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,
in which Mr Teodor Papuc, Registrar,
Considering the complaint filed on February 17, 2016
and registered on the same date
examining the notification mentioned in plenary public
Considering documents and materials,
deliberated in closed session
Delivers the following judgment: PROCEDURE

1. The case originated notification is submitted to the Constitutional Court on 17 February 2016 under Articles 135 paragraph. (1) a) and lit. g) of the Constitution, 25 lit. d) of the Law on Constitutional Court, paragraph 38. (1) d) of the Code of Constitutional, Supreme Court of the unconstitutionality exception of Articles 377 para. (5) and 3715 of the Law on Financial Institutions no. 550 of 21 July 1995, raised by lawyer Alexander Sicinski folder nr.3-1848 / 15, before the Court Râşcani, mun. Chişinău.
2. Author exception of unconstitutionality claims that the contested legal provisions, which establishes the prohibition of withdrawal and transfer money from bank accounts of individuals affiliated essentially violates Articles 16, 46 and 54 of the Constitution.
March. In the public meeting, by referral materialized under the exception of unconstitutionality, stating that the requesting constitutionality of the provisions of Articles 377 para. (5) and 3715 para. (2) of the Financial Institutions Act No. 550 of 21 July 1995.
4. By the Constitutional Court decision of 22 February 2016, the complaint was admissible, without prejudging the merits.
May. In examining the notification, the Constitutional Court sought the views of Parliament, Government, Presidential and National Bank of Moldova.
June. Public plenary of the Court, the notification was backed by lawyer Alexander Sicinski. Parliament was represented by 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. National Bank of Moldova (hereinafter - BNM) was represented by Andrei Velchev, Head of the Legal Department approval.

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 7. Pending court Râşcani, mun., In an application for summons filed on 5 November 2015 by Mr. Victor Cunev against the Executive Board of the National Bank of Moldova (NBM) to remit an act of individual administrator BC's special "Social Bank" JSC, as well as certain decisions of BNM as normative acts. Thus, the dispute is the answer no. 2310/400 of September 14, 2015 the trustee of BC "Social Bank" JSC, decisions of the Administrative Council of NBM no. 5 of 26 August 2015 and No. 17 of 10 September 2015 and the judgment of the Executive Committee of NBM no. 6 of 22 October 2015.
August. Impugned acts were issued under the provisions of Articles 377 para. (5) and 3715 of the Law on Financial Institutions no. 550 of 21 July 1995.
September. By these acts was established and then altered the scope of a moratorium imposed on all claims of individuals who were members of the Board commercial bank, referred to above, the Council of its Directors, Audit Committee, committee members credit HQ certain amounts of bank and affiliated persons of the bank debts.
10. In this case, Mr Cunev was denied the transfer and release of funds from bank accounts opened in BC "Social Bank" JSC, there is an affiliated person of the bank.
11. In the hearing of 14 December 2015 Sicinski attorney Alexander raised the objection of unconstitutionality of the provisions of Articles 377 para. (5) and Financial Institutions Act 3715 of requesting and checking notifying the Constitutional Court the constitutionality of these legal provisions under Articles 16, 46 and 54 of the Constitution.
12. By a resolution of 29 December 2015, the District Court, mun., Admitted the request and ordered the lawyer referral to the Constitutional Court through the Supreme Court.

13. On 8 February 2016, the Plenum of the Supreme Court adopted Decision No. 6 on raising the objection of unconstitutionality of Articles 377 para. (5) and 3715 of the Law on Financial Institutions no. 550 of 21 July 1995, presenting notifying the Constitutional Court for resolution.

RELEVANT LAWS 14. The relevant provisions of the Constitution (republished in the Official Gazette, 2016 nr.69-77) are:
Article 16Egalitatea


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

"(1) The right to private property and state bonds guaranteed.
(2) No one may be expropriated except in the public interest, established by law, against just compensation paid in advance.
(3) Legally acquired assets may not be confiscated. Legality of acquirement shall be presumed.
(4) goods intended for, used or resulted from crimes or offenses may be confiscated only under the law.
(5) The right to private property compels to the observance of duties on environmental protection and ensuring good neighborliness, as well as other tasks which, by law, are owner.
(6) The right to inherit private property is guaranteed. "

