The Constitutional Court, acting as part of Mr. Alexandru Tanase, President, Mr. Aurel BĂIEŞU, Mr. Mr. Talal Igor DOLEA, GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION, Mr. Zadrahimi, judges, with the participation of Mrs Abdow Balaban, Registrar, taking into account the appeal lodged on 14 July 2016, recorded at the same time, examining the admissibility of the referral, taking into account the laws and proceedings, Acting on 6 September 2016 in Council the next decision, a decision: in fact 1. The origin of the case lies the plea of unconstitutionality of sintagmelor "including [...] and lawyers "; "and lawyers [...] from the date of obtaining [...] the licence "in article 10 paragraphs 1 and 2. (2) (a). a) and subparagraph (c). b) of law No. 1585-XIII of 27 February 1998 concerning compulsory insurance for health care, raised by Sergiu Radu, in file No. 2-133/2016, pending at the regional court in Strășeni.
2. The appeal was lodged with the Constitutional Court on July 14, 2016 by judge Dumitru Mirzenco, pursuant to article 135 paragraph 1. (1) (a). a) and subparagraph (c). g) of the Constitution, as interpreted by the decision of the Constitutional Court No. 2 of 9 February 2016.
A. the circumstances of the case 3. On 15 July 2013, Territorial Agency West of the national company for health insurance has filed in court a request for the judgment against the Attorney t. H on payment of mandatory health insurance.
4. During the years 2012, 2013 and 2014 lawyer T.H. did not pay insurance premium compulsory medical assistance, amassing debts to fund Health Insurance in the amount of 18498.65 lei.
5. Territorial Agency West of the national company for health insurance argued that t. H exercising the profession of lawyer and be assigned to the category of paying the premium for mandatory healthcare insurance, and by its failure to pay violated the provisions of law No. 1585-XIII of 27 February 1998 concerning compulsory insurance and health care law. 1593-XV of 26 December 2002 regarding the size, the procedure and deadlines for payment of premiums for healthcare insurance mandatory.
6. At its meeting of 10 March 2016, lawyer Sergiu Radu has filed a claim of unconstitutionality concerning raising the exception provisions of article. 10 para. (2) (a). a) and subparagraph (c). b) of law No. 1585-XIII of 27 February 1998 on mandatory health insurance.
7. By 1 July 2016, the Court ordered the lifting of non-constitutionality exception and transmission of referral of the Constitutional Court for settlement.
B. relevant Legislation 8. The relevant provisions of the Constitution (republished in the Official Gazette, no. 2016, 78, art. 140) are as follows: Article 16Egalitatea "(1) respect and protect the human person constitutes a duty of the State.
(2) all citizens of the Republic of Moldova are equal before the law and public authorities, without distinction of race, nationality, ethnic origin, language, religion, sex, opinion, political affiliation, wealth or social origin. "
9. The relevant provisions of law No. 1585-XIII of 27 February 1998 concerning the mandatory health insurance (Official Gazette, 1998, no. 38-39, art. 280) are as follows: "Article 4Subiecţii insurance [...]
(4) the Government shall act for the following categories of unemployed persons residing in the Republic of Moldova and empowered institutions records of Moldova specified in paragraph 1. (9) with the exception of persons required by law to be provided on an individual basis: [...] j) pensioners;
[...].”


Article 10Asiguratul "(1) the insured person is entitled to receive from the insurer to provide information about the fulfilment of legal obligations towards policyholders.
(2) the insured, including public notaries, bailiffs and lawyers, is obliged: a) in the case of establishments and individuals other than those recorded by the State registration body, of notaries, of the bailiffs and lawyers, to register as paying premiums for healthcare insurance agency of the national company for health insurance within one month from the date of obtaining the registration certificate , license notary, bailiff or Attorney;
(b)) to pay insurance premiums in size, in the manner and within the time limits established by law;
[…].”


