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. Eugenia Mîța, Registrar, considering the appeal filed on 28 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 articles 161 para. (1) and paragraph 11 of resolution 162 (2) of the enforcement code of the Republic of Moldova nr. 443-XV of 24 December 2004, raised by Vasile Șeremet in file No. 25-191/15, pending at the Court of Cahul.
2. The appeal was lodged with the Constitutional Court on 28 July 2016 by judge Ibrahim Gorelco from within the Court, 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.
A. the circumstances of the case 3. In Cahul court proceedings lies the application made by Vasile Șeremet concerning appeals against acts relating to the proceeds of enforcement expenses made by the bailiff D.V. 4. Vasile Șeremet was appointed as administrator of insolvency proceedings of joint-stock company "Agrocon-1" Cahul in 2015.
5. He objected to enforcing laws drawn up by the bailiff during the undertaking does not have an administrator appointed, as soon as he was appointed administrator of the insolvency proceedings.
6. On 17 may 2016 Vasile Șeremet raised exception of constitutionality of provisions of articles 161 para. (1) and paragraph 11 of resolution 162 (2) of the enforcement code, which regulates the possibility comes up acts drawn up by the bailiff and the re-introduction of the term for contestation of the enforcement acts.
7. by the conclusion of 19 July 2016 Court has ordered referral concerning transmission exception of unconstitutionality 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 20Accesul 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 46 Right to private property and its protection "(4) goods intended for, used or resulted from crimes times offence may be confiscated only in accordance with the law.
(5) the right of private property for the protection of the environment and the maintenance of good neighbourly relations, as well as other tasks which, according to the law, revinproprietarului.
(6) the right to inherit private property is guaranteed. "


Article 53Dreptul of the person aggrieved by a public authority "(1) any person aggrieved in a of a public authority through an administrative ruling or by his/her legal reply to an application, is entitled to obtain acknowledgement of those rights, the cancellation of and reparation for the damage.
(2) the State shall be held liable for patrimonial law, for damage caused through errors committed in criminal proceedings by the investigating bodies and courts. "


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 freedom. "
9. The relevant provisions of the code of execution (republished in the Official Gazette, 2010, no. 160-163, art. 584) are as follows: Article 161Persoanele which are entitled to challenge the acts of execution "(1) the enforcement of laws, the bailiff can be appealed by the parties and other participants in the process of execution, as well as third parties who consider that by enforcing laws he has violated a right recognized by law. Enforcing laws drawn up by the bailiff may not be challenged if for their committal have gone more than six months.
[...]”


Article 162Termenul of appeal against enforcement actelorde drawn up by the bailiff "[...]   
(2) the person may be entitled under the terms of the term for contestation of the Civil Procedure Code. The person cannot be reinstated if the term from the date of issue or refusal to issue of the contested act had gone more than six months. "
In the author's Arguments AS a. referral to the 10. The author argues that the exception motivation articles 161 para. (1) and paragraph 11 of resolution 162 (2) of the enforcement code, which establish the impossibility of restoring are contested, including the term for contestation, the acts issued by the bailiff if from the moment of their friends have gone more than six months, violates the right of free access to justice, guaranteed by article 20 of the Constitution, and not in compliance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in article 54 of the Constitution.
11. Thus, the author argues that articles 161 para. (1) and paragraph 11 of resolution 162 (2) of the enforcement code contravene articles 1 para. (3), 4, 7, 20, 53 and 54 of the Constitution.
B. Assessment Of The Court 12. Examining the admissibility of non-constitutionality exception, please note the following.
13. 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.

14. the Court finds that the plea of unconstitutionality, being raised by Vasile Șeremet in file No. 25-191/15, on the role of the Court is sought, the subject is entitled to 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.
15. In the present case, the Court retains the author invokes the exception that items 161 para. (1) and paragraph 11 of resolution 162 (2) of the enforcement code violates the provisions of articles 1 (1). (3), 4, 7, 20, 53, and 54 of the Constitution.
16. Note that the prerogative Court was vested in it by article 135 paragraph 1. (1) (a). g) of the Constitution requires correlation of the rules/laws, Constitution and challenged the text taking into account the principle of the supremacy of its provisions and to address the relevance of the contested dispute in the courts.
17. In this regard, the Court points out that, according to article 24 para. (2) of the law on the Constitutional Court and article 39 of the code of constitutional jurisdiction, the appeal shall be reasoned and contain subject matter and circumstances based on their subject matter requirements.
18. Thus, as regards the allegation of infringement of articles 1 (1). (3), (4) and 7 of the Constitution, in its case-law the Court has noted that these acts constitute a generic character and general-imperatives, which underlie any regulations and cannot constitute separate and individual landmarks.
19. Moreover, the Court may not withhold criticism of the text of the law in relation to the provisions of article 20 of the Constitution concerning freedom of access to justice, as the legal text which exception does not prevent justițiabilul to challenge the execution Act, establishing only certain time limits to be respected.
20. In this context, the Court emphasized that, according to article 161 paragraph 4. (1) of the enforcement code, enforcing laws drawn up by the bailiff can be appealed [...] and third parties who consider that by enforcing laws he has violated a right recognized by law, provided that their committal have not gone more than six months. Also, in accordance with article 162 para. (1) the regulatory action, third parties which did not participate in the enforcement process may challenge the enforcement acts drawn up by the bailiff, within 15 days from the date on which it must have been times know about these acts, with the possibility of being repuși in term of contestation in the conditions of the code of civil procedure. However, the person cannot be reset from within if its date of issue or refusal to issue of the contested act had gone more than six months.
21. the Court points out that, by its wording, article generality. 20 of the Constitution allows for access to justice for the protection of any rights or liberties and any vested interest. Thus, any interested person has the right to address the Court, in the manner established by law, to defend their rights violated or contested, freedoms and legitimate interests.
22. At the same time, with reference to the establishment of certain time limits for the exercise of a right, the Court noted that the exercise of a right by its holder cannot take place only within a certain framework, the legislator fixed, subject to certain requirements, including the imposition of deadlines, upon expiry of which capitalization right is no longer possible.
23. In the same context, the Court noted that cannot be withheld criticism relating to the violation of article 53 of the Constitution, whereas the obligation on the parties to exercise their rights within the deadlines set by law give content rule of law and constitutes an expression of the celerității and fermității regarding the procedure of execution of judgments. However, the imposition of deadlines serve a better administration of Justice, as well as the necessity of application of and respect for human rights and procedural guarantees of the parties, and may not be considered as a violation of the right of the citizen to be protected from abuses by public authorities.
24. By analysing the overall constitutionality exception, the Court observes that it does not meet the conditions for eligibility 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 constitutionality exception items 161 para. (1) and paragraph 11 of resolution 162 (2) of the enforcement code of the Republic of Moldova nr. 443-XV of 24 December 2004, raised by Vasile Șeremet in file No. 25-191/15, pending at the Court of Cahul.
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