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 Eugenia bribes, Registrar,
Considering the complaint filed on November 20, 2015
and registered on the same date
examining the notification mentioned in open session given
regard to documents and materials,
deliberated in closed session
Delivers the following judgment: PROCEDURE

1. The case originated notification is submitted to the Constitutional Court on 20 November 2015 under Articles 135 paragraph. (1) g) of the Constitution, 25 lit. d) of the Law on the Constitutional Court and 38 para. (1) d) of the Code of Constitutional, Supreme Court of Justice regarding the exception of unconstitutionality of Article 53 lit. c) of Law no. 158-XVI of 4 July 2008 on the public function and status of civil servant and Article 76 lit. g) of the Labour Code, objection raised by Anatoly Focsa in case no. 3-137 / 2015, before the Court Căuşeni.
2. Author exception of unconstitutionality claimed, essentially, that the suspension of service by the public authority under Art. 53 lit. c) of Law no. 158 of 4 July 2008 and art. 76 lit. g) of the Labour Code violates Articles 21, 43, 47 and 54 of the Constitution.
March. By the Constitutional Court decision of December 7, 2015 notification was admissible, without prejudging the merits.
4. In examining the notification, the Constitutional Court requested the opinion of Parliament, the President of Moldova and the Government.
May. At a public session of the Court, the notification was supported by Anatolie Focsa, author of the objection. Parliament was represented by Mr Sergiu Buffalo, Head of Division in the Directorate General of Legal Parliament Secretariat. The government was represented by Mr Eduard Serbenco, Deputy Minister of Justice, and Ms. Laura Grecu, Deputy Minister of Labour, Social Protection and Family. 6

CIRCUMSTANCES main proceedings. Căuşeni Court pending an application for summons filed by Anatoly Focsa or against the mayor and City Hall. Căuşeni annulling the administrative act, payment of wages for the forced absence from work and moral damages.
July. 21 August 2012, the mayor. Căuşeni issued regulations, which suspended the employment relationships with Anatolie Focsa, who worked as a lawyer until a final judgment in a criminal case brought against him.
August. On 23 August 2012 Anatolie Focsa disagreeing with the mayor or. Căuşeni, filed in contentious administrative proceedings a claim to court.
September. Focsa's criminal case on Anatolie was prosecuted by the prosecutor on 23 January 2012. He was suspected of committing the crime provided by art. 310 par. (1) of the Criminal Code, because, representing the interests of the City Hall or. Căuşeni in a civil case presented in court as evidence a false reporting.
10. In a judgment of 10 February 2014, the Court recognized the Focsa Anatolie Căuşeni guilty of the offense charged and decided to discontinue the proceedings against him in connection with the expiration of the limitation period for prosecuting. That sentence was upheld without any changes by the Court of Appeal decision of 3 February 2015
11. At its meeting on July 31, 2015 Anatolie Focsa called for the lifting the exception of unconstitutionality of art. 53 lit. c) of Law no. 158 of 4 July 2008 and art. 76 lit. g) of the Labor Code and notifying the Constitutional Court to verify the constitutionality of these provisions under Articles 21, 43 para. (1), paragraph 47. (1) and 54 of the Constitution.
12. By concluding Căuşeni Court of 31 July 2015 ordering the suspension process and informing the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court to verify the constitutionality referral Art. 53 lit. c) of Law no. 158 of 4 July 2008 and art. 76 lit. g) of the Labour Code.
13. On 16 November 2015 the Plenum of the Supreme Court adopted a decision no. 11 on raising the exception of unconstitutionality of art. 53 lit. c) of Law no. 158 of 4 July 2008 and art. 76 lit. g) of the Labour Code, presenting notifying the Constitutional Court for resolution.
RELEVANT LAWS

14. The relevant provisions of the Constitution (OJ 1994, no. 1) are:
Article 21 Presumption of innocence


"Everyone charged with a crime is presumed innocent until proved guilty will be proved legally during a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense."

