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. Abdul Fahim, Registrar, considering the appeal filed on 25 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 exception of non-constitutionality of article 153 (6) and (7) of the code, high road transport lawyer in Boudreau V No. 3-460/16 on the role of the Buiucani, mun. Chişinău.
2. The exception of constitutionality was lodged with the Constitutional Court on 25 July 2016 by judge Constantin Roman, 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. "The basis of Transportation No. 14 Meeting "to many years serving a regular route for the transportation of passengers on the route Chisinau, 15:30-09:30 long.
4. By 31 December 2014, the Ministry of transport and road infrastructure issued an order by which he attributed to "Sorisebi Trans Tour" a regular route for the transportation of passengers on the route Chisinau, 15:15 — Munitions, 9:30 am.
5. On 3 March 2016, "the basis of Transportation No. 14 Meeting "has submitted an administrative contentious proceedings against the Ministry of transport and road infrastructure, by which it requested the annulment of the order of 31 December 2014 regarding the opening of new routes and assigning its SC" Trans Sorisebi "Tour, citing discordance order issued with articles 37 and 38 of the code of the road transport.
6. May 20, 2016, the lawyer filed the Court is Boudreau V of law approach with regard to constitutionality exception to article 153 (6) and (7) of the code of the road transport.
7. by the conclusion of 12 July 2016, the Court accepted the approach and has ordered the lifting of non-constitutionality exception and transmission referral address the Constitutional Court for settlement.
B. relevant Legislation 8. The relevant provisions of the Constitution (republished in d. o., 2016, no. 78, art. 140) are as follows: Article 126Economia "(1) the economy of the Republic of Moldova is market economy, social orientation, based on private property and public property, engaged in free competition.
(2) the State shall ensure: (a) Regulation of economic activity) and administration of public property that belongs to the law;
b) freedom of trade and entrepreneurial activity, the protection of loyal competition, the creation of a favourable framework for recovery of all factors of production;
(c) safeguarding national) economic activity, financial and foreign exchange;
(d) stimulation of scientific research);
rational exploitation of e) land and other natural resources, in line with the national interests;
f) restoration and protection of the environment and the maintenance of ecological balance;
g) increase in the number of jobs, creation of conditions for increasing the quality of life;
h) inviolability of investments to individuals and legal entities, including foreign. "
9. The relevant provisions of the road freight Code No. 150 of 17 July 2014 (Official Gazette, no. 2014, 247-248, art. 568) are as follows: Article 36 "road transport Programmes shall be drawn up on the basis of the following principles related to racing: a) from rural areas towards urban settlements/district centres in whose immediate sphere of interest, administrative, economic and social enters;
b) from rural areas towards urban settlements/district centres, as part of the district;
c) from rural areas towards urban settlements/district centres outside of the district, when the urban district centre/locality stranger lies closer than urban locality where the raion/centre lies the rural locality;
d) of urban settlements/district centres towards the municipalities;
e) between urban settlements/district centres;
f) from rural areas towards cities, within the suburban RADIUS (50 km);
g) from rural areas towards cities, outside the radius of 50 kilometres, when urban areas/districts lie in the opposite direction towards municipalities and in the municipality is not another district Center;
h) from rural areas towards cities, outside the radius of 50 km, where rural areas comprise/religious objectives represent (monasteries), economic (industrial parks or free economic zones) of national interest or border points;
I) from rural areas towards cities, outside the radius of 50 km, where the number of rural population is more than 3500 inhabitants. "


Article 37 (1) road transport schedules may be amended: (a) the introduction of new routes);
[…]
(2) a route cannot be introduced as a new route in the district's transportation program or interraional if more than 80% of the length of the proposed route overlaps with an existing route in the carriage in question, and in the case of international road transport programme, this is not possible if more than 90% of the length of the proposed route overlaps with an existing route in the carriage in question.
(3) the period of validity of the authorization of carriage of persons by means of regular services, a route may be altered by a maximum of 30% of its original length.
(4) in the case of road transport program interraional, the introduction of new routes, extending the route, to increase the number of races, the introduction of workstations or the modification of working hours, when traffic graph proposed stops that are located in the graphs of some routes served by other operators of road freight, between departures from stations and route ends with a racing program interraional transport should ensure within 30 minutes , and between departures from stations and route ends with a racing included in the transportation district-a span of 15 minutes.
[…].”


