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by the Additional Protocols to the Convention (concluded in Rome on 4 November 1950 and Moldova ratified by Parliament Decision no. 1298-XIII of 24 July 1997), are as follows :

Article 6Dreptul to a fair trial

"1. Everyone has the right to a fair trial, publicly and within a reasonable period of his case by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law and the determination of rights and obligations of civil nature or on the merits of any criminal charge against him. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the meeting room may be forbidden for the press and the public throughout the process or a part thereof in the interests of morality, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly required by the court when, in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
[...]. "

THE LAW 19. From the content of notifications regarding inconstant-tuţionalitate exception, the Court notes that they concern essentially the regulation of administrative sanctions.
20. Thus, the complaints relate to a number of factors and related constitutional principles such as the principle that penalties and proportionality of the sanctions applied, examined under the principle of legality and the right to a fair trial.
A.
ADMISSIBILITY 21. By decisions of 23 March and 12 April 2016, the Court has verified meet the following conditions for admissibility:
(1) Subject plea falls into the category of documents contained in Article 135 para. (1) a) of the Constitution.
22. Under Article 135 para. (1) a) of the Constitution, the constitutionality of laws, namely the Code of Administrative Offences, 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.
23. Notifications regarding the exception of unconstitutionality of lawyer Vladimir Grosu files nr.5r-110/2016 and 5r-109/2016 pending before the Central Court, mun., Are made the subject of legally authorized, under Article 135 paragraph . (1) a) and g) of the Constitution, as interpreted by the Constitutional Court Decision no. 2 of 9 February 2016
(3) The provisions challenged to be applied to solving the case

24. The Court held that the power to settle the objection 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.
25. The Court observes that the object of the case is the text set out in Article 345 para. (2) of the Offences Code "fine of 300 conventional units for legal entities [letters d) and e)] and for responsible person [letters a) - f)]".
26. Court accepts the arguments of the author, 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 resolving the dispute concerning the cancellation of the administrative act was willing drawing liability offenses.
(4) There is an earlier judgment of the Court covering
27 contested provisions. The Court notes that the contested provisions were not previously subject to review constitutionality.
28. The Court therefore considers that the complaints 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.
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 European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter - the European Court).
30. The Court finds that the author of the objection argued that the contested provisions are contrary to Articles 20 and 22 of the Constitution. Referring to Article 22 of the Constitution, the law governing non-retroactivity, the Court holds that they are insignificant in relation to the contested rules.
31. Thus, to elucidate the issues raised in complaints, the Court will operate with Article 20 combined with Articles 1 and 54 of the Constitution.
B. MERITS OF THE CASE
alleged violation of Article 20 combined with Articles 1 and 54 of the Constitution
32. Author exception of unconstitutionality claims that the laws infringe controlled constitutionality of Article 1 of the Constitution, which states:
"[...]
(3) Republic of Moldova is a democratic law, in which human dignity, rights and freedoms, free development of human personality, justice and political pluralism represent supreme values ​​and are guaranteed. "
33. Also, in the author's opinion, contrary to the provisions under review the constitutionality of Article 20 of the Constitution, which states:
"(1) Everyone has the right to obtain effective protection from competent courts against acts that violate the rights, freedoms and interests .
(2) No law may restrict access to justice. "
34. Similarly, the author believes that the contested provisions violate 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