Article 43Dreptul 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 47Dreptul assistance and social 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 54 Restriction 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. "
15. The relevant provisions of Law no. 158-XVI of 4 July 2008 on the public function and status of civil servant (MO, 2008, 230-232, art. 840) are:

Article 53Suspendarea of ​​service by the public authority

"The service is suspended by the public authority:
[...]
c) when acknowledged as suspect or of an ordinance the indictment, until the final the judgment;
[...] "
16. The relevant provisions of the Labour Code of the Republic of Moldova no. 154-XV of 28 March 2003 (OJ 2003, 159-162, art. 648) are:


General Article 75Noţiuni
"(1) Suspension of the individual labor contract can intervene in circumstances beyond control of the parties, by agreement or at the initiative of one party.
(2) Suspension of the individual labor contract requires the suspension of work by the employee, and provision of duty salarialе (salary, bonuses and other payments) by the employer.
(3) Throughout the suspension of the individual employment contract, rights and obligations of the parties, besides those provided in par. (2) continue to exist if the legislation in force, collective agreements through collective bargaining and through individual labor otherwise stated.
(4) Suspension of the individual labor contract, except as provided in Article 76 a) and b) and art. 78 para. (1) d¹) and e) is done by order (available, decision, decision) of the employer, who is to notify an employee and signed at the latest suspension. "

Article 76Suspendarea individual employment contract in circumstances beyond control of the parties

"Individual employment contract shall be suspended in circumstances beyond control of the parties in the event of:
[...]
g) reference in court on criminal case committed by an employee offenses incompatible with the work performed until a final judgment;
[...] "
17. The relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Moldova no. 122-XV of 14 March 2003 (republished in the Official Gazette, 2012 nr.263-269, art.855) are:

Article 197Alte measures of constraint


"(1) In order to ensure order established by this Code on prosecution proceedings and execution of the sentence, the criminal investigative body, prosecutor, judge or court, according to the competence, they are entitled to apply to the suspect, accused, defendant other measures of constraint, such as:
[...]
3) temporary suspension from office;
[...] "


According to provisional Article 200Suspendarea
"(1) The temporary suspension from office is to prohibit motivated provisional accused, defendant to exercise his powers work or perform tasks with which it deals or they carry out in the interest of public service.
(2) The person provisionally suspended from office and remuneration pauses, but the time period for which the person was temporarily suspended from office as coercive procedural measure be taken into account in the general working age.
(3) The temporary suspension from office a government institution decides which activates the suspect, according to the law, leading to the prosecutor or, where appropriate, undertake immediate prosecution. Judgment administration of the institution of suspension from office may be appealed to the judge. "
18. The relevant provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted on 10 December 1948 in New York, to which Moldova joined by Parliament Decision no. 217-XII of 28 July 1990) are:
Article 11


"Any person accused of committing a penal offense has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law will be in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense." | || Article 23


"Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
[...] "
19. The relevant provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (signed at Rome on 4 November 1950 and ratified by the Parliament of Moldova no. 1298-XIII of 24 July 1997) are:

Article 6Dreptul to a fair trial

"[...]
2. Everyone charged with a crime is presumed innocent until proved guilty will be law.
[...] "
20. The relevant provisions of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (adopted on 16 December 1966 in New York and ratified by Moldova on 28 July 1990 by the Parliament Decision no. 217-XII) are:
Article 6


"1. States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right to work which includes the right of everyone you get the opportunity to earn a living by work freely chosen or accepted and will take appropriate steps to safeguard this right. [...] "THE LAW

21. From the content of the notification, the Court notes that it aims essentially suspended by the employer of labor relations for instituting a criminal case against the employee.
22. Thus, the notification relates to a number of factors and constitutional principles and international interrelated, such as the presumption of innocence, the right to work and proportionality of restricting the right to work.
A.
ADMISSIBILITY 23. By decision of 7 December 2015, the Court examined the admissibility following conditions are met:
(1) Subject plea falls into the category of documents contained in Article 135 para. (1) a)
24 of the Constitution. Under Article 135 para. (1) a) of the Constitution, the constitutionality of laws, namely Law no. 158-XVI of 4 July 2008 on the public function and status of civil servant and the Labour Code, 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
25. Being raised by Anatoly Focsa in case no. 3-137 / 2015, which is pending before the Court Căuşeni notification on the objection of unconstitutionality shall be made subject legally authorized.
(3) The provisions challenged to be applied to solving the case