Article 38



"(1) included in routes/flights for local road transport programmes, municipal, district and interraional are assigned by competition, on the award by the commissions through the contest of the regular road transport services, public sittings for the award, in the following cases: a) the introduction of new routes;
b) withdrawal of carriage of persons through regular services;
c) road transport authorization runs out of people by regular services;
d) lack of leg at the time of the award, children/of the licence necessary to carry out road transport route/trip.
(2) decision (order, etc.) of the Organization of the competition, which was adopted by the competent body in accordance with paragraph 1. (1), may be challenged by road transport operators whose legitimate rights and interests are affected and/or the representative employers ' organizations from which they belong by prior application filed in accordance with the provisions of the law on administrative courts.
[…].”


Article 153 "[...]
(5) local transportation Programs, municipal and district as well as interraional and road transport international will be approved in accordance with this code until 31 December 2014.
(6) road transport Programs, program interraional transport and international transport programme, approved in accordance with paragraph 1. (5) shall contain both regular network at the time of entry into force of this code, as well as new routes assigned by the central organ in accordance with the provisions of art. 36 of this code.
(7) the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2. (4), (5) and (6) of article 6. 37 and of art. 38 of this code shall not apply to routes introduced in accordance with paragraph 1. (6).
[…].”
In the author's Arguments exception. neconsti-tuționalitate 10. In the non-constitutionality exception, reasoning the author argues that article 153 (6) and (7) of the code, allows Road Transport Ministry of transport and road infrastructure to include arbitrary new routes for the transportation of passengers, although articles 37 and 38 of the code provide for road transport at the opening of a certain procedure and their inclusion in programmes.
11. According to the author, the provisions of the contested exception in breach of paragraph 1 of article 126. (2) (a). b) and h) of the Constitution.
B. Assessment Of The Court 12. Examining the admissibility of the referral regarding constitutionality exception, the Court notes the following.
13. In accordance with paragraph 1 of article 135. (1) (a). the control of the Constitution), on notification constitutionality of laws, in this case the code, road transport is the responsibility of the Constitutional Court.
14. the Court finds that the plea of unconstitutionality, being raised by a lawyer in Boudreau V No. 3-460/16, which is on the role of the Buiucani, mun.
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.
15. 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.
16. the court notice that the object neconsti-tuționalitate exception is article 153 (6) and (7) of the code of the road transport.
17. Of the non-constitutionality exception, the Court observes that the author's claim that the contested rules allow the central specialized body to introduce arbitrary new routes for the transportation of passengers, which is contrary to paragraph 1 of article 126. (2) (a). b) and h) of the Constitution.
18. the Court noted that art. 153 of the code of the road transport comprises the final and transitional provisions implementing and establishing measures in case of succession laws.
19. Specifically, in paragraph 6 of the contested article 153 provides that road transport programmes, which have been approved until 31 December 2014, will comprise both scheduled routes existing at the time of entry into force of the code, as well as new routes assigned in accordance with art. 36 of the code. At the same time, art. 36 of the Code lays down the principles linking to horseracing in the basis of which it will draw up transport programmes.
20. In paragraph 7 of the same article provides for contested that in paragraphs (4), (5) and (6) of article 3. 37, and art. 38 of the code shall not apply to routes which have been entered in accordance with paragraph 1. (6) above. (4), (5) and (6) of article 3.     37 provide for certain time periods to be respected in relation to the introduction of new routes, and art. 38 provides for cases where an award competition to routes included in the transportation programs, establishing panels of the contest, and the possibility of contesting the rules applicable in the case of the award.
21. Examining the exception of constitutionality, note that this Court is aimed at the implementation of the contested rules.
22. Moreover, the Court noted that the issue of administrative acts contrary to the law of judicial control.
23. in accordance with the powers conferred upon them by article 135 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court exercises control on notification constitutionality of laws, and not checking the administrative acts issued by the Central specialized bodies of the State. Or have control of the legality of administrative acts is the responsibility of the Administrative Court and is not a competence of the Court.
24. In the light of those mentioned, the Court finds that the contested rules do not constitute a problem of constitutionality.
25. As a consequence, the Court did not remember that the appeal meets the conditions of eligibility 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 item 28 lit. d) of the regulation on the procedure for examining complaints lodged with the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court DECIDES:



1. It is hereby declared inadmissible the appeal regarding plea of unconstitutionality of article 153 (6) and (7) of the code, high road transport lawyer in Boudreau V No. 3-460/16 on the role of the Buiucani, 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