35. In motivating the exception of unconstitutionality, Vladimir Grosu lawyer argued that paragraph. (2) art. 345 of the Code establishes a fixed amount in contravention penalty, allowing the court to individualize the sentence in the particular circumstances of the case, as required by art. 9:41 contravention of the Code.
36. In his view, by applying a disproportionate punishment violates the right of litigants to a fair trial.
37. According to the author, the contested provisions violate Article 20 of the Constitution, which regulate access to justice.
2. Arguments authorities
38. The government, in its view, stated that, according to general criteria of individualization of the sanction provided in art. 41 of the Offences Code, to the person whose guilt is proven a penalty is applied fairly, within the limits and in accordance with the Code. However, the provisions of this article that the phrase "within the limits" does not necessarily mean that the sanction should be determined only within the minimum and maximum ceiling could be fixed and fixed size.
39. According to the written Presidential, determining penalties in fixed size is a standard legislative practice, which is consistent with the theory of law. This opinion also states that this can not in any way jeopardize access to justice, as enshrined in Article 20 of the Constitution.
40. Parliament, in its view, stated that on 4 April 2016, Parliament was registered bill on amendment 137 Contravention Code, which provides for amending the text "fine of 300 conventional units for legal entities [d letters ) and e)] and for responsible person [letters a) - f)] "in par. (2) of art.345 contravention Code. Parliament asked to be given the opportunity to resolve through legislative exception of unconstitutionality of the contested act.
41. The Supreme Court, in its written opinion, argued that the provision does not allow the subject to constitutional control of the courts after individualisation of penalties provided for in article 9 criteria. (1) of the Offences Code, which reflects on the penalty enforced to ensure equity concerned.
March. Findings of the Court 3.1. General principles 3.1.1 The right to a fair trial
42. Under Article 20 of the Constitution, everyone has the right to obtain effective protection from competent courts against acts that violate the rights, freedoms and interests.
43. The Court notes that access to justice is an inherent aspect of the right to a fair trial principle complex, comprising several relations and fundamental rights, which can guarantee its full exercise. Access to justice is to be understood as a right of access to a court specifically and effectively the full jurisdiction.
44. The Court notes that, according to European Court judgments exposed because Chevrol v. France, exercise full jurisdiction assumed by a court not to give up any of the components of the judicial role. Therefore, the refusal or failure of a court to rule independently on certain crucial aspects of the dispute, which has been referred, could constitute a violation of art. 6 § 1 of the European Convention.
45. The Court notes that the right of access to justice requires the legislator obligation to grant any person all the possibilities for access to court and ensure the effectiveness of the right of access to justice by adopting appropriate legislative framework.
46. According to Article 72 para. (3) n) of the Constitution, the Parliament holds power regulation offenses, penalties and the execution thereof.
47. At the same time, the Court notes that by regulating offenses and criminal penalties are to be understood and power regulation offenses and administrative sanctions. However, the law contains provisions indicating contravention actually criminal nature of administrative offenses.
48. Starting from the reasoning put forward in Case Ziliberberg v. Moldova on 1 February 2005 the Court notes the generality of law offenses and purpose of the punishment, which is both to punish and to prevent, are sufficient to show that the applicable principles similar two laws: the contravention and criminal.

