The Constitutional Court, acting as part of Mr. Alexandru Tanase, President, Mr. Aurel BĂIEŞU, Mr. Igor DOLEA, Mr. Victor PALMER, Mr. Zadrahimi, judges, with the participation of Mrs. Eugenia Mîța, Registrar, considering the appeal filed on 19 September 2016, recorded at the same time, examining the admissibility of the referral, taking into account the laws and proceedings, Acting on 12 October the Council room 2016 the next decision, a decision: in fact 1. The origin of the case lies the plea of unconstitutionality of the phrase "whose conclusion is final and is not susceptible of appeal" in paragraph 1. (4) of article 43 of the code of civil procedure, raised by the Ministry of health in file No. 3-221/14 on the role of Center Court, mun. Chişinău.
2. The appeal was lodged with the Constitutional Court on 19 September 2016 by judge Dahl Șușchevici from within, Centre Court. Chişinău, pursuant to article 135 paragraph 1. (1) (a). a) and g) of the Constitution, as interpreted by the decision of the Constitutional Court No. 2 of 9 February 2016, and of the regulation on the procedure for examining complaints lodged with the Constitutional Court.
A. the main dispute Circumstances 3. In the Center Court, mun. Chişinău, is the application of the judgment filed by c. network. The Ministry of health, against public medical-sanitary Institution "psychiatric hospital" annulling the administrative act, restoring function and salary receipt for absence from work.
4. On 7 September 2016, representative of the Ministry of health has called for the lifting of non-constitutionality exception to the provisions of paragraph 1. (4) of article 43 of the code of criminal procedure, which do not allow appeals against appeal court is hierarchically superior to the conclusion of the resettlement of civil case.
5. by the conclusion of 12 September 2015, the Court ordered the erection of the main exception and referral to the Constitutional Court for settlement.
B. relevant Legislation 6. The relevant provisions of the Constitution (Official Gazette, no. 1, 1994) are as follows: 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 26Dreptul of the defence "(1) the right of defence is guaranteed.
(2) everyone has the right to respond independently by appropriate legitimate means to an infringement of his rights and freedoms.
(3) throughout the trial the parties have the right to be assisted by a lawyer, either chosen or appointed ex officio.
(4) any interference with the activity of those carrying out the defence within legally established confines shall be punished by law. "


Article 54Restrângerea 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 liberty.
7. The relevant provisions of the code of civil procedure of the Republic of Moldova nr. 225-XV of 30 May 2003 (reprinted in the Official Gazette of the RM, no. 13, 130-134, art. 415) are as follows: Article 43Strămutarea pricinii "(1) that the Court's sake has withheld it to trial, with due respect for the rules of jurisdiction, resolve this in the background, including her subsequent transformation competence of another court.
(2) the Court strămută the sake another court if: (a) the defendant), whose home was not known, ask to be transferred to the Court of pricinii at his residence attested by ownership, quality of tenant or resident visa;
b) during the trial, it was found that Panday was detained in contravention of rules towards adjudication of jurisdictional competence;
c) both parties shall require the Court to be transferred from pricinii when and where the majority of the samples;
d) reason for objecting (to refrain from judgment) of one or more judges or other valid reasons, his replacement judges becomes impractical;
There are reasons why e) public security measures;
There is a suspicion that f) judges ' impartiality could be dented by the circumstances pricinii or the quality of the participants in the proceedings;
g) in exceptional circumstances, the court competent to judge the sake can not operate for a long time.
(3) Expulsion from a pricinii instance to another on the grounds specified in paragraph 1. (2) letter a), b) and (c)) is made pursuant to a reasoned court decision, in which it is filed. Completion of the resettlement of pricinii may be appealed.
(4) Expulsion in cases pricinii referred to in paragraph 1. (2) (a). d), (e)), f) and (g)) are carried out by the higher court, whose conclusion is final and is not susceptible of appeal.
(4/1) The Court is obliged to submit the dossier to the competent court within 5 days from the date of completion of the resettlement of pricinii becomes irrevocable.
(5) the procedural Acts performed by the Court which filed the lawsuit earlier resettlement pricinii have legal effect to the extent that the new instance is not considered necessary to amend them. "
In the author's Arguments exception. neconsti-tuționalitate 8. In the non-constitutionality exception, motivation author argues that the rule of article 43 para. (4) of the code of civil procedure, according to which the Court is hierarchically superior finishes resettlement pricinii from one court to another shall be irrevocable and may not be appealed, is contrary to articles 4, 7, 8, 16, 20, 26 and 54 of the Constitution.
9. According to the author, the provisions of the contested exception does not ensure an effective procedure whereby the merits or legality of such conclusion to be controlled.
B. Assessment Of The Court 10. Examining the admissibility of the referral regarding constitutionality exception, the Court notes the following.
11. In accordance with paragraph 1 of article 135. (1) (a). the control of the Constitution), on notification constitutionality of laws, the code of civil procedure is the responsibility of the Constitutional Court.
12. the Court finds that the appeal relating to the exception of unconstitutionality, being raised by the Ministry of health in file No. 3-221/14 on the role of Center Court, mun. Chişinău, is made by the subject entrusted this right under article 135, paragraph 1. (1) letter a) and g) of the Constitution, as interpreted by the decision of the Constitutional Court No. 2 of 9 February 2016.
13. Note that Court of constitutionality exception object is represented by the phrase "whose conclusion is final and is not susceptible of appeal" in paragraph 1. (4) of article 43 of the code of civil procedure.
14. the Court noted that art. 43 para. (4) of the CPC establishes: "(4) in cases of displacement pricinii referred to in paragraph 1. (2) (a). d), (e)), f) and (g)) are carried out by the higher court, whose conclusion is final and is not susceptible of appeal. "
15. the Court notes that the author claims that the provisions of the contested exception contravene articles 4, 7, 8, 16, 20, 26 and 54 of the Constitution.
16. the Court reiterates that articles 4, 7 and 8 of the Constitution involves a generic character and constitute overriding general-obligatory, which underlie any regulatory approvals cannot constitute separate and individual landmarks.
17. With reference to article 20 of the Constitution, the Court retained that it guarantees every person the right to effective satisfaction on the part of competent courts against acts which violate the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests.
18. At the same time, the Court reiterates that free access to justice means that any person may apply to the courts for the protection of rights, freedoms or legitimate interests, and not the fact that this right may not be subject to any strings attached.