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.
(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. "
15. The relevant provisions of the Law on Financial Institutions no. 550 of 21 July 1995 (OJ 1996, no. 78-81, art. 199) are:
Article 3Noţiuni main


"In this law the following notions are used:
[...]
affiliate of another person is considered a person:
a) exercising control over the person;
B) which are under the control of the person;
C) staying with a person under the control of another person;
D) who is a Board member of the executive body and auditing committee of the person;
E) that, according to civil legislation is related to the individual - Board member of the executive body, the Audit Committee of the person - by a ratio of first and second degree of kinship and wives;
F) whose affiliation is determined by the National Bank through its normative acts, which must correspond to generally accepted principles for effective banking supervision;
[...] "

Article 377Principalele powers and duties of the trustee

"(1) The trustee has full powers to lead, manage and control the bank, including:
a) examines and evaluates the work of the bank's financial situation;
B) determine the most efficient and fastest way of liquidation of the circumstances mentioned in art. 374 par. (2) b) -f), the reduction in bank losses and minimizing risks to the interests of depositors and other creditors;
C) participating in the preparation, organization and implementation of measures to remedy the situation the bank and control their implementation;
D) exercise control over the disposition of assets of the bank;
E) take on debt collection and recovery of assets to the bank they are in the possession of third parties, legal actions in the courts on behalf and in the interests of the bank;
F) National Bank presents information, explanations and reports;
G) perform other duties required for the purposes of special administration.
(2) The trustee is entitled:

A) to hire specialists, experts, professional consultants;
B) to convene and lead the bank's general meeting of shareholders;
C) abolish or suspend decisions of governing bodies, to dismiss or transfer to other members of the executive functions and the bank's employees to review their functional duties, change the size of the labor remuneration, respecting labor law;
D) appoint its representatives in separate divisions of the bank, corporate executives who are in possession of the majority of the bank;
E) suspend the payment of dividends and other forms of distribution of bank capital;
F) establish bank creditors, the value and validity of their claims, to require creditors to confirm their claims;
G) to negotiate bank claims and obligations in order to establish a new maturity to their reduction, novation, acquisition, debt remission;
H) suspend deposits and / or granting of loans, have other restrictions on bank activity;
I) terminate contracts, to refuse enforcement of obligations under art. 37/12;
J) to carry out measures to remedy the financial situation, including bank restructuring (increase, capital reduction, sale of assets, liabilities and assets teaching), reorganization or sale of the bank;
K) submit to the National Bank regarding the bank conclusions and recommendations, including regarding the moratorium, prolongation / discontinuation of special license revocation;
L) exercise other rights provided by this law, other legislation and regulations.
(3) In the case under Art. 37/4 para. (2) f), the main responsibility of a special manager is taking the necessary steps to appoint, where appropriate, board members, the executive and the directors of the bank. During this administration, the special administrator may take any measures that may be taken by those bodies, according to the law.
(4) At the request of the trustee, law enforcement authorities are obliged to assist in obtaining access to rooms and other assets of the bank, taking control and ensure integrity of assets, records, documents and information bank.
(5) In the exercise of his rights and special administrator attaches high priority to the interests of depositors and other creditors who are not affiliated persons in relation to shareholders and creditors who are affiliated persons. The Bank and its shareholders not to charge the special administrator or the National Bank of damage caused in connection with actions under special administration if such acts are undertaken for the purpose of not allowing excessive risk to financial stability, protecting the interests of depositors and other creditors of the bank. "
Article 3715Moratoriul


"(1) To prevent the worsening financial situation of the bank and keep its assets, National Bank, the establishment or during special administration of the bank, order a stay of execution creditors and the transfer of bank assets for a period of up 2 months (moratorium). National Bank may extend the moratorium on systemic financial crises, defined as the national body set up to manage systemic financial crisis, for a period not exceeding the term of the special administration established pursuant to art. 37/4 para. (3). The moratorium is not state of insolvency of the bank.
(2) Action moratorium may be limited to certain categories of creditors, claims or assets or a certain value to them.
(3) does not extend the moratorium Action:
a) claims related to deposits and other pecuniary up / arising under transactions entered into after the moratorium;
B) claims the bank employees on payment of salaries, remuneration of copyright, the damages caused by mutilation or other damage to health, or the death and the creditors on payment of salaries, pensions, alimony, scholarships, social benefits within the limits set by the special administrator;
C) claims relating to pay administration costs necessary to ensure the bank's activity under Art. 38/8 para. (1);
D) making compensation claims under Article opposite. 37/14.
(4) During the moratorium action:

