inadmissibility of referral No. 104A/2016 concerning the constitutionality of article 41 of the law on citizenship of the Republic of Moldova nr. 1024-XIV of June 2, 2000 and the Decree of the President of the Republic of Moldova nr. 2102-VII of 9 June 2016 for the granting of citizenship of the Republic of Moldova



Published: 04.11.2016 in Official Gazette No. 379-386 art no: 87 date of entry into force: 12.10.2016 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. Ludmila Chihai, Registrar, considering the appeal filed on 26 august 2016, recorded at the same time, examining the admissibility of the referral, taking into account the acts and proceedings of the dossier , Acting on 12 October 2016 in Council Pronounce the following decision: in fact 1. On 26 august 2016 Igor Dodon, Vladimir Batrincea as Sandy, Vlad, Bae, deputies in Parliament, they addressed the Constitutional Court a complaint, by requesting the constitutionality of article 41 of the law on citizenship of the Republic of Moldova nr. 1024-XIV of June 2, 2000 and the Decree of the President of the Republic of Moldova nr. 2102-VII of 9 June 2016 for the granting of citizenship of the Republic of Moldova.
A. reasons for referral 2. Reasons for referral, as were its authors, can be summarized as follows.
3. By a decree of the President of the Republic of Moldova nr. 2102-VII of 9 June 2016, Mr. Traian Basescu was granted citizenship of the Republic of Moldova pursuant to art. 88 lit. c) of the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova and the 24 para. (2) of the law on citizenship of the Republic of Moldova.
4. Under art. 41 of the Act referred to: "the Presidential Decree on the issue of citizenship may be challenged in the Supreme Court within 6 months from the date of entry into force."
5. The authors claim that the Decree mentioned referral has been issued contrary to articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Constitution. Also, the authors invoke the rule violation, through art. 41 of the law on citizenship of the Republic of Moldova, articles 23 and 135 of the Constitution.
B. relevant Legislation 6. The relevant provisions of the Constitution (republished in the Official Gazette, no. 2016, 78, art. 140) are as follows: "Article 17Cetăţenia (1) citizenship of the Republic of Moldova shall be acquired, retained or lost only under the conditions laid down in the organic law. […]”


Article 88Alte powers "Moldovan President meets the following prerogatives: [...]
c) resolves issues of Moldovan citizenship and grant political asylum;
[…]”
7. The relevant provisions of the law on citizenship of the Republic of Moldova nr. 1024-XIV of 2 June 2000 (republished: M.O., ed. Special on 9 December 2005) are as follows: Article 27Atribuţiile the President of Moldova "Moldovan President: to find solutions to problems) Constitution and citizenship under this law;
b) issues decrees granting, withdrawal, dropping and reinstating of Moldovan citizenship, and in case of refusal to grant citizenship, gives an answer proved. "


Article 41Atacarea of the Decree PreşedinteluiRepublicii Moldova ' Presidential Decree on the issue of citizenship may be challenged in the Supreme Court within 6 months from the date of entry into force. "


