The Constitutional Court, acting as part of Mr. Alexandru Tanase, President, Mr. Aurel BĂIEŞU, Mr. Igor DOLEA, PANŢÎRU, Mr. Mr. Talal Zadrahimi, judges, with the participation of Mr Darroch Avornic, Registrar, considering the appeal filed on 22 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: has the phrase "of the right (the right to drive" under paragraph 1 (f)). (2) of article 32;
-the phrase "of the right to drive shall apply to the Court for a term of from 6 months to 3 years" in paragraph 1. (4) of article 35;
-the phrase "upon expiry of the deprivation of the right to drive [...] the person is entitled to this right "from paragraph 1. (6) article 36;
-the phrase "shall be sanctioned with a fine of 150 conventional units with deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for a period of 2 to 3 years" in paragraph 1. (1) article 233 of the code of law of the Republic of Moldova nr. 218-XVI dated October 24, 2008, Kallen, part in the Majnoon nr. 4 c, -1047/16 pending in District Court, mun. Chişinău.
2. The appeal was lodged with the Constitutional Court on 22 July 2016 by judge Natalia Clevadi from within the Court, mun. 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. On the role of the Court, mun. Chişinău is located folder no. 4 c -1047/16, by which is blamed of A.M., committing the contravenției referred to in article 233 para. (1) amendments to the code.
4. On 11 July, 2016, in the examination of the case in court raised exception Andrian Leong of the unconstitutionality of certain provisions of the law referred to in § 1.
5. by the conclusion of July 20, 2016, 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 (republished in the Official Gazette, no. 2016, 78, art. 140) are as follows: Article 23 the right of everybody to know your rights and duties "(1) every person has the right to recognize legal personality.
(2) the State ensures the right of everybody to know their rights and duties. For this purpose the State publishes and makes accessible all laws and other regulations. "


Article 43 the right to work and protection of labor "(1) everyone has the right to work, to free choice of work, to fair and satisfactory conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
[…]”
7. amendments to the relevant provisions of the Code of the Republic of Moldova nr. 218-XVI dated 24 Oct 2008 (M. A., 2009, no.4-6, art. 15) are as follows: Article 32 contravention Penalty "[...]
(2) Administrative Penalties applicable to an individual are: [...] b) fine;
c) deprivation of the right to conduct a certain activity;
[…]
f) deprivation of the right (the right to drive, the right to own a weapon and portarmă);
[…]
(3) deprivation of the right to conduct a certain activity, deprivation of the right to hold certain positions and penalty points can be applied and as complementary penalties. "


Article 34Amenda "[...]
(5) if the person convicted of an offence for the contravention referred to in articles 228-245 has not paid voluntarily and in full fine within 30 days from the date of its establishment, it must be replaced by deprivation of the right to conduct a certain activity, by raising the right to drive vehicles for a period of 6 months to a year. "


Article 35Privarea of the right to conduct a certain activity.
Deprivation of the right to hold certain positions "(1) deprivation of the right to conduct a certain activity is to prohibit the temporary physical person to conduct a certain activity, including by depriving its special right. Sanction of deprivation of the right to engage in a particular activity may be applied where the activity was used in committing the violation, or where the offence is a violation of the rules of conduct of this activity.
[…]
(4) deprivation of the right to drive shall apply to the Court for a term of from 6 months to 3 years, and in the cases referred to in article 36, for a term of 6 months to a year. "


Article 36Aplicarea penalty points. Deprivation of the right "(1) in the cases and in the size of administrative sanction laid down in rule from chapter XIII of book first, the driver of the vehicle declared guilty of committing the violation, the sanction with the application, shall be subject to a number of penalty points as additional penalty.
(2) if the application of the sanction in the manner prescribed in paragraph 1. (1) determine the accumulation of 15 demerit points, providing the administrative agent shall submit for examination the cause to the court competent with the sanction and penalty points with application, apply to the particular deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for a period of 6 months to a year as a complementary penalty.
[…]
(6) upon expiry of the deprivation of the right to drive or the right to own a weapon and portarmă, the person is entitled to this right. "