A) interest, penalties and other measures of pecuniary liability for failure or improper performance of the bank's obligations do not apply;
B) interest obligations set out in the bank are calculated, but are paid only after expiry of the moratorium or after lifting it by the National Bank ahead of schedule;
C) initiation and continuation of judicial or administrative procedures and methods other legal defense to obtain insurance payments or deposits or liabilities are not allowed;
D) the execution of enforceable documents and other acts subject to enforcement on bank asset tracking, including pledged assets are suspended, except relating to the claims on which the moratorium does not extend under par. (3);
E) demand bank shareholder on redemption of shares, whereby the shareholder structure will withdraw from the bank's shareholders is not allowed.
(5) An announcement regarding the moratorium be published according to art. 37/4 para. (5). "
16. The relevant provisions of the Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (signed at Rome on 4 November 1950 and ratified by the Parliament of Moldova no. 1298-XIII of 24 July 1997) are:
Article 1Protecţia property


"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and under the conditions provided by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not affect the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties. "


THE LAW
17. From the content of the notification, the Court notes that the contested norms concern the way of execution of creditors' claims during the moratorium imposed by National Bank on a commercial bank, the default mode of execution of affiliated bank creditors.
18. Thus, the notification relates to a number of factors and constitutional principles, such as ownership, based on the principle of non-discrimination, and limits restricting this right.
A.
ADMISSIBILITY 19. In its decision of 22 February 2016, the Court examined the admissibility following conditions are met:
(1) Subject plea falls into the category of acts under Article 135 para. (1) a)
20 of the Constitution. Under Article 135 para. (1) a) of the Constitution, the Court held that reviewing the constitutionality of laws, namely the Law on Financial Institutions no. 550 of 21 July 1995, 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
21. The Court notes that the plea of ​​unconstitutionality was raised by one of the parties before the court process Râşcani mun. Chişinău, which has issued a Supreme Court to petition the Constitutional Court. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Constitutional Court. Articles 25 letter d) of the Law on the Constitutional Court and 38 para. (1) d) of the Code of Constitutional Supreme Court granted this power.
(3) The provisions challenged to be applied to solving the case
22. The Court held that the power to handle exceptions of unconstitutionality, which was vested by Article 135 para. (1) g) of the Constitution requires establishing the correlation between the laws and the Constitution, taking into account the principle of the primacy and relevance of its contested provisions for resolution of the dispute in the courts.
23. The Court observed that the objection of unconstitutionality are Articles 377 para. (5) and 3715 para. (2) of the Financial Institutions Act No. 550 of 21 July 1995.
24. Court accepts the arguments of the author exception of unconstitutionality, that the contested provisions to be applied to solving the case because under their empire were born legal relations which remain in effect and are crucial to the case.
(4) There is an earlier judgment of the Court which covers the contested provisions