49. Court holds exclusive competence of the legislature to regulate the acts constituted crimes or misdemeanors and penalties to be applied does not preclude the obligation to respect the principle of legality, which derives from Article 1 par. (3) of the Constitution, namely the constitutional principle of the rule of law.
50. In this respect, in Case No. 6 of April 16, 2015 the Court emphasized the principle value:
"87. The legislator has the right appreciation of situations that need to be regulated by legal norms. This right means the opportunity to decide whether to adopt the legislative act in accordance with the penal policy pursued in the public interest.
88. However, any regulatory principles to be within the limits stated in the legal system in force and to subscribe to the rule of law.
89. The rule of law is ensured by the entire system of law, including criminal laws, which is characterized by certain traits own distinctive compared to other sets of rules, what makes each character and their structure, the scope of incidence. "
3.1.2. 51
principle that sanction. The Court held that the constitutional principle of legality requires differentiation of penalties established for violations. In this regard, legislative individualization is not sufficient to achieve the goal contravention of the law as long as it is not possible judicial individualization.
52. By individualizing legal legislator must give the judge the power setting penalty in certain predetermined limits - minimum and maximum of the punishment, and to provide for the same judge, tools to enable choice and determine a concrete sanctions in relation the particular offense and the person who committed an offense or a crime.
53. The Court notes that the sanction of contravention law, as a consequence of liability offenses, must be strictly individualized, tailored quantitative and qualitative seriousness of the offense and the offender person.
54. Art. 9 of the Offences Code establishes the criteria to be applied to actual penalty. Thus, law enforcement offenses to be taken into account the nature and degree of harm caused by the offense, the perpetrator and the person mitigating or aggravating circumstances.
55. General criteria for the sanction are also exposed exhaustively in Article 41 of the Offences Code.
56. The Court notes, prejudicial nature of the offense is determined by the protected legal subject, constituting the contravention quality mark, while the degree of harm depends on the seriousness of the offense (the amount of damage, as guilt, reason, order, etc.), a sign quantitatively.
57. Therefore, classification of the facts is made only by the court and can not be predetermined by the legislator for all recipients of legal norm offenses.
58. The Court notes that the legislature can not determine the penalty for every possible situation de facto in the future, he snaps a particular criteria, within which the court shall establish and implement concrete sanction. However, the sanction of the court will be a shortfall if the drafting of the law and the sanction of the legislature will not take into account the possibility of determining a sanction individualization according to the criteria set out above.
59. Thus, judicial individualisation can only be based on assessment mechanisms regulated by law and are an expression of the principle of legality.
3.1.2. 60
principle of proportionality of sanctions. The Court points out that in the absence of relatively determined penalties and other mechanisms of individualization of the sanction in person contravening the law has no realistic possibility to receive adequate judicial protection of his rights, including a fair penalty.
61. The Court notes that the actual penalty must reflect the relationship between sanction (extent and nature thereof) and degree of social danger of the crime.
62. The lack of criteria for individualization of sanctions, certainly stated in the legal, judicial individualization can not be effective against the offender met to ensure full rights and legitimate freedoms.

63. The Court notes that the principle that penalties for minor offenses and the punishments that criminal law should be affirmed within a framework of fullness fundamental rights
64. In this respect, the Court, in Case No. 7 of 16 April 2015 stated that "limit the exercise of individual rights, collective rights in consideration of [...] aimed at [...] criminal prevention, constitutes a permanent sensitive operation in terms of regulation is necessary to maintain a fair balance between individual rights and interests, on the one hand and of society on the other. "
65. The Court notes that the legislator is entitled to establish penalties for minor offenses, but following strict proportionality between the circumstances of the offense, the nature and degree of prejudiciabilitate.
66. Thus, no possibility of the court to apply the criteria for the individualisation of sanctions in the concrete case and a sanction absolutely determined not ensure its equitable character.
67. Therefore, this may be contrary to the assessment criteria Engel deducted from the European Court (Engel and others v. The Netherlands, judgment of 8 June 1976), where a person found guilty of committing the offense to apply a penalty which by the nature and degree of severity, may not be proportionate legal nature of the infringement.
68. In this respect, the Court wishes to highlight the judgments of the European Court, because Cumpănă exposed and Peas v. Romania, according to which when assessing the proportionality of the penalty must take into account the deterrent effect of it. Or, in the presence of competing interests between a victim and offender contraventions, a sanction individualization its absolutely determined without the possibility can not justify restoring the balance between the rights of the victim and the perpetrator, provided in a process.
69. Consequently, the Court holds that the application of a penalty in all circumstances, regardless of topic, not achieve the legitimate aim pursued by the sanctions.
70. In this context, the Court notes that legislative individualization must be exercised to the extent that it does not hinder or restrict the possibility of individualising the sanction in relation to the contravention, for a fair balance between the rights guaranteed.
3.2. Applying the principles of the present case
71. The Court notes that sanctions established by article 32 of the Offences Code applied to natural and legal persons, includes fine. According to article 34 of the Offences Code, the fine is a pecuniary penalty, which applies in cases and within the limits of cod.
72. Therefore, the fine for individuals applies from one to 150 conventional units and persons holding responsible positions - from 10 to 500 conventional units. Legal persons established for a fine of 10 to 500 conventional units.
73. The Court notes that Article 345 of the Contravention Code constitute an offense "violation of metrology rules" and breaking the rules set out in paragraph (2) of this article shall be sanctioned with a fine of 300 conventional units for legal entities and official person liability.
74. The Court finds that the offense contained in Article 345 para. (2) of the Act Offences Code sanction imposed as a fine fixed.
75. Therefore, the Court finds that the court lacks the possibility of applying sanctions in accordance with the principle that the sanction imposed in art. Part 9 of the Code of Administrative Offences general principle governing all the special regulations and is based on the following criteria: nature and degree of prejudicial act, characteristic of the person and the circumstances which mitigate or aggravate responsibility.
76. Thus, the Court holds that the free access to justice, including several relations and fundamental rights, and expresses the benefit of the infringed right care appropriate means, including taking into account the principle that the sanction and its criteria.

