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 Mr. Eugeniu Osipov, Registrar, considering the appeal filed on 27 June 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 plea of unconstitutionality of articles 68 and 69 of the law nr. 436 dated December 28, 2006 on local public administration and articles 5(a). b) and 17(2). (2) of the law on administrative courts no. 793-XIV of 10 February 2000 the high Valle, representative of I.P. Ankan "GAZPROIECT" in file No. 3-1069/15, pending the Court Center, mun. Chişinău.
2. The appeal was lodged with the Constitutional Court on 27 June 2016 by judge Nadezhda Mazur within the Center 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.
A. the main dispute Circumstances 3. On 2 April 2015, Chisinau municipal Council has amended its decision of October 2, 2014, which transferred ownership of the I.P. "Gazproiect" a building belonging to the adjacent land with property rights.
4. Disagreeing with the decision of 2 April 2015, territorial Office Chisinau of the State Chancellery, addressed the Court Center, mun. Chişinău, with the original judgment by intervening of Chișinău municipal Council, I.P. accessory "Gazproiect" and has called for its cancellation, citing that decision was adopted in breach of the legislation in force. 
5. On 14 March 2016, representative of the intervenientului accessory raised exception of constitutionality of articles 68 and 69 of the law nr. 436 dated December 28, 2006 on local public administration and articles 5 and 17(2). (2) of the law on administrative courts no. 793-XIV of 10 February 2000.
6. by the conclusion of 21 June 2016, the Court ordered the erection of the main exception and referral to the Constitutional Court for settlement.
B. relevant Legislation 7. The relevant provisions of the Constitution (republished in the Official Gazette, no. 2016, 78, art. 140) are as follows: Article 6Separaţia and cooperation of powers "in the Republic of the legislative, Executive and judicial powers are separate and cooperate in the exercise of their prerogatives under the Constitution."


Article 109Principiile the core of local public administration "(1) the public administration in administrative-territorial units is based on the principles of local autonomy, of decentralization of public services, of the eligibility of local public administration authorities and of consulting the citizenry on local problems of special interest.
(2) concerns the Autonomy of both the Organization and functioning of local public administration and the management of the communities they represent.
[...]”


Article 112Autorităţile village and town "(1) the public administration authorities through which local autonomy is in the villages and in the cities, are local councils and mayors elected.
(2) the local councils and mayors operate under the law as autonomous administrative authorities and solving public affairs in villages and towns.
(3) the procedure for electing local councils and mayors, as well as their duties shall be established by law. "
8. The relevant provisions of law No. 436 dated December 28, 2006 on local public administration (published in the Official Gazette, 2007, no. 32-35, art. 116) shall be as follows: Article 68Împuternicirile the territorial Office of the State Chancellery "(1) where he considers that an act issued by the local public administration authority is unlawful, the territorial Office of the State Chancellery shall notify the local authority issuing the illegality of the Act, asking for the amendment or repeal of his total or partial.
(2) when exercising control of the legality, binding to refer to the territorial Office of the State Chancellery shall be submitted within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the act.
(3) within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notification, the local authority issuing must modify or repeal the Act in question.
(4) where, within the time limit laid down in paragraph 1. (3) the local authority issuing kept its position or has not reviewed the Act in question, the territorial Office of the State Chancellery may submit to the administrative court within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notification of the refusal to modify or repeal the Act in question or if the local authority issuing silence within 60 days from the date of notification of the request for amendment or repeal of the Act in question. "


Article 69Sesizarea the Court of administrative law "(1) where he considers that the Act can have severe consequences, in order to prevent an imminent territorial Office of the State Chancellery may refer directly to the administrative court after the receipt of a document which it considers illegal, local authority încunoştinţând.
(2) with the referral to the Court of administrative law, the territorial Office of the State Chancellery may request its suspension of the contested act or the arrangement of other interim measures.
(3) within 3 days of receipt of the referral, administrative court, after hearing the parties concerned, shall decide on the suspension of the Act and/or other arrangement on provisional measures requested by the territorial Office of the State Chancellery. "
9. The relevant provisions of the law on administrative courts no. 793-XIV of 10 February 2000 (republished in the Official Gazette, 2006, special release of 3 October 2006) are as follows: Article 5Subiecţii with the law instituting the administrative contentious "[...]
b) Government, State Chancellery, territorial Office of the State Chancellery, the President of the district and Mayor-according to the law on local public administration;
[…]”


