On behalf of the Republic of Moldova, the Constitutional Court, acting as part of Mr. Alexandru Tanase, President, Mr. Aurel BĂIEŞU, Mr. Igor DOLEA, Mr. Tudor PANŢÎRU, judges, with the participation of Mrs. Eugenia Mîţa, Registrar, taking into account the appeal lodged on 10 November 2015 and recorded at the same time, examining the appeal mentioned in open court, taking into account the laws and proceedings, Acting in the Council Chamber following the judgment, a decision: 1. The origin of the case lies the appeal lodged with the Constitutional Court on 10 November 2015 of the Supreme Court of Justice, under articles 135 para. (1) (a). g) of the Constitution, 25 lit. d) of the law on the Constitutional Court and 38 para. (1) (a). (d) constitutional jurisdiction) of the code, relating to the exception of unconstitutionality of item 118 of the Art. 1 of law No. 155 of July 5, 2012 for the modification and completion of the code of civil procedure of the Republic of Moldova, built by Felix Gutu, part in file No. -199 2rh/15, on the role of the Supreme Court of Justice.
2. The author claims that the exception of unconstitutionality by amending the provisions of article 449 letter e) of the code of civil procedure, with the exception of the words "or judgment of another body decision times", it violated the provisions of articles 1 (1). (3), 16, 20, 21, 54 and 116 of the Constitution.
3. By decision of the Constitutional Court of 16 November 2015 referral has been declared admissible, without prejudeca Fund case.
4. In the process of examination referral, the Constitutional Court requested the opinion of the Parliament, President and Government.
5. At the meeting of the Court, the appeal was supported by Mr. Petru Guzun, author representative exception. The Government was represented by Mr. E. Taha, Deputy Minister of Justice. The representative of the Parliament did not attend the meeting.
The MAIN DISPUTE CIRCUMSTANCES 6. On the role of the Supreme Court of Justice shall review petition filed by Felix Gutu in the case at the request of civil judicial court sought by calling it against S.e. "Moldatsa" regarding the cancellation of orders, the restoration work previously owned, collection of salary for the entire period of forced absence and pecuniary.
7. Felix Gutu has worked as an air traffic controller and has served as President of the Trade Union Committee within the State " Moldatsa ".
8. On 26 august 2003, the Transport Prosecutor's Office ordered the commencement of prosecution in respect of, in accordance with article 10. 191 paragraph 2. (2) of the penal code, on the fact that funds are removed from the property of SE "Moldatsa" and by order of 2 December 2003 ordered the cessation of criminal prosecution.
9. On 23 March 2005, the Deputy Attorney General's Prime has cancelled the order for termination of the prosecution, considering it illegal, and ordered the resumption of prosecution.
10. On 20 May 2005, Transport Prosecutor's Office again stopped prosecution, citing amnesty.
11. Subsequently, in accordance with the Ordinance of 20 May 2005, Felix Gutu was fired under an order of 18 august 2005, in accordance with the provisions of art. 86 para. (1) (a). (j)) of the Labour Code, being accused of taking money from the enterprise that heritage.
12. Being challenged the order for dismissal, by the decision of Court of Botanica. Chisinau, March 22, 2006, the action was dismissed as unfounded. On 25 May 2006, the Court of appeal. Chisinau has admitted the appeal of Felix Gutu, quashed the judgment of the first instance and ordered the cancellation of the order for dismissal.
13. S.e. "Moldatsa" appeal. By decision of the Supreme Court of Justice on 30 august 2006 the appeal was upheld, the Court of Appeal quashed the decision of Chisinau and maintained the judgment of first instance.
14. Subsequently, in September 2006, the Deputy Attorney General's Prime canceled again due to the termination of the prosecution of 20 May 2005 and ordered the resumption of prosecution, but on 4 January 2007 the Transport Prosecutor's Office ordered the termination of criminal proceedings in connection with the amnesty.
15. On 12 September 2008, Felix Gutu has lodged a complaint against the judge, the Ordinance of 4 January 2007, and the Prosecutor's response dated 12 September 2008. 3 Nov 2008 by Center Court. Chisinau, was declared null and void Ordinance of 4 January 2007 and ordered the remission of the Criminal Prosecutor for liquidation of infringements.
