The Constitutional Court, acting as part of Mr. Alexandru Tanase, President, Mr. Aurel BĂIEŞU, Mr. Igor DOLEA, Mr. Victor POPA, judges, with the participation of Mrs. Abdul Fahim, Registrar, considering the appeal filed on May 30, 2016, recorded at the same time, examining the admissibility of the referral, taking into account the laws and proceedings, Acting on 8 July 2016 in the Chamber Council Pronounce the following decision : in fact 1. The origin of the case lies the exception permits nalitate neconstituțio-"conflict of interest" and "personal interest" referred to in art. 2 and the provisions of art. 9 para. (1) of law No. 16-XVI dated 15 February 2008 with regard to the conflict of interest posed by Gheorghe Duca in the administrative file No. 3ra -636/16, on the role of the Supreme Court of Justice.
2. The exception of constitutionality was lodged with the Constitutional Court on May 30, 2016 by the Panel of judges (Valeriu Doaga Ala Cobăneanu, Galina Sternioală and Oleg Stratulat, Iuliana Oprea), 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. On 28 November 2013, the Supreme Council for science and technological development of the Academy of Sciences of Moldova (AȘM) decided to transmit free accounting balance AȘM balance AȘM University of immovable property with the right of operative management.
4. On 7 august 2014, the National Commission of integrity found that the participation of Gheorghe Duca, in his capacity as Chairman of the AȘM, the adoption of the Declaration of transmission of real estate management of University in AȘM, whose rector is his wife-Maria Duca, is a violation of the legal regime of the conflict of interests provided for in law No. 16-XVI dated 15 February 2008 with regard to the conflict of interest.
5. On 25 august 2014, Gheorghe Duca has filed a Court action against the Commission of Moldova National Integrity, by requesting the cancellation of an infringement of the legal regime of the conflict of interest.
6. On 21 April 2015, Rîșcani District Court dismissed his action on the grounds that Gheorghe Duca is unfounded. Disagreeing with the judgment of the Court, Gheorghe Duca challenged a call.
7. On 22 December, 2015, Chisinau Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of Gheorghe Duca, and upheld the judgment of the Court.
8. On 22 February 2016, Gheorghe Duca said the appeal against the decision of the Court of appeal, asking for its disposal.
9. Under the procedure for appeal, on 19 April 2016, Gheorghe Duca has submitted a request for the lifting of non-constitutionality exception permits "conflict of interest" and "personal interest" referred to in art. 2 and the provisions of art. 9 para. (1) of the law on conflict of interests. 
10. May 18, 2016, the Supreme Court ordered the lifting of non-constitutionality exception and transmission referral address the Constitutional Court for settlement.
B. relevant Legislation 11. The relevant provisions of the Constitution (republished in the Official Gazette, no. 2016, 78, art. 140) are as follows: Article 1Statul "[...]
(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 4 human rights and freedoms "(1) constitutional provisions for human rights and freedoms shall be interpreted and applied in accordance with the Universal Declaration of human rights, and with other conventions and treaties endorsed by the Republic of Moldova is a party.
(2) If there are inconsistencies between covenants and treaties regarding fundamental human rights to which Moldova is a party and its internal laws, international regulations have priority. "


Article 8 compliance with international law and the relevant international treaties "(1) the Republic of Moldova pledges to respect the Charter of the United Nations and the treaties to which it is a party, to base its relations with other States the unanimously recognized principles and norms of international law.
(2) the entry into force of an international treaty containing provisions contrary to the Constitution shall be preceded by a review of it. "


Article 23Dreptul of everybody knows the rights and duties "[...]
(2) the State ensures the right of everybody to know for the rights and duties. For this purpose the State publishes and makes accessible all laws and other regulations. "
12. The relevant provisions of law No. 16-XVI dated 15 February 2008 with regard to the conflict of interests (Official Gazette, no. 72-74, art. 231) are as follows: the main Article 2Noțiuni "Concepts used in this law have the following meaning:-conflict of interest the conflict of duties and personal interests owned function of the persons referred to in article 3, in their capacity as private individuals, which could improperly influence the performance of objective and impartial of obligations and responsibilities under the law;
[…]
personal interest-any interest, material or intangible asset, the persons referred to in article 3 arising from needs or personal intentions, activities which may otherwise be legitimate as a private person, from their close relationships with people or legal entities, regardless of the type of ownership, or personal relations with political parties, affilia, with non-commercial organizations and with international organizations as well as resulting from their commitments or preferences;
[…]”