25. Court did not find in its case a decision that dealt with the contested provisions.
26. The Court notes that the notification can not be dismissed as inadmissible and there is no basis to stop the process, in accordance with Article 60 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Code.
27. Therefore, to elucidate the issues addressed in the complaint, the Court will operate with Article 46 combined with Articles 16 and 54 of the Constitution.
B. MERITS OF THE CASE
alleged violation of Article 46 combined with Articles 16 and 54 of the Constitution
28. According to the author exception of unconstitutionality, constitutional provisions submitted to violate Article 46 para. (1) of the Constitution, which states:
"(1) The right to private property and state bonds guaranteed.
[...]. "
29. The author also claims that the objection of unconstitutionality violate Article 16 of the Constitution, which establishes:
"(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. "|| | 30. Moreover, the author argues that the rules at issue are contrary par and 54. (2) the Supreme Law:
"(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, welfare the country's economic 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 justice. "
a. Arguments author exception erratic-tuţionalitate
31. Citing non-compliance with Articles 377 para. (5) and 3715 para. (2) of the Law on Financial Institutions Article 46 of the Constitution, the author of the objection of unconstitutionality claims that by applying the provisions challenged persons affiliated with a commercial bank to violation of property rights, in the sense that, during the special administration of the bank, not You can access the funds they may have because of their ancestral relationship with the members of the Board commercial bank.
32. The author also claims that the objection of unconstitutionality of the legislator's distinction between creditors who are affiliates of commercial banks and the remaining creditors constitute discrimination on grounds of social origin. According to him, the different treatment has no justification and is therefore disproportionate.
B. Arguments authorities
33. In his opinion, Parliament stated that Articles 377 para. (5) and Financial Institutions Act 3715 does not contravene the constitutional provisions, given the need to protect the financial market and maintain confidence in the banking sector. According to Parliament, ownership is likely limitations. Legitimate aim of the measures taken is to avoid negative influences of the problems of banks on the whole economic system and financial stability.
34. Referring to the principle of equality, the Parliament claims that the legislature is empowered to lay down a special procedure, derogating from the common law when envisages special situations. Given the circumstances, the Parliament considers that there is a special situation that the measures taken are justified and that the objection of unconstitutionality is unfounded.

35. In his view, the Government believes that the legislator legitimate aim pursued by Article 377 para. (5) of the Financial Institutions Act is to protect creditors who are persons affiliated with the bank in relation to affiliates as affiliates occupies a privileged position. This rule seeks to prevent corruption and related to that corruption is committed by abusing positions and power. Referring to the legitimate aim of Article 3715 of the Financial Institutions Act, the Government believes that it is to prevent worsening financial situation of the bank and preserve assets. The moratorium aims not only prevent worsening financial situation of banks, but also to avoid negative consequences for the entire banking sector. The overall objective of the Financial Institutions Act is to protect the interests of depositors, deposit Secret Protection inadmissible excessive risk in the financial system etc. Rational connection between the legitimate aims pursued by Article 377 para. (5) and Financial Institutions Act 3715 and the restriction of certain rights of persons in the categories mentioned in Article 3 letter e) of the Law is that person related to the individual - Board member of the executive body, the Audit Committee of the person - by a ratio of kin of first and second degree may be favored in relation to non-related parties. Therefore, do not show a discriminatory treatment since there is a case for supporting the limitation of ownership, to reduce banking risks and protecting the interests of depositors and creditors thereof.
36. In the opinion of the President of Moldova, Article 3 of the Law on Financial Institutions refers to an "affiliated person of another person" not a "person affiliated bank". In the strict sense of the law, others not affiliated persons may apply restrictions provided for by Article 377 of the Financial Institutions Act. Also, Article 3715 of the Law on Financial Institutions contradicts the constitutional provisions, since its provisions establish that the action of the moratorium, during which National Bank may decide to postpone the enforcement of creditors' claims and transfer of assets of the bank for a certain period, "may be limited to certain categories of creditors, claims or assets or a certain value to them. " According to the President of Moldova, the wording of that rule does not have a clear and precise character. The provision in question NBM leaves discretion to determine the categories of creditors whose ownership can be restricted, which makes unpredictable decisions that authority.
37. According communicated to the Court, the National Bank of Moldova considers that the disputed provisions are not contrary to the constitutional provisions. National Bank raises the need to maintain financial stability and the provisions of Financial Institutions Act gives the legal framework for taking prompt actions in this regard.
C. The Court's assessment
1. General principles
1.1. General on ownership
38. The Constitution protects the right to property, Article 46 para. (1) stating that the right to private property and state bonds guaranteed.
39. Ownership confers on its holder the attributes of possession, enjoyment and disposition of immovable. In this context, the European Court stated principles, from the concept of "goods" in Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 to the European Convention has independent significance and is not limited to ownership of tangible property, so they can be considered part of "ownership" and other rights and interests evidenced by assets. Also, within the meaning of the European Convention, the term "goods" includes movables, real estate and other real rights, but also "legitimate expectation" of obtaining a patrimonial advantage.
40. The Court notes that the ownership, although it is an individual right, which gives its holder the ability to exercise its own power and self-interest attributes to possess, use and dispose of his property is likely limitations. This conclusion can be drawn from the general clause restricting the rights and freedoms of Article 54 of the Constitution.