16. By order of 25 January 2011, the Prosecutor ordered the cessation of criminal prosecution in respect to Felix Gutu, noting the absence of signs of the crime provided for in art. 191 of the criminal code.
17. On 14 April, 2011 Nersh Gutu filed an application for review against a decision by the Supreme Court of Justice on 30 august 2006, citing article. 449 lit. e) of the code of civil procedure (in force until December 1, 2012), according to which the revision shall be declared where cancelled or modified, the judgment or decision of a court sentence, decision or judgment of another body of the time, which served as the basis for the issuance of a decision or the decision whose review is required.
18. However, by the conclusion of the Supreme Court of Justice of 19 October 2011, the application for review was dismissed as inadmissible because, in the meantime, the investigation judge declared null and void Ordinance of 25 January 2011.
19. On 19 October, the Transport Prosecutor's Office ordered the cessation of criminal prosecution again, the Ordinance in question being brought to their attention on 27 February 2015.
20. On 28 may 2015, Felix Gutu filed an application for review has repeatedly, and on 30 June 2015 it requested raising the exception of unconstitutionality and referral to the Constitutional Court concerning the constitutionality and declaring unconstitutional paragraph of article 118. 1 of law No. 155 of 5 July 2012 for the modification and completion of the code of civil procedure, in the coming article. 449 lit. e) 21. October 19, 2010, the Supreme Court of Justice has delivered judgment No. 10 concerning the adoption referral for exercising the constitutionality of article 7, item 118. 1 of law No. 155 of 5 July 2012 for the modification and completion of the code of civil procedure, the appeal to the Constitutional Court for presenting the resolution.
PERTINENT LEGISLATION. The relevant provisions of the Constitution (M. A., 1994, nr. 1) are as follows: Article 1 the State of the Republic of Moldova "[...]
(3) the Republic of Moldova is a democratic State of law, in which human dignity, rights and freedoms, the open development of human personality, justice and political pluralism represent supreme values and are guaranteed. "


Article 20 access to justice "(1) Any person shall be entitled to effective satisfaction on the part of competent courts against acts which violate the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests.
(2) no law may restrict the access to justice. "


Article 54 the restriction of the exercise of certain rights or freedoms "(1) in the Republic of Moldova cannot be adopted laws suppressing or violating fundamental rights and freedoms of man and citizen.
(2) the exercise of rights and freedoms may not be subject to restrictions other than those prescribed by law and which correspond to the widely recognized norms of international law and are necessary in the interests of national security, territorial integrity, economic well-being of the country, public order, in order to prevent mass unrest and crime, protection of rights, freedoms and dignity of other persons, preventing the disclosure of confidential information or to ensure the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
(3) the provisions of paragraph (2) do not allow the restriction of the rights stipulated in articles 20-24.
(4) the restriction must be proportional to the situation that caused it, and may not affect the existence of that right or freedom. "
23. The relevant provisions of the code of civil procedure of the Republic of Moldova nr. 225-XV of 30 May 2003 (reprinted in m. o., 2013, no. 130-134, art. 415) are as follows: Article 5Accesul to justice "(1) Any interested person has the right to address the Court, in the manner established by law, to defend their rights violated or contested, freedoms and legitimate interests.
(2) any person may refuse judicial defense of the reason of nullity of laws, imperfection, collision or obscurity of the law. […]”


Article 15 use of remedies "trial participants and other interested persons whose rights, freedoms times legitimate interests have been violated by an act may exercise judicial remedies against him according to the law."


Article 446Dispoziţiile judgments that may be subject to revision "may be subject to revision of judgments, decisions and decisions of all courts of irrevocable letters of credit under the terms of this chapter."