26. 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.
27. The Court observes that the object of the objection of unconstitutionality is the art. 53 lit. c) of Law no. 158-XVI of 4 July 2008 on the public function and status of civil servant and art. 76 lit. g) of the Labour Code.
28. Court accepts the arguments of the author exception of unconstitutionality, 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 deciding on the cancellation of the administrative act was willing suspension of service to the public official.
(4) There is an earlier judgment of the Court covering
29 contested provisions. The Court notes that the contested provisions were not previously subject to constitutional control.
30. 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).
31. The Court reiterates that, in Case no. 55 of 14 October 1999 concerning the interpretation of certain provisions of Article 4 of the Constitution, stated that "this provision carries legal consequences, assuming first that law enforcement bodies, including the Constitutional Court [...] I am entitled to apply to the examination of concrete cases international law [...], with the event of a conflict, the provisions of international priority. "
32. In the same vein, in Case no. 10 of 16 April 2010 to review the judgment of the Constitutional Court no. 16 of 28 May 1998 "On the interpretation of art. 20 of the Constitution "in the wording of Resolution no. 39 of 9 July 2001, the Constitutional Court stated that "international legal practice [...] is mandatory for Moldova, as a State party to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms".
33. The Court therefore considers that the notification 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.
34. Thus, to elucidate the issues addressed in the complaint, the Court will examine the alleged violation of Article 21 of the Constitution - in part related to the presumption of innocence, Article 43 taken together with Article 54 of the Constitution - in respect of the restriction of the right to work, other constitutional objection raised by the author is irrelevant in relation to the contested rules.
B. MERITS OF THE CASE

I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION
35. According to the author exception of unconstitutionality, constitutional provisions submitted infringes Article 21 of the Constitution, which states:
"Everyone charged with a crime is presumed innocent until proved guilty will be proved legally during a public trial , in which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense. "
A. Arguments author exception erratic 36-tuţionalitate
. In motivating the exception of unconstitutionality, the author claims that the suspension from office is a penalty, which consists provisional prohibition of performance of duties by the suspect, accused and therefore this measure affect the principle of presumption of innocence.
37. The author also considers the plea that the suspension of the measure represents a major penalty accessory penalty, to be determined by final judgment of conviction and can not be earlier than.
B. Arguments authorities
38. In his written opinion, Parliament stated that art. 53 lit. c) of Law no. 158 of 4 July 2008 and art. 76 lit. g) of the Labour Code corresponds to Article 21 of the Constitution.

39. He considered that the suspension of service, regulated by art. 53 lit. c) of Law no. 158 of 4 July 2008 and art. 76 lit. g) of the Labour Code is contrary to the principle of presumption of innocence, since the existence or absence of guilt is determined by final judgment. Moreover, suspension of service in this situation is only temporary.
40. In the opinion of the President of Moldova, the contested provisions do not go beyond the constitutional framework and enforcement is conditional on circumstances of the case.
41. At the same time, the Government said that the employer, ordering suspension of service, not to pronounce on the guilt or employee or on his criminal liability, these are issues whose solution keeps the activity of judicial bodies.
C. The Court's assessment
1. General principles
42. The Court holds that the principle of presumption of innocence enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution requires that any person charged with a crime is presumed innocent until proved guilty will be proved legally during a public trial at which he was all the guarantees necessary for his defense.
43. Articles 6 and 11 of the European Convention par. (2) of the Universal Declaration also enshrines the principle of presumption of innocence.
44. Decision no. 21 of 20 October 2011 the Constitutional Court held that:
"50. [...] In the light of European Court, presumption of innocence established by Article 6 § 2 of the European Convention, not only the criminal proceedings in the strict sense, but has a broader application, in a double sense: on the one hand this warranty is applicable whenever the fault of a person has a connotation criminal, regardless of classification of the domestic law of each State [thus it is applicable, for example, proceedings relating to tax fraud (Heintrich v. France §64) or administrative sanctions (Lutz v. Austria, §57)]; on the other hand, it requires that any representative of the state to refrain from publicly declare that the prosecuted or indicted is guilty of the offense which is accused before his guilt has been established by a final judgment (Butkevieius v. Lithuania, §49). "
45. Also, in its case, the European Court found that when a court in civil matters based on documents obtained in criminal proceedings can not lift itself an issue under Art. 6 § 2 of the Convention (mutatis mutandis decision Vanjak v. Croatia of 14 January 2010). However, if the internal decision on the civil action should include a statement imputation of criminal liability against the applicant, this would raise an issue from the perspective of art. 6 § 2 of the Convention (Case Theodore v. Romania of 4 June 2013).
46. The issue to be resolved in this case is to determine whether the suspension of the individual employment contract under any legal provision undermines the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.
2. Applying the principles to the present case
47. The Court notes that security measures, detention or preventive arrest and suspension from office, although restricting the exercise of certain rights and freedoms shall not be regarded as contrary to the presumption of innocence. All these measures, including suspension from office, are necessary to safeguard public order and criminal proceedings. In this sense, Articles 197 and 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code regulates the rules and grounds for the measure to temporarily suspend from office.
48. According to the European Court, an institution may, in disciplinary matters, in making its decision, withhold facts that could be susceptible to cover a skilled criminal, but in any case the institution can not exceed analysis disciplinary offense by issuing judgments on guilt criminal (Dubos v. France, decision of 14 January 1998).
49. The Court notes that the suspension measure of employment may violate the presumption of innocence only if the authority issuing the decision to suspend formulate judgments or gives the impression that he has already formed opinion on the guilt of the criminal field.