41. In this regard, the Court notes that a relative restriction of rights guaranteed by the Constitution must be prescribed by law, be necessary in the interests referred to in Article 54 para. (2) of the Basic Law, to be proportional to the situation that caused it and does not touch the existence of the rights in question. Also, the restriction must comply with generally accepted principles of international law.
42. Restricting rights must be exercised not to discrimination, since it would not have a legitimate aim. In this regard, all the Moldovan authorities must follow when it adopts acts, the principle of equality enshrined in Article 16 of the Constitution. They must justify preferential treatment if the situations are analogous, ie whether individuals or groups of people in similar situations compared are relevant.
43. However, the principle of equality establishes an obligation to treat persons differently in situations significantly different. The right not to be discriminated against is violated when state authorities fail to treat differently, without an objective and reasonable justification, persons whose situations are significantly different (see Thlimmenos v. Greece, April 6, 2000, §44) .
44. This principle must be applied in the regulation of economic activity including national obligation that the Constitution puts the responsibility of the state under Article 126 para. (2) of the Constitution. Also, with respect to the same principle, the State must protect its national interests in economic and financial activity.
1.2. NBM role in state economic-financial system
45. The Court notes that although the status of the National Bank is not regulated separately in the Constitution, the Court can not but note its importance for protection of national interests in economic and financial activity of commercial banks in Moldova. Both globally and in the Republic of Moldova, central banks are prudently exercising oversight authorities and are responsible for the safety and good functioning of commercial banks and the whole banking system.
46. In this regard, one of the tasks of the National Bank is to ensure that banks implement policies and actions that prevent some people to benefit following certain transactions affecting the banking system or that prevent affiliates of such persons to perform or participate these transactions.
47. This type of tasks designed to avoid the risk of a conflict of interest between bank officials and their affiliates. Here's what usually calls for central banks to commercial banks to take necessary measures to control or mitigate risks.
48. Especially in Moldova's economic conditions, strengthening the regulatory system and the ability to control a stable financial system remains a priority. Meanwhile, the relevant legal regulations to be determined and international requirements and standards in the banking sphere.
49. The Court notes that Moldova has committed, by signing the Association Agreement with the European Union to meet the following objectives for the financial sector: (a) support the adaptation of financial services regulations to the needs of a free market economy; (B) ensuring effective and adequate protection for investors and other consumers of financial services; (C) ensuring financial system stability and integrity of Moldova as a whole; (D) promoting cooperation between different actors in the financial system, including regulators and control factors; and (e) providing an independent and effective (see the Association Agreement between the Republic of Moldova, on the one hand, and the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and its Member States, on the other hand, Articles 16, 18 58, 59 etc.).
50. A fragile banking system represents a threat to macroeconomic and financial stability of the state.
51. Therefore, it needs a fundamental control system to enjoy public confidence in the banking system, a culture of banking supervision. To achieve these objectives, the National Bank has at its disposal a number of tools for control, you need to apply an effective and deterrent for those who follow, directly or indirectly, the collapse of the banking system.