Article 447Persoanele that are entitled to lodge a review request "are entitled to lodge a review request: a) the parties and other participants in the proceedings;

b) people who haven't participated in the process, but who are harmed by the decision rights, judicial decision or conclusion;
c) governmental agent, in the cases referred to in article 449 lit. g) and (h)). "


Article 449Temeiurile of the statement of the review "review declares where: a) has been found by a final sentence, criminal, an offence in connection with which the controversy's sake;
b) became known some essential facts or circumstances of the pricinii which were not and could not have known revizuientului, if he proves that he has taken all measures to find out the essential facts and circumstances during the previous trial of the pricinii;
c) Court has issued a ruling on the rights of persons who were not involved in the process;
e) cancelled or amended judgment, sentence or decision of a court that served as the basis for the issuance of a decision or the decision whose review is requested;
E1) was applied a law declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court and the proceedings was raised the plea of unconstitutionality, and the Court or the Supreme Court of Justice rejected the request concerning the referral to the Constitutional Court or the Constitutional Court of the judgment, it appears that this infringed a right guaranteed by the Constitution or international treaties in the field of human rights;
g) European Court of human rights or the Government of the Republic of Moldova initiated a regulatory proceeding amicably in a case pending against the Republic of Moldova;
h) European Court of human rights has found, in a landmark ruling, whether the Government has admitted, in a statement, a violation of rights or freedoms that may be remedied, at least partially, by setting aside the judgment handed down by a Court of law. "
24. The relevant provisions of the Universal Declaration of human rights (adopted on 10 December 1948 in New York, the Republic of Moldova has acceded by decision of Parliament no. 217-XII of 28 July 1990) are as follows: Article 8Dreptul to a fair trial, "everyone has the right to effective satisfaction on the part of the competent national judicial courts against acts that violate fundamental rights that are recognized by the Constitution or the law."
25. The relevant provisions of the European Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, as amended by the additional protocols to that Convention (done at Rome on 4 November 1950 and ratified by decision of Parliament of the Republic of Moldova No. 1298-XIII of 24 July 1997), are as follows: Article 6Dreptul to due process "1. Everyone has the right to a fair hearing, publicly and in a reasonable period of its cause, by an independent and impartial court established by law, which shall decide upon the infringement of his rights and obligations with civil engineering, be upon hearing any allegations in criminal matters directed against it. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly, but access to the courtroom may be banned press common problem to the public throughout the process or a parts of it in the interests of morality, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the privacy of the parties in the proceedings so require, or to the extent considered necessary by the Court when in special circumstances, the advertisement would be likely to prejudice the interests of Justice.
[...]”
In LAW 26. From the contents of the referral, the Court observes that it is aimed at essentially the basis of review of irrevocable judgments.
27. Thus, the appeal relates to a set of elements and principles with constitutional value interconexe, as well as free access to justice, guarantees the right to a fair trial, the strength of the force of res judicata of the court decisions and the security of legal relations.
A. ADMISSIBILITY Of 28. By its decision of 16 November 2015, the Court verified the meeting the following conditions for eligibility: (1) subject to the exception comes into the category of acts covered by article 135 paragraph 1. (1) (a). of the Constitution).
29. In accordance with paragraph 1 of article 135. (1) (a). the control of the Constitution) the constitutionality of laws, in particular of the law nr. 155 of 5 July 2012 for the modification and completion of the code of civil procedure of the Republic of Moldova, the competence of the Constitutional Court.
(2) the exception is raised by one of the parties or its representative, or indicates that it is lifted by the Court ex officio.
30. Being raised by Felix Gutu in file No. -199 2rh/15, which is on the role of the Supreme Court of Justice, the appeal regarding plea of unconstitutionality is made by the subject in charge with this right.
(3) the provisions of the contested to be applied to the settlement of the case 31. Note that the power of the Court to settle, with the exceptions of unconstitutionality that had been vested in it by article 135 paragraph 1. (1) (a). g) of the Constitution, requires correlation of laws and the Constitution, taking into account the principle of the supremacy of its provisions and to address the relevance of the contested dispute in the courts.
32. the Court observes that the object of the exception of unconstitutionality is pct provisions, article 118. 1 of law No. 155 of 5 July 2012 for the modification and completion of the code of civil procedure of the Republic of Moldova, in the words of exclusion "or judgment of another body decision times ' in article 449 (e)).
33. the Court supports the author's arguments of unconstitutionality, exception according to which the contested provisions are to be applied to the settlement of the case, because they are determined to resolve the issue concerning the acceptance of the application for review made on May 25, 2010 in front of the Supreme Court of Justice.
