The Constitutional Court, acting as part of Mr. Alexandru Tanase, President, Mr. Aurel BĂIEŞU, Mr. Igor DOLEA, Mr. Victor PALMER, Mr. Zadrahimi, judges, with the participation of Mrs. Ludmila Chihai, Registrar, considering the appeal filed on 28 September 2016, recorded at the same time, examining the admissibility of the referral, taking into account the laws and proceedings, Acting on 12 October the Council room 2016 the next decision, a decision: in fact 1. On 28 September 2016 A. Ladani, Member of Parliament, has appealed to the Constitutional Court a complaint, requesting constitutionality Art IV of law No. 127 of 9 June 2016 for the modification and completion of some legislative acts.
A. reasons for referral 2. Reasons for referral, as exhibited by its author, may be summarized as follows.
3. Law No. 126 of 9 June 2016 were operated some amendments and additions to law No. 514-XIII from 6 July 1995 concerning judicial organization, relating to the appointment of judges investigating magistrates.
4. According to the new amendments, the investigation judge is appointed by the Superior Council of Magistracy (SCM) with his consent, on a proposal from the President of the Court from among the judges who worked in the Office of judge for at least three years, for a term of 3 years, without the possibility to pursue two consecutive terms. Where no court within the judge does not have the experience of at least 3 years in the Office of judge, the powers of the investigating judge may be exercised by a judge who has worked in this capacity at least 18 months (article 15/1 law No. 514-XIII from 6 July 1995 concerning judicial organization).
5. At the same time, in accordance with article IV of law No. 127 of 9 June 2016, common law judges appointed to exercise the powers of the investigating judge until the entry into force of the present law shall exercise these powers until 1 January 2017. And, with effect from 1 January 2017, judges who exercised the powers of the investigating judge for more than two years from January 1 to august 31, 2013-2016 will not be able to exercise the powers of the investigating judge until 31 December 2019. This prohibition does not apply to judges appointed to exercise the powers of the investigating judge as replacements.
6. The author argues that the contested provisions of the referral are contrary to articles 6, 114 of the Constitution.
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 114 justice "Justice shall be administered solely by the name of the law courts."


Article 115 courts "(1) justice shall be administered by the Supreme Court of Justice, the Court of appeal and the courts of law.
[…]
(4) the Organization of the courts, their jurisdiction and procedure of the Court shall be established by organic law. "