Article 3Subiecţii to declare the personal interests "(1) subject to the Declaration of personal interests are: a) persons holding public dignity functions set out in the annex to law No. 199 of 15 July 2010 on the status of persons with dignity;
b) members of the Board of observers of the National Public Broadcasting Institution "Teleradio-Moldova"; members of the people's Assembly of the autonomous territorial unit Gagauzia; Deputy Director-general of the national company for health insurance;
c) managers and their deputies within the administrative authority (public institution) subordinated to the central specialized body, within the State or municipal enterprise, company with majority state capital, financial institution State-owned wholly or majority;
d) people with leadership positions in institutions within the State education system and the public health system;
(e) the staff of the Cabinet) of persons with dignity;
f) civil servants, including those with special status.
(2) the provisions of this law shall also apply to persons who are empowered, in accordance with legislative acts, to make decisions in respect of State-owned property or the property of administrative-territorial units, including money, or who have the right to dispose of such property, as well as persons who are not civil servants, but which the State temporarily delegate one of those powers. "


Article 9Obligaţiile of the persons subject to the law "(1) any person referred to in article 3 shall inform immediately, but not later than 3 days from the date of the finding in writing to the head of the hierarchy or hierarchically superior organ of: a), his interests or persons closely connected with the decision you have to take it personally or to which you must attend whenever the action they should take in carrying out its duties of service b), quality of people close to times, founder, stockholder, partner, Member of the Board of Directors, Member of the Commission or of a revision (or non-commercial), if this person has received from the public organization supplies including money, loans guaranteed by the State public administration authority whenever local or a purchase order.
[…]”
13. The relevant provisions of law No. 780-XV of 27 December 2001 on the legislative acts (Official Gazette, 2002, No 36-38, art. 210) are as follows: Article 3Trăsăturile and quality of legislative "[...] (2) Legislative Act must comply with the conditions, accessibility, accuracy and, once entered into force, is enforceable and applicable to all subjects of law. "


Article 4Principiile of the basic objective of legalising (1) Legislative Act must comply with the provisions of international treaties to which Moldova is a party, unanimously recognized principles and norms of international law, including Community law.
[…]
(3) The preparation, adoption and application of the legislative act shall comply with the principles of timeliness, coherence), consistency and balance between competing rules;
b) sequence predictability, stability and legal norms;
c) transparency, publicity and accessibility. "

14. The relevant provisions of Recommendation No. R (2000) 10 concerning codes of conduct for public officials (adopted on 11 May 2000 the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, the Republic of Moldova has acceded by decision of Parliament no. 522-XIII of July 12, 1995) are as follows: Article 8 (1) of the public Servant must avoid as his personal interests to conflict with his public functions. Falls under its responsibility to avoid such conflicts, whether real, potential or apparent. "