19. Thus, the Court noted that, in the light of art. 6 § 1 of the Convention, as well as through the jurisprudence of the European Court, the right of access to justice cannot be absolute, it can involve limitations, including procedural, as long as they are reasonable and proportionate to the aim pursued [Ashingdane v. uk, judgment of 28 May 1985, Buijen v. Germany, judgment of April 1, 2010]. The European Court held that, beyond the limits which circumscribes the content of this law, there is no room for limitations brought about by default. However, the limitations must not restrict the right of access in such a way as to be reached to substance itself.
20. the court notice that article 43 from CPC governs cases of resettlement cases to another court if the circumstances which make it impossible to further examination of the case.
21. Paragraph 4 of article 43 from CPC establishes that the hierarchically superior court decisions ordering the expulsion of a case are irrevocable and are not susceptible of appeal.
22. the Court noted that "the conclusion" represents the Act of a court judgment by which civil deciding sake in the background.
23. In this regard, the Court points out that the procedure for the resolution of the form not cause dislocation of a contentious that treatment ads to judicial review, but it is a matter of administration of Justice. The procedure in which it examines the displacement of a cause is an incidental proceeding, whose object is distinct from the subject of the civil trial to which they relate.
24. At the same time, keep in mind that the prohibition on attacking Court appeal to some conclusion does not mean that the lawfulness and the merits thereof cannot be controlled by the hierarchically superior courts whilst challenging the judgment by which the cause has been fixed in background.
25. With regard to the alleged violation of article 26 of the Constitution, which provides for the right of defence, the Court finds the lack of relevant and cogent arguments by which author exception would show to what extent the impugned legal provisions violating constitutional norms invoked.
26. Moreover, the Court may not withhold criticism made of the text of the law in relation to the constitutional provisions concerning the right to legal defence, whereas the text of the exception which does not prevent the parties to be assisted by a defender, chosen or appointed ex officio.
27. in addition, the author has not demonstrated exception pursuant to article 16 of the Constitution in relation to the disputed rule.
28. In addition, the Court points out that the prerogative to address the exceptions of unconstitutionality, which has 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. Thus, the Court did not observe the applicability of the exception in the present case the contested rules.
29. In the light of the arguments, the Court retains that the plea of unconstitutionality is unfounded, and therefore to be rejected.
For these reasons, pursuant to article 26 of the law on the Constitutional Court, articles 61 para. (3) and 64 of the code of constitutional jurisdiction and the PT 28 lit. d) of the regulation on the procedure for examining complaints lodged with the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court DECIDES: 1. To be declared inadmissible the appeal regarding plea of unconstitutionality of the phrase "whose conclusion is final and is not susceptible of appeal" in paragraph 1. (4) of article 43 of the code of civil procedure of the Republic of Moldova nr. 225-XV of 30 May 2003, Ministry of health raised in file No. 3-221/14 on the role of Center Court, mun. Chişinău.
2. 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.

The PRESIDENT of the CONSTITUTIONAL COURT Alexandru Tanase