50. In this context, the Court notes that according to art. 76 lit. g) of the Labour Code, individual employment contract shall be suspended in circumstances beyond control of the parties in the case is referred to court a criminal case on commission by an employee of a crime incompatible with labor, until the final judgment court.
51. At the same time, the Court notes that relations of civil servants suspended by the public authority under Art. 53 lit. c) of Law no. 158 of 4 July 2008, including when acknowledged as suspect or an ordinance on indictment, to a final judgment.
52. The Court notes that the provisional suspension from office ordering when committing the employee of an intentional crime would make it incompatible with the exercise of the function, which is a measure to protect the interests of the institution that is committed to the danger of continuing unlawful activity and the extension of the dangerous consequences of a criminal act by preventing similar acts committed by us and consequently to preserve the prestige of the institution.
53. The Court also held that, under the contested provisions, the suspension of service, headteacher not to pronounce on the guilt or civil servant or on its liability criminal, they are matters whose settlement falls within the purview of the organs judicial.
54. Although the suspension is mandatory and automatic under the provisions criticized, none of such legislation show that the purpose of the suspension is punitive, but rather a precautionary and provisional insofar as it concerns the public interest through the suspension of a person accused of service or an offense in connection with the service (Ţehanciuc v. Romania, § 19, decision of 22 November 2011).
55. Given the administrative nature of this measure, the decision to suspend work relations taken by the public authority does not imply a presumption of guilt employee nor expresses doubt innocence its requirement that fact must be respected throughout the criminal proceedings started against a person until a final judgment.
56. In this context, the Court notes that the suspension from office per se does not violate the presumption of innocence, as these provisions are likely to prove necessary when caused by temporary situations that make it impossible to hold office.
57. Consequently, the Court holds that the provisions of art. 53 lit. c) of Law no. 158-XVI of 4 July 2008 and art. 76 lit. g) of the Labor Code does not contravene Article 21 of the Constitution.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 43 IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 54 OF THE CONSTITUTION
58. The author argues that the plea of ​​unconstitutionality of art. 53 lit. c) of Law no. 158 of 4 July 2008 and art. 76 lit. g) of the Labour Code violates Article 43 para. (1) of the Constitution, which provides that:
"(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. [...] "
59. Similarly, the author of the objection claiming that the rules at issue are contrary to 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 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. "
A. Arguments author of the objection