Article 17Termenele apply in administrative court [...]
(2) the territorial Office of the State Chancellery, the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman for children's rights matter to the administrative court within the time limits provided for by the organic laws relating to their work.
[…]”

In the author's Arguments exception. neconsti-tuționalitate 10. The author claims that the reasoning of the exception provisions criticized empower territorial Office of the State Chancellery with control of the legality of acts adopted by local councils while the law No. 64 of 31 May 1990 on Government does not provide for such tasks.
11. Thus, the author argues that the exception laws violate the principle of separation and criticized collaboration between powers and the principle of the autonomy of the local government unit and therefore contrary to articles 6, paragraph 1, 109. (1) and (2) and 112 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, in particular of the law nr. 436 dated December 28, 2006 on local public administration and the law on administrative courts no. 793-XIV of 10 February 2000, is the responsibility of the Constitutional Court.
14. the Court finds that the plea of unconstitutionality, being raised by Valle, representative of I.P. Ankan "GAZPROIECT" in file No. 3-1069/15, is sought by the regulated subject to this law, as interpreted by the decision of the Constitutional Court No. 2 of 9 February 2016.
15. the Court noted that the object of non-constitutionality exception is represented by articles 68 and 69 of the law nr. 436 dated December 28, 2006 on local public administration and articles 5(a). b) and 17(2). (2) of the law on administrative courts no. 793-XIV of 10 February 2000, the provisions of which provide that the territorial Office of the State Chancellery, where it considers that an act issued by the local public administration is illegal, with the right to have recourse to Administrative Court.
16. In the present case, the court notice that the author's claim that exception laws criticized are contrary to articles 6, paragraph 1, 109. (1) and (2) and 112 of the Constitution.
17. Note that the prerogative Court was vested in it by article 135 paragraph 1. (1) (a). g) of the Constitution requires correlation of contested norms 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. At the same time, 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.
19. the Court notes that, although the legal provisions criticized governs verification of acts of local public administration authorities of the territorial Office of the State Chancellery, however, the latter has no right to annul the acts of the local public administration issuing authority, if they consider that the Act may have serious consequences, limiting it only to referral to the administrative court.
20. Thus, the Court may not withhold criticism of the text of the law in relation to the provisions of article 6 of the Constitution concerning the separation of powers in a State, whereas territorial Office of the State Chancellery may not intervene in the realization of Justice and therefore the legality of acts cannot be regarded as a breach of the principle of separation of powers. With respect to the alleged infringement of the principle of local autonomy, guaranteed by article 109 paragraph 2. (1) and (2) of the Constitution, the Court noted that control of legality of the activity of local public administration authorities is of an administrative nature and do not affect their autonomy, however, this kind of control is provided and the international acts.
22. In this regard, the Court indicates that, according to article 8 of the European Charter of local autonomy, administrative supervision over the activity of local public administration authorities shall be pursued in forms and in the cases provided for by the Constitution or by law, and it does not have to look, normally than ensuring legality and constitutional principles. Also, in accordance with paragraph 1. (2) of the same article, the administrative control can, however, include a control, exercised by authorities hierarchically superior, in relation to the duties the performance of which is delegated to the local government.
23. At the same time, the Court noted that the norm of article 112 of the Constitution, which establishes the composition of the local government unit and method of its choice, has no incidence in this question.
24. In the light of the above, the court notice that, in the absence of arguments that would show to what extent the impugned legal provisions violate constitutional rules cited, the appeal is unfounded 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 plea of unconstitutionality of articles 68 and 69 of the law nr. 436 dated December 28, 2006 on local public administration and articles 5(a). b) and 17(2). (2) of the law on administrative courts no. 793-XIV of 10 February 2000 the high Valle, representative of I.P. Ankan "GAZPROIECT" in file No. 3-1069/15, pending the Court Center, 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