Article 17Primele of the mandatory health insurance "(1) the first of the mandatory health insurance represents a fixed amount or a percentage contribution from salary and other rewards, which the insured person is obliged to pay the insurer to the insured risk, in accordance with the provisions of the legislation.
[…].”
10. The relevant provisions of law No. 1593-XV of 26 December 2002 regarding the size, mode and time limits for payment of the insurance premiums for the compulsory health care (Official Gazette, 2003 No 18-19, art. 57) are the following: Annex 2 categories of paying premiums for healthcare insurance mandatory in a fixed amount, which shall be individually "2. Public notaries, bailiffs and lawyers unemployed, regardless of the legal form of organisation of activity, having obtained the license in the manner established by law.
[…].”
In the author's Arguments AS a. referral 11. In the non-constitutionality exception, reasoning the author claims that the application of the provisions challenged, the lawyer who is the retired civil service is obliged to pay insurance premium compulsory medical assistance, thus being discriminated against in comparison with other unemployed pensioners.
12. The author claims that the exception, according to the provisions of article 4 para. (4) of law No. 1585-XIII of 27 February 1998 concerning compulsory insurance for health care, the Government has secured membership for retirees.
13. In its vision, the contested provisions are in breach of article 16 of the Constitution.
B. Assessment Of Court 14. Examining the admissibility of the referral concerning the Court of constitutionality exception, please note the following.
15. In accordance with paragraph 1 of article 135. (1) (a). the control of the Constitution), on notification constitutionality of laws, in particular law No. 1585-XIII of 27 February 1998 concerning compulsory insurance, healthcare is the responsibility of the Constitutional Court.
16. the Court finds that the plea of unconstitutionality, being raised by lawyer S. R, in file No. 2-133/2016, on the role of the Court is sought by Strășeni, authorised subject to this law, pursuant to article 137 para. (1) letter a) and paragraph 2 of point g) of the Constitution, as interpreted by the decision of the Constitutional Court No. 2 of 9 February 2016.
17. the Court reiterates 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.
18. the court notice that constitutionality exception object is some provisions of article 10(1). (2) (a). a) and subparagraph (c). b) of law No. 1585-XIII of 27 February 1998 concerning compulsory insurance for medical assistance, aimed in essence the Attorney's obligation, as a subject of compulsory insurance for medical assistance, to pay the premium for mandatory health insurance.
19. the Court notes that the author claims that the provisions of the contested exception contravene article 16 of the Constitution. According to him, was a retired lawyer, discrimination between what is in the exercise of the function and is obliged to pay insurance premium compulsory medical assistance, together with the other non-pensioners.
20. Note that the disputed rule Court lays down the principle of quality assured for public notaries, court executors and lawyers neangajați and establishes the obligation of paying premium for compulsory medical assistance insurance.
21. the Court noted that public notaries, court executors, lawyers representing neangajați and quality of policy holders and of subjects you have compulsory insurance for medical assistance, are referred to in point 2 of Annex 2 to the law No. 1593-XV about the size, the procedure and deadlines for payment of premiums for healthcare insurance mandatory and included in the categories of paying medical insurance premiums in fixed amount who shall be individually. Respectively, they will pay the first of the mandatory health insurance according to law provisions.
22. Provisions do not establish any distinction between persons exercising these professions who have not reached retirement age and those who are already retired.

23. At the same time, in view of the problem addressed by the author concerning the payment of insurance premium compulsory medical assistance by the person holding the license of lawyer and has been working in the field and at the same time has the status of pensioner, the Court noted that, according to article 4 para. (4) of law No. 1585-XIII of 27 February 1998, the Government has the capacity to insure only for people unemployed, including retired persons neangajați.
24. In the light of the legal provisions, the Court points out that the health insurance premium payment the legislature established the distinction between pensioners and employees neangajați, such claims in the complaint reported to the legal provisions were invoked.
25. Consequently, in the light of those mentioned, the Court is unable to ascertain the rationale of non-constitutionality exception arguments of the author with regard to the alleged violation of article 16 of the Constitution by applying the contested provisions.
26. In accordance with those referred to supra, note that other than Court of constitutionality does not meet the eligibility conditions for notification constitutionality control and cannot be accepted for examination.
For these reasons, pursuant to articles 26, paragraph 2. (1) and 31 of the law on the Constitutional Court, articles 61 para. (1) and (3), 64 of the code of constitutional jurisdiction and item 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 certain provisions of article 10(1). (2) (a). a) and subparagraph (c). b) of law No. 1585-XIII of 27 February 1998 concerning compulsory insurance for health care, in what is the obligation to pay the lawyers first compulsory medical assistance, raised by the lawyer in the case, S. No. 2-133/2016, pending at the regional court in Strășeni.
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