60. The author mentions the exception of unconstitutionality, in essence, that the contested provisions are contrary to constitutional norms relating to the right to work.
61. The author also argues that the exception art. 53 lit. c) of Law no. 158 of 4 July 2008 and art. 76 lit. g) of the Labor Code are disproportionate under Article 54 of the Constitution.
B. Arguments authorities
62. Parliament, in its view, believes that art. 53 lit. c) of Law no. 158 of 4 July 2008 and art. 76 lit. g) of the Labour Code correspond to Articles 43 para. (1) and 54 of the Constitution. Thus, the suspension of these employees is a legal measure that protects the employer from the danger continuation and expansion of illegal activities dangerous consequences of a criminal offense.
63. According to the Presidential written opinion, it is imperative that a public official who is under investigation, be suspended from office because of the institution's credibility could suffer if they continue to perform their function. In these situations there must be a public interest takes precedence.
64. The government also believes that the suspension of service is an appropriate measure in circumstances that continue to perform the employee would be likely to lead to negative consequences for the rights and interests of the employer.
C. The Court's assessment
1. General principles
65. Supreme Law, Article 43, guarantees that everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
66. The Court notes that the internationally recognized right to work is protected by Art. 23 of the Universal Declaration and art. 6 para. 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, but it is not an absolute and unlimited.
67. Considering the specific right to work, but also positioning the subjects of labor relations, both national standards and international establish a minimum set of guarantees designed to ensure a balance between employers and employees and adequate protection of the dignity, security and stability employees.
68. The Court reiterates that the right to work, choice of profession, trade or occupation and workplace concerns for any person to practice or profession of their choosing, under certain conditions established by the legislature (Case No. 5 of 23 April 2013).
69. Thus, the Labour Code in order to ensure stability of employment, provides safeguards designed to prevent abusive behavior of employers, including the very important is the strict regulatory conditions for the termination and suspension of the individual employment contract.
70. The Court notes that labor legislation classifies the workforce by meeting certain requirements and draw up the suspension and termination of employment.
71. In Decision no. 8 of May 11, 2015 the Court held:
"72. The conditions for exercising this fundamental right are likely to be modified according to the needs dictated by the realities of society, while being uniformly regulated by legislation. Or, labor rights must be exercised in accordance with the law and breaching the law results in impossibility to conduct a kind of activity or employment of certain functions. "
72. The Court also notes that although labor laws allow certain limitations on worker rights, however, they must be justified, be necessary to respond to a general interest.
2. Applying the principles to the present case
73. The Court notes that Article. 53 lit. c) of Law no. 158 of 4 July 2008 lays down that the relationship shall be suspended by the public authority when acknowledged as suspect or against the civil servant to order the indictment. Unlike the regulation stated, the provisions of art. 76 lit. g) of the Labour Code provide that individual employment contract shall be suspended in circumstances beyond control of the parties in the case is referred to court a criminal case on the employee committing a crime incompatible with the work performed.
74. Accordingly, the Court notes that the provisions submitted to constitutional law "offend" or "restriction" on the exercise of labor rights protected by Article 43 of the Constitution.

75. As this right is not absolute, consequently, it is worth examining the question of the principle of proportionality, an imperative need to be followed in cases of limitation on the exercise of fundamental human rights and freedoms provided for by art. 54 para. (2) of the Constitution.
76. To be compatible with art. 54 para. (2) such a restriction or interference must be "prescribed by law", pursue one or more legitimate aims, among those listed in paragraph two, and be "necessary in a democratic society" in pursuit that purpose or those purposes.
77. In this context, the Court will carry out the proportionality test, as a logical method intended to help establish the correct balance between the restrictions imposed by the measure of suspension from office and the severity of the measure applied by analyzing whether the right to work underwent a limitation that is not falls under the conditions imposed by the Constitution. The Court will consider whether the limits imposed by the legislature on the right to work by regulating the suspension from office for committing the alleged criminal is a reasonable limitation and nedisproporţionată to the aim pursued.
78. According to the proportionality test, the measure taken must be appropriate - can objectively lead to that purpose, necessary - indispensable to achieve the aim, and proportionate - to ensure the right balance between the interests of concrete to be appropriate to the aim pursued.
2.1. 79
prescribed by law. The Court notes that both art. 53 of Law no. 158 of 4 July 2008 and art. 76 of the Labour Code covers situations of suspension of the individual employment contract, including in case of committing alleged crimes.
80. The Court also retains the generality of the Labour Code, the applicable governing labor relations of employees and employers natural or legal persons in public, private or mixed, using employment, and Law no. 158 of 4 July 2008 is a special law regulating the status of civil servant and legal relations between civil servants and public authorities.
81. The Court also notes that in art. 53 letter c) of Law no. 158 of 4 July 2008 are regulated differently in relation to the Labour Code, both the conditions under which public authority may suspend relationships, and time at which this measure can be applied against the civil servant.
2.2. 82
legitimate aim. Analysis suspension assembly regulations on individual employment contract (article 76, paragraph g) of the Labour Code) or of service (article 53 c) of Law No. 158) shows, as a general rule that the measure It imposed temporary situations that make it impossible to exercise the activity or function.
83. The Court notes that the purpose for which regulated the possibility of suspending the individual employment contract, the case is referred to court a criminal case on commission by an employee of a crime incompatible with labor, is the employer to prevent the employee as exercise duties that we have to commit any further offenses of the kind for which investigated and prevent it from producing the damage. In addition, the provisions in question tend to protect the interests of the employer or institution where the employee operates.
84. On regulations governing suspension of service to the public official if acknowledged as suspect or in of an ordinance indictment, the Court notes that the measure is aimed, among other things, protecting the prestige of the profession or function exercised legal text did not require other conditions such as criminal incompatible with his position.
85. The Court observes that restricting the right to work through the suspension of service is applied to safeguard "another right", in particular, protecting the institution and the prestige of the profession, therefore this purpose corresponds to the legitimate aim, referred to the second paragraph of Article 54 of the Constitution.
86. Given the above considerations, it is important to know whether this interference is "necessary in a democratic society" and the Court will further elucidate this issue.