Article 233 driving while intoxicated by alcohol produced, handing over his leadership by a person who is in the drunk produced by alcohol or other substances "(1) steer the vehicle by a person who is intoxicated by alcohol produced exceeding the maximum allowable by law, if the Act does not constitute infringement , is sanctioned with a fine of 150 conventional units with deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for a period of 2 to 3 years.
[…]”
In the author's Arguments exception. neconsti-tuționalitate 8. In the non-constitutionality exception motivation, author of the referral argues that contravențională sanction "deprivation of the right to drive" is disproportionate in relation to the persons for whom the leadership of means of transport is the sole source of existence.
9. At the same time, the author argues that the provisions of the contested exception are devoid of clarity because the sanction provided for in art. 233 para. (1) amendments to the code is made up of both fine and the deprivation of the right to drive, but both being the main punishment.
10. The author claims that the exception more lack of clarity is due and confundării at art. 34 para. (5) the amendments to the code of contravention penalty "deprivation of the right to drive" with the sanction "deprivation of the right to engage in a specific activity," both of which are regulated separately in article 9. 32 para. (2) (a). c) and (f)) of the same code.
11. At the same time, the author argues that the exception provisions of article anymore. 36 para. (6) and article 3. 233 para. (1) amendments to the code do not provide for grounds and conditions for cancellation before term of punishment or application of a sentence below the limit prescribed by law, making comparison with the provisions of art. 55 and 79 of the penal code, considering that there is discrimination in this respect.
12. Similarly, the author argues that the exception laid down in article penalty 233 para. (1) amendments to the code, being in all cases composed of fine in fixed amount of 150 conventional units and deprivation of the right to drive, don't allow the individualization of the penalty assessed the circumstances aggravating and mitigating of the case.
13. According to the author, the provisions of the contested exception violated the provisions of articles 16, 18, 43 and 47 of the Constitution.
B. Assessment Of Court 14. Examining the admissibility of the referral regarding constitutionality exception, the Court notes 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 the amendments to the Code, is the responsibility of the Constitutional Court.
16. the Court finds that the appeal relating to the exception of unconstitutionality, ALEMU Poltergeist being raised, in part No. 4 c -1047/16, pending the Court of Justice, Chisinau municipality. Chişinău, is made by the 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.
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 represented by several provisions of the code amendments aimed at substantially the penalty of depriving of the right to drive for the person who drove while intoxicated, and the regulation of legal sanction contravention in fixed size.
19. the court notice that, according to article 72 paragraph 1. (3) (a). n) of the Constitution, the competence of Parliament to regulate punishments take offences, and their execution arrangements.
20. At the same time, the Court, in its judgement No. 10 of 10 may 2016, examining the applicability of the principles in criminal matters and contravențională, has noted that: "47. […] by regulating offences and punishments in criminal matters to means and competence of regulating contravention penalties a photographic plastic counterpart. However, the law contains provisions indicating the contravențională actually criminal offences administrative nature. "
21. Note that Court sanction against the rulers in intoxicated with deprivation of the right to drive for a period determined by the means of transport aimed at the movement's main public road safety and safety of life, health and bodily integrity of all participants in road traffic, or in public road area.
22. in Judgement No. 28 of November 18, 1986, the Court noted that road traffic safety presents an overriding public interest, therefore, security is a positive obligation of the State. Transport unit, as a participant in traffic, are a source of increased danger, the driver having the obligation to comply with certain regulations imposed by the authorities in avoiding the risks resulting from the use of motor vehicles. The vehicle owner is liable for damage caused by the use of the vehicle located in his possession.
23. Similarly, the Court has noted that the relations between the legislature, the ownership of the vehicle and road safety, the right to establish certain obligations towards owners, including the responsibility that may arise.
24. Taking into account the rationale of this sanctions related to the right to work, the Court reiterates that the free choice of work cannot be absolute and unlimited. The labor law makes employment employment of meeting certain conditions.
25. Thus, the establishment of penalties shall be suspended for a limited time who's right to drive cars is not likely to quell the constitutional right to employment of certain professional categories, in this case being about people whose profession is directly linked to driving.
26. With reference to the character of punishment "depriving of the right to drive" as main or additional note that this Court will be applied through the reading together of articles 32, 34, 35 and 36 of the code amendments. At the same time, the Court points out the lack of impact of articles 16, 18, 43 and 47 of the Constitution on this issue.
27. why take part In contests. 233 para. (1) amendments to the code, as setting a fixed size of penalty fine as contravențională, in its judgement No. 10 of 10 may 2016 the Court pointed out that the constitutional principle of legality requires differentiation of sanctions established for violation of the law, so as to strike a balance between the goal of administrative law and remedies, and the means used to restrict the rights of no more than is necessary to achieve those purposes.
28. Thus, with regard to the contravention fines, the Court, in Judgement No. device 10 of 10 may 2016, retained by way of a principle that: "pending the amendment of the legal framework, for contravențiile which provides for a penalty in fixed size will apply a penalty between the minimum limit of the general part and the size of the penalty from the said article of the special part of the law of the Republic of Moldova nr. 218-XVI dated October 24, 2008, which will constitute a limit ".
29. In the light of the above, the Court of constitutionality that the exception does not meet the eligibility conditions for exercising the constitutionality and, therefore, 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 plea of unconstitutionality: has the phrase "of the right (the right to drive" under paragraph 1 (f)). (2) of article 32;
-the phrase "of the right to drive shall apply to the Court for a term of from 6 months to 3 years" in paragraph 1. (4) of article 35;
-the phrase "upon expiry of the deprivation of the right to drive [...] the person is entitled to this right "from paragraph 1. (6) article 36;
-the phrase "shall be sanctioned with a fine of 150 conventional units with deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for a period of 2 to 3 years" in paragraph 1. (1) article 233 of the code of law of the Republic of Moldova nr. 218-XVI dated October 24, 2008, Kallen, part in the Majnoon nr. 4 c, -1047/16 pending in District 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