(4) there is a previous judgment of the Court has as its object the contested provisions 34. Keep in mind that the Court have not been previously challenged the constitutionality.
35. the Court notes that the appeal is aimed at essentially the right person to be able to ask for a judicial review if the judgment has been changed to a non-judicial body, which served as the basis for the issuance of a decision or the decision whose review is required.
36. In this context, note that the Court, by decision No. 15 of 6 May 1997 concerning the interpretation of article 2.135 para. (1) (a). g) of the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova (the O.G. 1997, no. 33-34, art. 14), held that: "[...] The plea of unconstitutionality expresses a logical link between organic and the question of constitutionality and the main dispute. [...]”
37. Following its previous case-law, the Court will address the issue of the constitutionality of the impugned provisions of the Act in respect of the circumstances of the dispute in the light of the main constitutional rules cited by the author of the exception, taking account both of the principles enshrined in the Constitution and in national law, and the ruling in the European Court of human rights (hereinafter the ECHR).
38. the Court reiterates that, in its judgement No. 55 of 14 October 1999 concerning the interpretation of certain provisions of article 4 of the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova, stated that "this provision entails legal consequences, assuming, first, that the law enforcement agencies, including the Constitutional Court [...], shall have the right to apply to the process of examination of the concrete causes the rules of international law [...], and shall, in the event of a conflict, the provisions of the international priority".
39. In the same vein, in its judgement No. 10 of 16 April 2010 to review the decision of the Constitutional Court No. 16 of 28 May 1998 concerning the interpretation of article 20 of the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova "edition of the judgment No. 39 of 9 July 2001, the Constitutional Court stated that "international judicial practice [...] It is mandatory for the Republic of Moldova as an independent State which has adhered to the European Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms ".
40. Consequently, the Court considers that the appeal cannot be rejected as inadmissible and there is no other reason to interruption of the process, in accordance with the provisions of article 60 of the code of constitutional jurisdiction.
41. Thus, in order to elucidate the issues raised in the complaint, which focuses mainly on the idea of containment of free access to justice, the Court will operate with the provisions of article 20 of the Constitution, with the reasoning set out in its previous jurisprudence, and by reference to the case-law of the European Court.
B. the ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT CASE FUND article 20 of the CONSTITUTION

42. In the author's opinion, the provisions of non-constitutionality exception subject to constitutionality is in breach of article 20 of the Constitution, according to which: "(1) Any person shall be entitled to effective satisfaction on the part of competent courts against acts which violate the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests.

(2) no law may restrict the access to justice. "
1. the author's Arguments exception 43. The author of the non-constitutionality exception noted that law No. 155 of 5 July 2012 has been altered art. 449 letter e) of the code of civil procedure, being excluded the possibility for revision of a judgment in the case that has been quashed the judgment has changed the decision of another body times and maintained only if the revision changed the judgment, sentence or decision of a court, which served as the basis for the issuance of a decision or the decision whose review is required.
44. Thus, it claims that article. I, section 118 of the Act nr. 155 of 5 July 2012 for the modification and completion of the code of civil procedure of the Republic of Moldova, in the words of exclusion "or judgment of another body decision times". 449 lit. (e)), violates the freedom of access to justice.
45. in addition, the author notes that the exception by modifying the law in article 449 letter e) of the code of civil procedure has been restricted a person's right to obtain effective reparation in case of damage of its rights.
2. Arguments of the authorities 46. The President of Moldova, there are insufficient grounds to declare unconstitutional point, article 118. 1 of law No. 155 of July 5, 2012.
47. At the same time, the Moldovan President stated that the enactment of law No. 155 of 5 July 2012 have been violated basic principles of compliance with the law. 780 of 27 December 2001 on the legislative acts, namely the principles of consistency and balance between rules and regulations. In support of the position expressed by the President of Moldova stated that given that the reason for the revision or modification of the annulment decision of fact, sentence or court decision that gave rise to the issuing of the judgment or the decision whose review is required, it would be logical and consistent with the principles referred to as grounds for review to serve and cancellation/modification of any other legal act which was put to the basis of such judgments.