2.3. Necessary in a democratic society
87. The Court considers that the nature and specificity of this measure, since the legislature considered necessary by reason of certain judgments or suspension of the employment contract of service by itself this measure does not contravene the right to work. The Constitution does not prohibit the suspension of the service, provided, however, that it be accompanied by guarantees and respect the principle of proportionality.
88. However, the Court noted that the law should not leave the free choice of employer or public authority decision to suspend or not unilateral relations service without set conditions, modalities and criteria clear and precise (see, mutatis mutandis ECtHR Milojević and others v. Serbia on 30 January 2016).
89. The Court considers that regulating the situations for suspension of service should not admit the possibility of issuing arbitrary or unjustified decisions that protect the right to work requires, among other things, that the restriction of this right comply with the constitutional requirements imposed by art. 54 para. (4) on proportionality, not only providing measures of repair or alternative solutions.
90. The Court notes that according to the Labour Code, the suspension only operate if the criminal case is sent to court, and the offense is incompatible with labor, but the Law no. 158 of 4 July 2008 even suspend the recognition stage as suspect and without the existence of a causal link between the activity and the crime committed.
91. The Court finds that art. 76 lit. g) of the Labour Code are in place to protect the public interest by removing the person from a particular function, being accused of an offense related to the function, thereby preventing such acts or other consequences of such acts.
92. Respectively, as appropriate, necessary and appropriate to the aim pursued, part art. 76 lit. g) of the Labor Code, subject to constitutional control is not a violation of the right to work under Article 43 of the Constitution in conjunction with Article 54. 93
. Unlike art. 76 lit. g) of the Labour Code, the application of art. 53 lit. c) of Law no. 158 of 4 July 2008 the assessment basis for suspension of the employment relationship is at the discretion of the public authority, which is not bound in any way take account of the intrinsic link the alleged crimes to the function exercised by the public official.
94. In this regard, the Court notes that the mere fact that the person was recognized as a suspect for an offense extrinsic his relations professional activities they perform and the public authority to which it belongs may not be as grounds for suspension of service.
95. The Court observes that the impugned provisions of the law effect an imbalance to the detriment of civil servant in the sense that he or she can suspend labor relations for instituting any criminal cases.
96. The Court also notes that the manner in which the suspension of service is regulated in art. 53 lit. c) of Law no. 158 of 4 July 2008, the measure does not offer sufficient guarantees to exclude arbitrary action or abuse of authority, is likely to be characterized as subjective, especially in the context of labor relations, which involve a subordination of the employee to the employer. However, lack of clarity of the legal and judicial sufficient safeguards against arbitrariness can be regarded as a violation of art. 43 of the Constitution combined with art. 54.
97. In conclusion, the Court holds that the provisions of art. 53 lit. c) of the Law on public function and status of civil servant, which provides authority to suspend service relation to taking the case to court if there is no intrinsic connection to alleged offenses committed position, transgresses the principle proportionality, the measure is excessive in relation to the objective to be attained, and it is contrary to Article 43 taken together with Article 54 of the Constitution.
For these reasons, pursuant to Article 140 of the Constitution and Article 26 of the Law on Constitutional Court, Articles 6, 61, 62 lit. a) and 68 of the Code of Constitutional Court Constitutional

DECIDES:


1. It admits partial exception of unconstitutionality raised by Anatoly Focsa in case no. 3-137 / 2015 pending before the Court Căuşeni, which was filed by the Supreme Court.
2. Article 53 is unconstitutional lit. c) of Law no. 158-XVI of 4 July 2008 on the public function and status of civil servant.
March. It recognizes the constitutional article 76 lit. g) of the Labor Code of the Republic of Moldova No. 154-XV of 28 March 2003
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.

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT PRESIDENT Alexandru Tanase