52. In this way, justifying the grant of special legal powers of the National Bank, tools and special financing.
2. Applying the principles to the present case
53. The Court reiterates that the right to property is not only tangible but also the intangible, such as rights instruments. The rights or interests manifested by the existence of funds in bank deposit accounts also enjoys the constitutional guarantee of the right to property (see, with respect to ownership, causes Iatridis v. Greece [GC], 25 March 1999, § 54, and Beyeler v. Italy [GC], May 28, 2002, § 100). Persons who submitted funds in accounts at a bank are entitled to a reasonable expectation or legitimate the effective enjoyment of their ownership, whether there is a legal provision or a legal act concerning the property in question (see example, Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], July 12, 2001, § 83, and Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], September 28, 2004, §§ 45-52).
54. The Court notes that in cases where there are contracts between customers and bank deposits commercial banks can talk about the legitimate expectation of those people to respect their property rights.
55. The Court notes that, under article 377 par. (5) may be affected ownership of a commercial bank affiliated persons. First, because the receiver of the bank is obliged to give a high priority to the interests of depositors and other creditors who are not affiliated persons. Also, Article 3715 of the Law on Financial Institutions National Bank granted the prerogative of establishing a moratorium, which can be limited to certain categories of creditors, claims or assets or a certain value to them. This moratorium is to stay the enforcement of creditors' claims and the transfer of assets to a bank for a period of up to two months. The moratorium may be extended systemic financial crises and is mandatory for the receiver of the bank concerned.
56. The Court will determine whether the interference is prescribed by law, in the sense that it provided clarity respected law if it pursues a legitimate aim and is proportionate to the aim pursued.
A) If the interference is prescribed by law
57. The Court notes that Article 377 para. (5) of the Financial Institutions Act uses the term "affiliated persons". At the same time, art. 3 of the same law provides that "affiliate of another person is considered a person who, under civil legislation is related to the individual - Board member of the executive body, the Audit Committee of the person - by a ratio of kinship degree one and two and wife ".
58. Therefore, the ban can be imposed on bank creditors under civil law, is in a relationship to the second degree of kinship with individuals - members of the board, the executive body, the Audit Committee of the person.
59. Therefore, the Court notes that the interference with the ownership of the persons concerned are required by law.
B) If legal provisions challenged pursue a legitimate aim or aims
60. The Court notes that the purpose of Article 377 para. (5) of the Financial Institutions Act is to protect creditors who are not affiliated persons of unfair advantages that would have affiliated persons.
61. On the other hand, the Court noted that the purpose of Article 3715 of the same law provided even in its first paragraph, namely the moratorium aims to prevent worsening financial situation of the bank concerned and the preservation of its assets.
62. Moreover, the two private purposes of those articles could be written-exception clauses attached constitutional rights in Article 54 para. (2) "the economic welfare of the country" and "rights and freedoms [...] others."
63. Postponement of creditors and the transfer of bank assets for a period of up to 2 months and limiting the action of the moratorium on certain categories of creditors can prevent worsening financial situation of the bank keeping its assets and avoid excessive risk in the financial system. These goals should help to protect the country's economy.

64. On the basis of granting priority to the interests of depositors and other creditors who are not affiliated persons in relation to shareholders and creditors who are affiliated persons, is to protect the rights of others (eg, the priority given to creditors unaffiliated bank is, in fact, a protection offered their ownership).
65. Since the issue of discrimination, signaled by the author of the objection of unconstitutionality, has repercussions on the legitimacy of purpose, the Court will examine the compliance of legal provisions challenged Article 16 of the Constitution.
66. The issue raised is that the application of the moratorium may be limited to certain categories of creditors, claims or assets or a certain value to them. In the same context, the situation in which the special administrator assigns a high priority to the interests of depositors and other creditors who are not affiliated persons in relation to shareholders and creditors who are affiliated persons, would create prerequisites for the application of discriminatory treatment, with negative effects for the right property of the latter.
67. The Court notes that the possible existence of a discriminatory treatment of affiliated persons can be searched only under Article 377 para. (5) of the Financial Institutions Act. This article must be interpreted in the context of the relevant provisions of Article 3 of the same law, which stipulates expressly that it considers the sponsoring of another person who is related to the individual - Board member of the executive body, the Audit Committee of the person (ie bank ) - by a ratio of first and second degree of kinship.
68. Whereas Article 3715 para. (2) of the Law on Financial Institutions provides that the activities of the moratorium may be limited to certain categories of creditors, claims or assets or a certain value thereof without setting a category precise about who might say that it was discriminated generally it can not be reviewed for compliance with the constitutional principle of equality in the constitutional review initiated by raising this unconstitutionality. This legal provision does not expressly establish the moratorium applying to persons who have a family relationship up to the second degree with board members, executive body, auditing committee of the bank.
69. The Court notes that Article 377 para. (5) establish a rule aimed at preventing the acquisition of benefits by affiliates as a result of whereabouts information, given their privileged position to the bank. In the category of persons entering and affiliated persons related to the individual - Board member of the executive body, the Audit Committee of the person (ie the bank) - by a ratio of first and second degree of kinship, ie the persons concerned.
70. The Court observes that ground of discrimination cited by the author exception of unconstitutionality, which belongs to the category of persons concerned, is "social origin".
71. The Court emphasizes that social origin refers to the social class from which a person partially covers criterion birth in a particular family (of kinship). Ban discrimination based on social origin of Article 16 of the Basic Law requires that no person is discriminated against because rooted in a certain social class. This provision seeks to prevent "hardening of society" and expresses a form of equality. It envisages social or financial position of a person running. Therefore, the issue raised by the author of the objection of unconstitutionality is not caused by social origin of the persons concerned, ie the social class from which they come.
72. The Court notes that the situation in which they are affiliated persons is different from the situation where persons affiliated bank, meaning that premiums may have access to information of interest, which allows them to avoid risky situations. Thus, if necessary distinctions are made, the conclusion of discrimination is removed, because the two categories - bank affiliates and unaffiliated persons - are in different situations to be treated differently.
73. The Court finds, therefore, more legitimate existence and the existence of a rational connection between the impugned measures covered by the law and the legitimate aims pursued.

