No complaint was inadmissible. 48g /
2016 on the plea of ​​unconstitutionality of certain provisions of Act funds
mandatory health insurance on 2013 no.
251 of 8 November 2012
compulsory Fund Act healthcare on 2014 no. 330 of December 23, 2013
(Payment conditions by lawyers of the first compulsory medical insurance)


Posted: 07/01/2016
in the Official Gazette

Nr. 184-192
Article No: 56
Effective Date: 04/29/2016

Constitutional Court, sitting in composition:
Mr. Alexandru Tanase, President, Mr. Aurel
BĂIEŞU, Mr. Igor
DOLEA,
Mr. Victor POPA, judges, with Ms Aliona Balaban
Registrar,
Considering the complaint filed on 22 April 2016
Registered on the same date
examined the admissibility of the referral mentioned
Considering documents and materials, deliberated on 29 April
2016 in the council chamber,
Delivers the following decision: tHE FACTS

1. The case originated exception of unconstitutionality are the phrases "item 1, letter b), c), d) and e) and point 3 "para. (3) Article 4 of Law compulsory health insurance funds in 2013 no. 251 8 November 2012 "item 1, letter b), c), d) and e), section 3 and section 4 "para. (3) Article 4 of Law compulsory health insurance funds in 2014 no. 330 of 23 December 2013 higher by Gabriela Moldovan lawyer in case No. 2a-45/16 before the Court of Appeal Balti.
2. Exception of unconstitutionality was filed with the Constitutional Court on 22 April 2016 by the panel (Ana Albu, Aurelia Toderaş and Svetlana Şleahtiţki), 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.
A.
Three main circumstances in the proceedings. Following checks carried out for the years 2013 - 2014, National Health Insurance Company (hereinafter - CNAM) found that Gabriela Moldovan lawyer paid partly through Moldova Post first mandatory health insurance. HIC requests to pay the insurance premium in full lawyer has not responded.
4. In this context, Territorial Agency Northwest Balti CNAM filed on 5 March 2015 the Edineţ District Court a claim against his lawyer Gabriela Moldovan the collection of insurance premium mandatory healthcare for the years 2014 and 2013, and penalty for overdue insurance premiums mandatory health.
May. By judgment of 26 May 2015 Edineţ District willing to receive the benefit from Gabriela Moldovan Northwest Territorial Agency Balti some amount of money.
June. On 24 June 2015, lawyer appealed against the judgment of the Court Edineţ requesting quashing of taking the case back for retrial in the first instance to full trial.
July. The hearing of the Court of Appeal Balti Gabriela Moldovan lawyer filed a waiver of the objection of unconstitutionality of certain phrases par. (3) art. 4 of Law compulsory health insurance funds in 2013 and par. (3) art. 4 of Law compulsory health insurance funds in 2014.
August. By the end of 10 March 2016 the court ordered the lifting of the objection of unconstitutionality and transmission of referral to the Constitutional Court for resolution.
B.
Relevant legislation in September. The relevant provisions of the Constitution (republished in the Official Gazette, 2016 No. 78, Article 140) are as follows:
Article 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 43 Right to labor and labor protection

"(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
[...] ".

Article 47 Right to social assistance and protection


"(1) The State shall take measures to ensure that every person has a decent standard of living, to adequate for the health and well-being, him and his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services.
[...] ".

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 am required national security interests, 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. "
10. The relevant provisions of Law no. 1593-XV of 26 December 2002 on the amount, manner and terms of payment of compulsory insurance premiums healthcare (OJ 2003, no. 18-19, 57,) are:
"Art.22 . - "(1) Individuals included early management of payers in the categories set out in Annex 2 will fully pay an insurance premium mandatory health within a fixed amount of up to 31 March of the year management.
(2) The law of compulsory insurance funds can establish a medical insurance premium reduction of compulsory medical fixed amount for certain categories of payers set out in Annex 2 where they will pay first insurance limit laid down in para. (1).
[...]. "
11. The relevant provisions of mandatory health insurance funds in 2013 no. 251 of 8 November 2012 (OJ 2012, nr.248-251, art.814) are:
"Article 4. - (1) The first mandatory health insurance in the form of percentage contribution to salary and other payments calculated for paying categories set out in Annex 1 to the 1593 Act XV of 26 December 2002 on the amount, and terms of payment of compulsory insurance premiums healthcare is set at 7.0% (3.5% each for each category, and for employee and employer).
(2) The first mandatory health insurance fixed amount calculated in absolute value for categories of payers set out in Annex 2 of the 1593 Act XV of December 26, 2002 is set at 3318 lei.
(3) natural persons referred to in item 1 letter b), c), d) and e) and point 3 of Annex 2 of the 1593 Act XV of 26 December 2002 to be paid within three months from the date of entry into force of this law first mandatory health insurance determined fixed amount, benefit from a reduction of 50% of the amount determined in par. (2) of this Article.
[...]. "
12. The relevant provisions of mandatory health insurance funds in 2014 no. 330 of 23 December 2013 (OJ 2014, nr.9-13, Article 20) are:
"Article 4. - (1) The first mandatory health insurance in the form of percentage contribution to salary and other payments calculated for paying categories set out in Annex 1 to the 1593 Act XV of 26 December 2002 on the amount, and terms of payment of compulsory insurance premiums healthcare is set at 8% (by 4% for each category of payers).
(2) The first mandatory health insurance fixed amount calculated in absolute value for categories of payers set out in Annex 2 of the 1593 Act XV of December 26, 2002 is set at 4056 lei.
(3) natural persons referred to in item 1 letter b), c), d) and e), section 3 and section 4 of Annex 2 of the 1593 Act XV of 26 December 2002 to be paid within three months from the entry into force this law first mandatory health insurance determined fixed amount, benefit from a reduction of 50% of the amount determined in par. (2) of this Article.
[...]. "