Article 13 conflict of interest "(1) the conflict of interests arises where a public official has a personal interest such as to influence or appear to influence the impartial and objective exercise of his official functions.
(2) the interest of the public functionary shall include any advantage for himself or herself or for the benefit of his family, parents, friends or people nearby, or of persons or organizations with which he or she had business or political relations. It also includes any financial or civil liability to which the public servant is constrained.
(3) taking into account that the servant is one who may know whether he or she is in this situation, there are bound to be personal:-carefully from any conflict of interest, real or potential;
-take measures to avoid such a conflict;
-to inform his superior hierarchical about any conflict of interest from the moment they first became aware of it;
-to comply with any final decision whom they purport to withdraw from a situation where he or she can be found or to forego the advantage that lies at the origin of the conflict.
[…]”
In the author's Arguments exception. neconsti tuționalitate-15. In the non-constitutionality exception, reasoning the author claims that the notion of "conflict of interest" and "personal interest" referred to in article 2 and the provisions of article 9 para. (1) of the law on conflict of interest are lacking predictability and precision, which is why they conflict with the law. 780-XV of 27 December 2001 on the legislative acts.
16. The author claims that the failure to comply with the law on the legislative acts implicitly violating the principle of legality and legal certainty, as enshrined in the light of the requirements of the rule of law, as referred to in paragraph 1. (3) of article 1 of the Constitution.
17. In addition, the author argues that the exception the lack of clarity of the provisions in question contrary to the case-law of the European Court of Justice and of human rights, therefore breaching articles 4 and 8 of the Constitution.
B. assessment of Court 18. Examining the admissibility of the referral regarding constitutionality exception, the Court notes the following.
19. In accordance with paragraph 1 of article 135. (1) (a). the control of the Constitution), on notification constitutionality of laws is the responsibility of the Constitutional Court.
20. the Court finds that the plea of unconstitutionality, being raised by Gheorghe Duca in file No. 3ra -636/16, which is on the role of the Supreme Court of Justice, is formulated subject entrusted this right under 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.
21. 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.
22. the court notice that exception object neconstituți-onalitate is the notion of "conflict of interest" and "personal interest" referred to in article 2 and the provisions of article 9 (1) of the law on conflict of interests.
23. Of the non-constitutionality exception, the Court notes that the author claims the lack of clarity and predictability of the contested rules, a fact contrary to articles 1 para. (3), (4) and 8 of the Constitution.
24. the Court note that the law on conflict of interest to establish a legal framework of incompatibilities and restrictions imposed on persons exercising public functions of dignity or public functions as well as how to resolve the conflict of interests.
25. the Court finds that art. 2 of the law defines the notions used in its text, namely, conflict of interest, public interest, personal interest, people near me.
26. Thus, under the law, through the conflict of interest is to understand the conflict between exercising tool owned and personal interests of the persons referred to in article 3 [letter a) to persons holding positions of public dignitaries], in their capacity as private individuals, which could improperly influence the performance of objective and impartial of obligations and responsibilities under the law.
27. At the same time, the interest is defined as any personal interest, material or intangible asset, the persons referred to in article 3 arising from needs or personal intentions, activities which may otherwise be legitimate as a private person, from their close relationships with people or legal entities, regardless of the type of ownership, or personal relations with political parties affilia non-commercial organisations, and international organisations, as well as resulting from their commitments or preferences.
28. Following the principles of the European Court for the examination of the quality of the law, in its case-law the Court has noted that a law (legal provision) must be sufficiently accessible, clear and predictable. A norm is clear, accessible and predictable only when it is drafted with sufficient precision, so as to enable any person to give his correct demeanour and be able, with appropriate counselling, to provide, to an extent reasonable, the consequences which may arise from a time (cause Silver s.a. v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983).
29. At the same time, the European Court found in its jurisprudence that "due to the principle of generalităţii laws, their content cannot provide absolute precision. One of the techniques of the regulatory type consists in recourse rather than general categories at the exhaustive list. Also, numerous laws use formulas, more effectiveness and less vague, in order to avoid an excessive rigidity and be able to adapt to changes in the situation "(cause and Pidhorni Maher-Riverside vs. Romania, nr. 01 and 77193 77196/01, § 35-36, May 24, 2007).
30. the Court note that legal concepts challenged have a degree of generality and to be applied in overlapping with other statutory provisions. Analyzing the employment of legal and technical definitions in the law, the Court stated that these, ab initio, I can't do a particular character and concretely.
31. Furthermore, the Court finds that a similar grasp of the concepts mentioned is traced and in article 13 of the annex to Recommendation R (2000) 10 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States concerning codes of conduct for public officials (adopted on 11 May 2000), according to which: "1. Conflict of interest arises in a situation in which a public official has a personal interest such as to influence or appear to influence the impartial and objective exercise of his official functions.
2. the personal interest of public functionary shall include any advantage for himself or herself or for the benefit of his family, parents, friends or people nearby, or of persons or organizations with which he or she had business or political relations. It also includes any financial or civil liability to which the public servant is constrained.
[…]”
32. With reference to the alleged unconstitutionality of article. 9 para. (1) of the law on conflict of interest, the Court note that this paragraph regulates the obligations of the persons falling within the scope of the law to inform the driver or hierarchically superior organ about conflict of interest.
33. Examining the appeal, the Court finds that it contains a general analysis of the quality of the law, with the invocation of the infringement of articles 1 (1). (3), (4) and 8 of the Constitution, but not claiming violation of the constitutional rules that would target the rights and freedoms of the person.
34. In this regard, referring to the allegation of infringement of articles 1 (1). (3), (4) and 8 of the Constitution, in its case-law the Court has mentioned that these articles bear a generic character and constitute overriding general-obligatory, which underlie any regulations and cannot constitute separate and individual landmarks.
35. the Court points out that the quality of the law test shall be carried out by reference to a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution, and not in abstracto. The same principles are applied and by the European Court when examining allegations about the alleged violation of a right guaranteed by the European Convention.
36. the Court notes that the arguments raised by the exception in its reasoning relates to the issues pertaining to the interpretation and application of the law.

37. the Court reiterates that the Supreme Law vested with the right of Parliament's official interpretation of laws adopted. Thus, according to art. 66 lit. c) of the Constitution, one of the basic tasks of the Parliament as the Supreme representative and legislative body, is the interpretation of laws and regulations ensuring the establishment throughout the country. The aim consists in clarifying the interpretation of the rule of law through elucidating the exact content and constitutes a prerequisite for the correct application of the legal norms.
38. Under art. 42 of the law on the legislative acts, the interpretation of legislation represents a logical operation system through which explained meaning exactly and completely of normative provisions. By interpreting legal solutions for the realization of the rule of law in its meaning.
39. In the light of those mentioned, the Court concludes that the appeal does not meet the eligibility conditions for notification constitutionality control and cannot be accepted for examination.
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 constitutionality exception permits "conflict of interest" and "personal interest" in article 11. 2 and art. 9 para. (1) of law No. 16-XVI dated 15 February 2008 with regard to the conflict of interest posed by Gheorghe Duca in file No. 3ra -636/16, pending at the Supreme Court of Justice.
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.