C) If the essence of ownership of the affected data subjects governed by law and whether the measures are proportionate to the aim pursued
74. The Court notes in the present case there is a conflict between the rights of data subjects and more public and private interests. Right subjects is ownership, manifested by an attribute of his mood.
75. It should be emphasized from the start that the measure imposed is not an expropriation or confiscation. Ownership is emptied of content. The conclusion is based on the fact that a restriction of transferring and withdrawing money from bank accounts by data subjects for a period of two months does not mean a complete ban on the provision of these funds (ie, forever or for a period of time unreasonable).
76. In one of the causes relevant European Court ruled that a person blocking accounts, following the imposition of a seizure ordered in some trials, does not constitute a deprivation of property (X v. Belgium, judgment of 10 December 1976).
77. Saggio in Case v. Italy (judgment of 25 October 2001, §§28-29) the European Court noted that the extraordinary administration procedure of a company under bankruptcy ensures a fair management of its assets, to protect all creditors . In this case, there was no de facto expropriation and any transfer of property to the applicant's right to recover the amount has not been denied before.
78. Thus, considering the reasonableness of the period set in par. (1) of Article 3715 of the Act, the Court finds no impairment in essence ownership of the persons concerned.
79. The Court will weigh (i) the importance of avoiding harming the rights of data subjects and (ii) the importance of the benefit gained by meeting the legitimate aims of legal measures.
80. The Court considers that the provision benefiting attribute data subjects affected attribute whose exercise is usually for a period of two months, belongs to the "periphery" (or "penumbra") ownership. Instead, interests protected by the measures provided by the law have a special significance not only for the rights of others, but also for the economic welfare of the country.
81. Regarding the rights of others, whether the persons concerned could transfer and withdraw money without restriction, there is a danger that people unaffiliated bank to be harmed. Weighed against the risk which may affect persons affiliated with the bank by shares of affiliated persons are ahead, limiting the right of data subjects to access the funds they hold in the bank weighs less. On the one hand we have the nucleus of ownership of persons not affiliated bank, who may be harmed irreparably, on the other hand - the "periphery" of ownership of the data subjects whose right mood is restricted for a period of 2 months . In this regard, impaired nucleus of ownership is more serious than damage 'periphery' ownership.
82. With reference to the public interest at issue, the Court highlights the need to maintain economic welfare, which supports including financial stability of banks that make up the banking system. Putting back into balance limit the right of data subjects to access the funds for a reasonable period of time and the interest of maintaining economic welfare, the latter shall prevail. Therefore, the Court finds legal proportionality of the measures challenged.
83. For the purposes of those findings, the Court held that Articles 377 para. (5) and 3715 para. (2) of the Financial Institutions Act is not contrary to Articles 16, 46 and 54 of the Constitution.
For these reasons, under Article 140 of the Constitution, 26 of the Law on Constitutional Court, 6, 61, 62 lit. a) and e) and 68 of the Code of Constitutional Court Constitutional

DECIDES:

1. Rejecting the objection of unconstitutionality raised by lawyer Alexander Sicinski in case no. 3-1848 / 15 pending before the District Court, mun. Chişinău.
2. Recognize constitutional Articles 377 para. (5) and 3715 para. (2) of the Financial Institutions Act No. 550 of 21 July 1995. 3
. This decision is final, can not be subject to any appeal, shall enter into force upon adoption and shall be published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Moldova.