THE LAW A. The author of the objection of unconstitutionality
13. In motivating the exception of unconstitutionality, the author claims that although the Law Office operates and presented in legal relations as an individual, art. 4 para. (3) of Law no. 251 8 November 2012 art. 4 para. (3) of Law no. 330 of December 23, 2013 exclude lawyers from the list of individuals who receive a discount on insurance premium payment mandatory health, contrary to Article 16 of the Constitution.
14. Author exception of unconstitutionality consider that the lawyers also should benefit from a 50% discount when paying the insurance premium as income lawyers do not cover expenses related to their work, and the state should facilitate through economic measures and other steps work for lawyers. In this respect, the author has invoked article 43 of the Constitution which protects the right to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work, and art. 47 para. (1) of the Constitution, according to which the state is obliged to ensure that every person has a decent standard of living.
15. According to the author of the objection, challenged legal provisions are disproportionate and were taken contrary to Art. 54 of the Constitution, according to which Moldova can not adopt laws that would suppress or reduce the rights of citizens.
B. The Court's assessment
16. Examining the admissibility of the notification regarding the exception of unconstitutionality, the Court finds as follows.
17. Under Article 135 para. (1) a) of the Constitution, the constitutionality of laws within the competence of the Constitutional Court.
18. The Court finds that the plea of ​​unconstitutionality, being raised by Gabriela Moldovan lawyer in case No. 2a-45/16, which is pending before the Court of Appeal Balti is made the subject of legally authorized, under Article 135 para. (1) a) and g) of the Constitution, as interpreted by the Constitutional Court Decision no. 2 of 9 February 2016
19. The Court reiterates that the power to handle exceptions of unconstitutionality, which was vested by Article 135 para. (1) 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.
20. The Court notes that under the exception of unconstitutionality is the phrase "item 1, letter b), c), d) and e) and point 3 "para. (3) Article 4 of Law compulsory health insurance funds in 2013 and the term "item 1, letter b), c), d) and e), section 3 and section 4 "para. (3) Article 4 of Law compulsory health insurance funds in 2014, aimed at categories of payers who benefit from a 50% premium to pay mandatory health insurance for the years 2013 and 2014.
21 . From the content of the objection of unconstitutionality, the Court notes that the author claims that the contested rules infringe Articles 16, 43, 47 and 54 of the Constitution.
22. In this context, referring to the alleged breach of the principle of equality, the Court notes the following.
23. The Court finds that the provisions of article 4 par. (3) of Law no. 251 8 November 2012 art. 4 para. (3) of Law no. 330 of 23 December 2013 do not establish any reduction in insurance premiums for mandatory health advocates.
24. At the same time, Article 22 para. (2) of Law no. 1593-XV of 26 December 2002 on the amount, manner and terms of payment of insurance premiums mandatory health is expressly stated that the law of funds of compulsory medical assistance can determine a reduction in the insurance premium mandatory health medical fixed amount for certain categories of payers set out in Annex 2 where they will pay the insurance premium within the deadline.
25. Thus the problem addressed by the author of the objection that the determination of insurance premium discounts on mandatory health for some categories of payers, state policy related to mandatory health insurance.

26. Accordingly, the legislature has the power to set rates of insurance premiums and mandatory health insurance premium payment conditions compulsory medical assistance for certain categories of payers, given the different objectives that are specific categories of people.
27. In this respect the Court recalls its findings, set out in Resolution no. 16 of 12 June 2007 according to which: "the violation of the principle of equality and non discrimination occurs when a treatment is applied differently in cases equal, without any motivation objective and reasonable, or there is a disproportion between the aims and the means used."
28. They also relevant findings of the Court in Case No. 13 of 22 May 2014, namely: "[...] notaries, bailiffs, lawyers are authorized by law to exercise certain activities in the public interest, and income from professions are revenue from rendering of professional services, carried out individually or in various forms of association [...] ".
29. Therefore, taking into account the status of the lawyer, the Court can not find reason the author exception of unconstitutionality arguments aimed at alleged infringement of Article 16 of the Constitution.
30. Regarding the other allegations of the author of the objection, the Court considers it necessary to reiterate that a legal provision may be object of constitutional jurisdiction only if they showed an inextricable link content between the provisions addressed in terms of rules unconstitutional and the Supreme Law.
31. Given the above, the Court held that the exception did not motivated by the provisions of Articles 43, 47 and 54 of the Constitution of the contested rules.
32. In view of the above, the Court held that in the absence of constitutional argumentation incidence relied on provisions of the law challenged notification is unfounded, does not meet the conditions of admissibility for the constitutionality and can not be accepted for examination.
For these reasons, pursuant to Article 26 of the Law on Constitutional Court, Articles 61 para. (3) and 64 of the Code of Constitutional and pct.28 lit. d) of Regulation on the procedure for examining complaints lodged with the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court

DECIDED:

1. Declares inadmissible the unconstitutionality of the phrases "item 1, letter b), c), d) and e) and point 3 "para. (3) Article 4 of Law compulsory health insurance funds in 2013 no. 251 8 November 2012 "item 1, letter b), c), d) and e), section 3 and section 4 "para. (3) Article 4 of Law compulsory health insurance funds in 2014 no. 330 of 23 December 2013 higher by Gabriela Moldovan lawyer in case No. 2a-45/16 pending before the Court of Appeal Balti.
2. This decision is final, can not be subject to any appeal, shall enter into force upon adoption and shall be published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Moldova.

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT PRESIDENT Alexandru Tanase