48. In its written opinion, Parliament pointed out that the provisions of article 7, item 118. 1 of law No. 155 of 5 July 2012 are in accordance with constitutional rules. The Parliament argued that the exclusion of "the judgment of another body decision times" as a ground for declaring the review was aimed at maintaining a balance between respect for the right to a fair trial and the principle of security of legal relations.
49. Also advocating for the constitutionality of the challenged norm, the Government stated that the exclusion of the possibility for revision of a judgment based on the judgment of another body decision times, which were canceled or changed, is justified in order to avoid abusive situations of destabilization of certain legal relationships.
3. Assessment of the Court 3.1. General principles 50. The Court reiterated that article 20 of the Constitution guarantees every person the right to effective satisfaction on the part of competent courts against acts which violate the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests. No law may restrict the access to justice.
51. In its jurisprudence, the Court noted that the principle of free access to justice is to be regarded not only as a guarantee for the effective exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms, but also as an imperative norm called to give meaning to the concept of "rule of law" (HCC No. 14 of 15 November 2012).
52. The same principle is enshrined and international acts in the field of human rights to which Moldova is a party.
53. Thus, under article 8 of the Universal Declaration of human rights: "everyone has the right to effective satisfaction on the part of the competent national judicial courts against acts that violate fundamental rights that are recognized by the Constitution or by law".
54. article. 6 § 1 of the European Convention, the right to a fair trial. In this regard, the European Court, in rich case law concerning the matter art. 6 § 1 of the Convention, has mapped out specific guidelines regarding the guarantees of a fair trial.
55. However, the existence of the security right to a court, pursuant to this article, it is not an absolute right, and may be subject to limitations, in that States possessing, a certain margin of appreciation. However, the limitations must not restrict the right of access in both, so as to be reached its very substance.
56. the right of access to a court so requires, by its very nature, a rule in the State, which can be variable in time and space according to the needs and resources of the community and of the individuals (Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, § 57, judgment of 28 May 1985).
57. In this context, the Constitutional Court reiterated that the right of access to justice can involve limitations, including procedural, provided that they are reasonable and proportionate to the aim pursued.
3.2. Application of the principles in this question 58. The Court notes that the right of access to a court and the right to cover insert call or appeal, insofar as such remedies are regulated by national legislation. This does not mean that access to justice must be secured to all courts and to all legal remedies, because jurisdiction and remedies shall be determined exclusively by the legislature, which may establish special rules, taking into account contingencies.
59. In this respect, the legislator constituent, in article 119 of the Constitution stipulated that, against judgments, the parties concerned and the competent State bodies may pursue remedies, in accordance with the law.
60. the court notice that, for the purposes of art. 15 of the code of civil procedure, legal remedies are to be exercised within the time limits established by law, or, after its expiry, court orders become definitive and irrevocable, in the power of work judged.
61. In this context, the Court emphasized that one of the fundamental aspects of the rule of law is the principle of security of legal relations, which requires, inter alia, that where the courts give a final assessment, finding it can no longer be questioned. The security of legal relations in complying with the principle of res judicata, i.e. irrevocable character of the principle of judgments.
62. This principle requires that no part may not have the right to request review of a ruling irrevocable and binding only in order to get a review and a new determination of the case. Jurisdiction of the courts of review must be exercised to correct judicial errors and omissions, but not to carry out a further examination. The revision should not be considered as a simple call blinded, and the existence of two different opinions regarding the same matter is not a ground for review. A derogation from this principle is justified only when it is necessary, essential and compelling circumstances (Brumărescu v. Romania, no. 28342/95, § 61-62 and Rosca v. Moldova, no. 6267/02, § 24-25, Riabîh v. Russia, § 52).
63. the Court noted that the principle excludes the possibility that the parties aiming to reopen the new judicial procedures relating to the same issue and to obtain a review of the case, i.e. a new ruling in respect of its review of the case, to turn into a judicial review in disguise.
64. Thus, the principle Outlined legal certainty requires that State to deposit the Maxi to be identified and related legal proceedings to ban the reopening of new judicial proceedings relating to the same issue.