Article 116 the status of judges "(1) the judges of the courts are independent, impartial and irremovable under the law.
[…]”
8. The relevant provisions of law No. 514-XIII from 6 July 1995 concerning judicial organization (republished in the Official Gazette, no. 13, 15-17, art. 62) are as follows: Article 151Judecătorii training "(1) from among the judges of the Court shall appoint justices who will exercise the powers of the investigating judge.
(2) the investigation judge is appointed by the Superior Council of Magistracy (SCM) with his consent, on a proposal from the President of the Court from among the judges who worked in the Office of judge for at least three years, for a term of 3 years, without the possibility to pursue two consecutive terms.
(3) where any judge within the District Court does not have the experience of at least 3 years in the Office of judge, the powers of the investigating judge may be exercised by a judge who has worked in this capacity at least 18 months.
(4) the Superior Council of magistrates, the President of the Court proposal: a) with at least 3 months before the expiry of the mandate of the investigating judge, appoint, in the manner laid down in paragraph 1. (2) and (3), the judge who will exercise the powers of the investigating judge, and one or more alternate judges who will exercise the powers of the investigating judge in the case of impossibility of executing his duties by him;
b) in the event of vacancy of the position of judge of instruction, not later than 30 days after the renewal of the Administration, called the procedure laid down in paragraph 1. (2) and (3), another judge will exercise powers of the investigating judge.
(5) where any judge did not express its consent to the exercise of the powers of the investigating judge or judges express their consent in this respect, the judge's candidacy will be determined by the President of the Court by drawing lots in the presence of all the judges in the Court, with this fact recorded in the minutes.
(6) before you start exercising investigating judge, judge training courses under a special program, coordinated with the Superior Council of Magistracy, in the manner established by law. Workload of judge who will exercise the powers of the investigating judge will be decreased gradually in the manner regulated by the Superior Council of Magistracy.
(7) the judge appointed under the terms of paragraph 1. (4) (a). (b)) shall exercise the powers of the investigation judge in part not executed from his predecessor's term. Where he exercised the function of investigating judge was vacant for more than a year, he will not be able to be called for the exercise of the powers of the investigating judge for the next term. "
9. The relevant provisions of law No. 127 of 9 June 2016 for the modification and completion of some legislative acts (Official Gazette, no. 2016, 204-210, art. 441) are as follows: "(1) the common law Judges appointed to exercise the powers of the investigating judge until the entry into force of the present law shall exercise these powers until 1 January 2017.
(2) with effect from 1 January 2017, judges who exercised the powers of the investigating judge for more than two years from January 1 to august 31, 2013-2016 will not be able to exercise the powers of the investigating judge until 31 December 2019. This prohibition does not apply to judges appointed to exercise the powers of the investigating judge as replacements.
[…].”
In the author's Arguments AS a. referral to the 10. The author of the referral argues that by adopting the contested provisions relating to prohibition of exercising the powers of the judge of instruction takes place in the order of legislative interference by the administration of the judiciary, it has thus been contravened the principle of separation of powers and cooperation and has ignored the principle of the independence of the judiciary, provided for in articles 6 and article 114 of the Constitution.
B. Assessment Of The Court 11. Examining the admissibility of the referral, the Court retains the following.
12. Articles 25 lit. g) of the law on the Constitutional Court and 38 para. (1) (a). g) of the code of constitutional jurisdiction authorizing Deputy in Parliament with the right to refer the matter to the Constitutional Court.
13. the Court noted that the subject of constitutionality is the Art IV of law No. 127 of 9 June 2016 for the modification and completion of some legislative acts.
14. the Court notes that the contested provisions provide for the manner of the exercise of powers of the judge of instruction by common law judges appointed until the adoption of law No. 127 of 9 June 2016.
15. the court notice that the author of the referral of alleged violation of the cited articles 6 and article 114 of the Constitution.
16. the Court note that a legal provision may constitute the object of the constitutional jurisdiction only where the constitutional provisions cited have impact on the contested rules.
17. In this context, with reference to the violations of the principle of separation of powers and cooperation and the principle of the independence of the judiciary, please note the following.
18. the Court noted that the exclusive right to pursue justice on behalf of the law belongs to the judge, as the sole bearer of the judicial power and that, as provided for in article 116 paragraph 1. (1) of the Constitution, is independent, impartial and non-removable, according to law. Or, the judiciary is one of the three powers of the State, which is independent, separate from the legislative and executive power, has its own tasks exercised through the courts, in accordance with the principles and norms contained in the Constitution, laws and other normative acts.

19. Furthermore, according to article 72 paragraph 1. (3) (a). e) of the Constitution, the Parliament adopted by organic law governing the Organization and functioning of the courts.
20. Likewise, the court notice that the prerogative of the legislator to determine the Organization of the courts and their competence is provided and article 115 paragraphs 1 and 2. (4) of the Constitution according to which the Organization of the courts, their jurisdiction and procedure of the Court shall be established by organic law.
21. Note that the legality of the Court represents a fundamental requirement of the activity of the courts. The principle of legality, as a matter of principle, presumed legal character at the same court. This principle derives from the provisions of the Convention and for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, according to which the person is entitled to a fair hearing of his case by an independent and impartial court established by law (article 6 § 1).
22. the Court noted that, according to the case-law of the European Court, the words "established by law" in article 6 of the Convention implies that a court established by law must meet a number of conditions, such as the independence of its members and their term of Office, impartiality and procedural guarantees (see Coёme and others v. Belgium, § 99).
23. the Court notes that the contested provisions relate to the duration of the exercise of powers of the judge of the common law judges be appointed pending the entry into force of law No. 127 of 9 July 2016, as well as the conditions for exercising the future powers of the investigating judge of the common law judges they have exercised from January 1 to august 31, 2013-2016.
24. In this regard, note that Court through the provisions challenged, which regulates the procedure for the Organization and the term of Office as a judge of instruction, the legislature did not intervene in the exercise of Justice.
25. Concluding the Court finds that the referral does not meet the eligibility conditions for exercising the constitutionality and, therefore, cannot be accepted for examination.
For these reasons, in accordance with the provisions of article 26 para. (1) of the law on the Constitutional Court, articles 61 para. (3) and 64 of the code of constitutional jurisdiction and 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 of parliamentarian A. Ladani for constitutionality Art IV of law No. 127 of 9 June 2016 for the modification and completion of some legislative acts.
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