Article 42Atacarea the actions of officials ' refusal to receive the request in matters of Moldovan citizenship, violation of time limits, the examination of the application and the enforcement of judgments in matters of citizenship, and denial of citizenship and other actions of officials can be appealed in the manner established by law, in court. "
In the authors ' Arguments AS a. referral-in reference to art. 41 of the law on citizenship of the Republic of Moldova 8. The authors assert that the referral, according to art. 24 para. (2) of the law on citizenship of the Republic of Moldova, a decree granting citizenship is issued in the interests of the Republic of Moldova. Concerned, even if it involves content after an individual character, after a political essence, fact that it excludes from judicial review in administrative contentious.
9. The authors claim that according to referral to the art. 135 of the Constitution, decrees of the President of the Republic of Moldova contests at the Constitutional Court without any exception.
10. In addition, the referral argues that the rule is challenged with regard to confuse the rights of appeal, thus having an unpredictable character, contrary to art. 23 of the Constitution.
-Referring to the Decree of the President of the Republic of Moldova nr. 2102-VII of 9 June 2016 11. The authors argue that by granting the referral of citizenship of the Republic of Moldova Mr. Traian Basescu violated articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova.
12. According to them, the Moldovan citizenship holder, by his public statements, has promoted the idea of the unification of Moldova with Romania, which is an attempt at independence and state integrity.
13. Furthermore, the authors claim that according to the referral information in the media, Traian Basescu is under criminal investigation. Respectively, by granting citizenship of the Republic of Moldova has been breached and art. 20 lit. c) and (d)) of law No. 1024-XIV.
B. Assessment Of Court 14. Examining the admissibility of the referral, the Court retains the following.
15. Articles 25 lit. g) of the law on the Constitutional Court and 38 para. (1) (a). g) of the code of constitutional jurisdiction authorizing Deputy in Parliament with the right to refer the matter to the Constitutional Court.
16. the Court noted that the subject of constitutionality is article 41 of the law on citizenship of the Republic of Moldova nr. 1024-XIV of June 2, 2000 and the Decree of the President of the Republic of Moldova nr. 2102-VII of 9 June 2016 for the granting of citizenship of the Republic of Moldova.
17. the court notice that article 88 lit. c) of the Constitution empowers the President of the Republic of Moldova and one of the main tasks in the exercise of State power aimed at the legal status of the person-citizenship. Thus, in accordance with rule constitutional President "solves the problems of Moldovan citizenship and grant political asylum".
18. In Judgement No. 11 of 30 October 2012, the Court held that: "39. […] Presidential power enshrined in (b). c) article 88 of the Constitution implies the examination of all issues of citizenship, starting with the filing and ending with issuance solution, which can be both positive and negative. [P] reşedintele of the Republic of Moldova, in accordance with the provisions of subparagraph (a). c) article 88 of the Constitution, is the sole authority that can issue the definitive solutions for every stage of the proceedings relating to the acquisition of citizenship. "
19. At the same time, the Court noted that, according to article 17 of the Constitution, "Moldovan citizenship is acquired, retained or lost only under the conditions laid down in the organic law".
20. Taking into account the provisions of article 17, paragraph 2. (l) of the Constitution, whereby the Republic of Moldova citizenship issues are regulated by the organic law, the Parliament has adopted the law on citizenship of the Republic of Moldova nr. 1024-XIV of June 2, 2000, which sets out the legal framework of relations relating to citizenship of the Republic of Moldova.
21. the Court noted that, according to art. 27 of the Act, the President of the Republic of Moldova issues decrees granting, withdrawal, dropping and reinstating of Moldovan citizenship, and in case of refusal to grant citizenship, gives an answer argued.
22. At the same time, note that Court under art. 41 of the Act: "the Presidential Decree on the issue of citizenship may be challenged in the Supreme Court within 6 months from the date of entry into force". Also, according to art. 42 of the Act, the refusal to receive the request in matters of Moldovan citizenship, violation of time limits, the examination of the application and the enforcement of judgments in matters of citizenship, and denial of citizenship and other actions of officials can be appealed in the manner established by law, in court.
23. Note that procedural guarantees Court relating to citizenship is based on the requirements of article 11 and article 12 of the European Convention on nationality, stating that decisions relating to the acquisition of citizenship should contain reasons in written form, may be subject to an administrative or judicial appeal, in accordance with the provisions of domestic legislation.
24. In this connection, the Court in its case-law, argued that the provisions of the Citizenship Act, which regulates the citizenship issue judgments in attack, to secure ruling guarantees of international regulations (HCC No. 14 of 19 March 2002).

25. In accordance with those referred to note that Court Decree of the President of the Republic of Moldova nr. 2102-VII of 9 June 2016 for the granting of citizenship of the Republic of Moldova may be subject to litigation in administrative contentious. The Court points out that the jurisdiction of the courts of law shall take lawful acts challenged. Specifically, the authors claimed that the referral stated Decree has been issued contrary to art. 20 lit. c) and (d)) of the law on citizenship of Moldova being invoked in this respect more factual circumstances.
26. Concluding the Court finds that the referral does not meet the eligibility conditions for exercising the constitutionality and, therefore, cannot be accepted for examination.
For these reasons, in accordance with the provisions of article 26 para. (1) of the law on the Constitutional Court, articles 61 para. (3) and 64 of the code of constitutional jurisdiction, the Constitutional Court DECIDES: 1. To be declared inadmissible the appeal of deputies in Parliament, Igor Dodon, Sandy, Vlad Vasile Batrincea as Bae for the constitutionality of article 41 of the law on citizenship of the Republic of Moldova nr. 1024-XIV of June 2, 2000 and the Decree of the President of the Republic of Moldova nr. 2102-VII of 9 June 2016 for the granting of citizenship of the Republic of Moldova.
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