65. In the light of the principles set out in Judgment No. 16 of 25 June 2013, the Court held that: "52. […] specified principles totally oppose the existence of extraordinary procedures by bringing before the courts have already dealt with contentious, but the need to respect the principle of civil safety circuit-which is one of the essential aspects of the principle of the rule of law in a democratic society-their use requires that in civil matters to put on an exceptional nature in respect of the time limits can be promoted the reasons of admissibility, as well as parties who have the right of action. "
66. the Court notes that the procedural legislation regulating mechanisms, granting the possibility of abolishing the irrevocable judgments where to be corrected the errors and omissions of judicial justice.
67. Moreover, in its judgment No. 16 of 25 June 2013, the Court stated: "58. […] revision being a way of withdrawal, and no reform of the judgment, within it, strictly on the basis of reasons provided by law, there is a reopening of the trial.
59. Following the judgments of the European Court, the Court accepts that a final and irrevocable judgment enjoys authority work judged, so a dispute resolved can no longer, in principle, to form the subject of a new trial, with the same object, the same cause of action and between the same parties.

60. Moreover, the Court points out that the essential problem in regulating proper redress extraordinary lies in finding "hypotheses", which to placate both requirements, on the one hand, the principle of the authority of a final decision and, on the other hand, the requirement that a judicial and legal grounds. Therefore, it is necessary to identify some early assumptions to ensure respect for the right to a fair trial and the principle of security of legal relations. "
68. the Court notes that, in accordance with article 449 lit. e) of the code of civil procedure, a judicial decision may be reviewed if the "cancelled or amended judgment, sentence or decision of a court that served as the basis for the issuance of a decision or the decision whose review is required".
69. the Court notes that, until the amendments by law No. 155 of 5 July 2012, Editorial Board letter s) art. 449 of the code of civil procedure allowed the revision of a judgment, and where it has been cancelled, or has been changed by the Act of an organ which served as the basis for the issuance of the judgment whose revision is required.
70. the Court notes that, in its original edition, art. 449 lit. e) was exposed in a faulty formula in terms of legal certainty, while allowing the dismantling of some final and irrevocable judgment, extraordinary appeals, if "the judgment or decision" of a non-judicial body change for some reasons.
71. Thus the Court finds that the text that has been excluded, i.e. "cancelled or amended the judgment of another body decision times" does not meet the criteria of clarity and predictability of the law. By the wording, it does not have the ability to express for courts that acts and whose authority would entail revision of judicial rulings.
72. Respectively, as a result of the amendment to art. 449 lit. e) of the code of civil procedure, judicial review of an act may be requested only if cancelled or modified, the judgment or decision of a court sentence which have served as the basis for the issuance of a decision or the decision whose review is required. Cancellation or amendment of the judgment of another body cannot serve as a basis for revision of a judgment.
73. In this context, the Court notes that the basis for revision of a judgment to be made by irrevocable acts only available. Or, the Act of a non-judicial authority, which has no definitive character, cannot determine a judicial amendment of definitive and irrevocable, which more often than not at the stage of the request for revision was performed, which may involve violations of the security of legal relations.
74. the court notice that the exclusion "of the judgment or the decision of another body" as a reason for the revision does not entail breaking procedural balance, through the amendments that have been made with a view to preventing the legislature, infringement of the principle of security of legal relations, has established clear and foreseeable circumstances, essential condition of quality of legal norm.
75. Thus, concluding, the court notice that, in the light of the wording of the text "or judgment of another body decision times", which was likely to affect the security of legal relations and respect for the principle of res judicata, its exclusion from the norm art. 449 lit e) of the code of civil procedure through item 118 of the Art. 1 of law No. 155 of 5 July 2012 is not contrary to article 20 of the Constitution.
Under article 140 of the Constitution, 26 of the law on the Constitutional Court, 6, 61, 62 letter a) and 68 of the code of constitutional jurisdiction, the Constitutional Court DECIDES: 1. the plea of unconstitutionality shall be rejected by the Supreme Court of Justice.
2. Recognizes the constitutional point, article 118. 1 of law No. 155 of 5 July 2012 for the modification and completion of the code of civil procedure of the Republic of Moldova, in the words of exclusion "or judgment of another body decision times ' in article 449 (e)).
3. This decision is final, cannot be subject to any appeal, shall enter into force on the date of its adoption and shall be published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Moldova.