77. The Court notes that according to the constitutional principle of legality, the legislature can not regulate a penalty in such a way as to deprive the court of the opportunity to individualize the sanction, taking into account the circumstances of the case. In such a situation, the court would have limited powers, creating preconditions for violation of the constitutional rights of subjects, inter alia, the constitutional right to a fair trial.
78. Accordingly, the Court notes that the lack of mechanisms for individualization of the sanction in the concrete case the court lacks the ability to conduct an effective judiciary and finally, individuals can not enjoy the right to a fair trial.
79. European Court in Case Silvester's Horeca SRL v. Belgium of 4 March 2004, stated: whether the judge has jurisdiction only to determine the existence or non-existence of a crime or offense, but is not competent to determine the appropriateness of the fine or penalty, he does not exercise full jurisdiction. In this sense, the person concerned is not entitled to free access to a full court of jurisdiction.
80. Court considers it necessary to mention that, under the Constitution, justice is done only by the courts. However, in the courts of justice shall be independent and not be limited in their scope to exercise full control jurisdiction.
81. In this respect, the Court reiterates that the system of administrative sanctions and criminal penalties established by law, based on certain principles must be such as to enable the courts sentencing and sanctions.
82. The Court also notes that a penalty can not be precisely determined invoking social interests of defense, or, it must be subordinated to law and policy principles and fundamental rights offenses. Determining penalties in criminal or administrative law there must be guided by the proportion between the interests and individual rights, on the one hand and of society on the other.
83. The constitutional principle of legality impose sanctions imposed for violations differentiation, so there is a balance between the purpose of the law offenses and means, and the means used to restrict the rights of more than necessary to achieve these goals.
84. Accordingly, the Court points out that the lack of mechanisms by which it would be possible to achieve individualization judicial distort effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanction does not allow courts to exercise judicial review effectively and violates users' right of access to justice.
85. In light of elucidated, the Court held that the regulation of punishment for minor offenses contained in Article 345 para. (2) of the Offences Code is contrary to Articles 1, 20 and 54 of the Constitution.
86. Considering all mentioned, in order to ensure the principle that penalties for minor offenses, the Court will issue an address to Parliament, for the operation of the Offences Code changes by considering the reasons given in this judgment.
87. However, in order to avoid legal gaps, pending changes necessary for the contraventions which provide a penalty fixed size will apply a penalty between the minimum established by the General Part and the maximum of the article of the Special Part of the Code of Administrative Offences.
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 recognizes the exception of unconstitutionality of lawyer Vladimir Grosu files nr.5r-110/16 and nr.5r-109/16 pending before the Central Court, mun. Chişinău.
2. Declaring unconstitutional the words "fine of 300 conventional units for legal entities [letters d) and e)] and for responsible person [letters a) - f)]" of Article 345 para. (2) of the Offences Code of the Republic of Moldova no. 218-XVI of 24 October 2008, to the extent that does not allow the actual penalty.

March. To execute this judgment, to amend the legal framework for the contraventions which provide for a penalty in the fixed size will apply a penalty between the minimum established by the General Part and up to size sanction in that article of the Special Part of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Republic Moldova no. 218-XVI of 24 October 2008, which will be the maximum.
4. 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.