Advanced Search

Regarding The Plea Of Unconstitutionality Of Certain Provisions Set Out In Point 34 Of Annex 3 To The Government Decision Nr. 360 Of 25 June 1996 On The Control Of Construction Quality In The State (The Government's Competence To Regulate Sanctions) (N...

Original Language Title: privind excepţia de neconstituţionalitate a unor prevederi din pct.34 al Anexei nr.3 la Hotărârea Guvernului nr. 360 din 25 iunie 1996 cu privire la controlul de stat al calităţii în construcţii(competența Guvernului de a reglementa sancţiuni) (sesizările

Subscribe to a Global-Regulation Premium Membership Today!

Key Benefits:

Subscribe Now for only USD$40 per month.
    On behalf of the Republic of Moldova, the Constitutional Court, acting as part of Mr. Alexandru Tanase, President, Mr. Aurel BĂIEŞU, Mr. Igor DOLEA, Mr Tudor POPA, Mr. Victor PANŢÎRU, Mr. Zadrahimi, judges, with the participation of Mrs Abdow Balaban, Registrar, having regard to the complaints filed on 20 June 2016 and 2016 and registered on October 24 at the same data, examining the complaints mentioned in the public plenary, taking into account the acts and works dossiers , acting in the Council, following a judgment Pronounced: PROCEDURE 1. The origin of the case lies in the exceptions of unconstitutionality to point 34 and three first paragraphs in annex 4. 3 in Government decision No. 360 of 25 June 1996 on the control of high quality in construction, by Oleg Dațco, Manager of the company "D" Group LTD, a part in file No. -580/2016 3ra, on the role of the Supreme Court of Justice, and of "Flat" part in file No. 3-704/2016, Rascani, Chisinau Court role. Chisinau.
2. The exceptions of unconstitutionality have been filed to the Constitutional Court on June 20 and 24 October 2016 2016 College civil, commercial and administrative jurisdiction of enlarged Supreme Court of Justice and by the judge within the Court of Justice Vitalie Campos Rascani, Chisinau municipality. Chisinau, 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, as well as the regulation on the procedure for the examination of complaints lodged with the Constitutional Court.
3. Authors of unconstitutionality exceptions claimed that the provisions of item 34 and three first paragraphs in annex 4. 3 in Government decision No. 360 of 25 June 1996, by which the State Building Inspection was assigned the power to apply sanctions, contrary to the provisions of articles 6, paragraph 1, 46. (4), 72 para. (3) (a). r) and para. 102 (2) of the Constitution.
4. By decision of the Constitutional Court of 8 July 2016 referral No. 73 g/2016 was declared admissible without prejudeca Fund case. With reference to the referral No. 125 g/2016, in accordance with point 25 of the regulation on the procedure for examining complaints lodged with the Constitutional Court, the Court, on the 28th October 2016, decided linkage with the admissibility of the case.
5. Considering object identity, pursuant to article 43 of the code of constitutional jurisdiction, the Court of constitutionality exceptions linked into a single file.
6. In the process of examination of exceptions neconsti-tuționalitate, the Constitutional Court requested the opinion of the Parliament, President and Government.
7. At the plenary session of the Court of constitutionality, the exception raised by the "Apartment" was echoed by Veniamin Nașivan, representative of the undertaking "Apartment" Panorama II. Parliament was represented by lead counsel, Valeriu Treaty within the Directorate-General of the Secretariat of the Parliament. The Government was represented by Mr. Igor Vieru, Deputy Chief of the legal Directorate of the Ministry of regional development and Construction.
The MAIN DISPUTE CIRCUMSTANCES 1. Circumstances of the civil case No. 3ra -580/16 8. A decision on the application of economic sanctions on 21 July 2014, the head of the State Construction Inspection decided by the SC collection "D" Group from the State budget income obtained illegitimately from exaggerating the volumes and value of the works performed at the children's recreation camp "Village" from Anenii Noi, and charging a fine in the amount equivalent.
9. On 29 July 2014, disagreeing with the decision, "Mark group" company has applied for the Court in the order of administrative courts against the State Construction Inspection.
10. By decision of the Court of Râșcani, mun. Chisinau, 25 may 2015, the action was allowed in part, being annulled the decision on the application of economic sanctions July 21, 2014, and claims relating to the annulment of the May 12, 2014, issued by the State Inspection for construction, were rejected as unfounded.
11. On 24 June 2015, the State Construction Inspection said. By decision of 25 November 2015, Chisinau Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal by the State Inspection of the construction and the first court judgment upheld.
12. On 15 February 2016, State Construction Inspection appeal against the decision of the Court of appeal.
13. On 17 may 2016, "Perry Group LLC has applied for removal of non-constitutionality exception to the provisions of item 34 paragraph three of annex 4. 3 the Government decision nr. 360 of 25 June 1996 on the control of construction quality, citing violation of art. 6 and para. 102 (2) of the Constitution.
14. by the conclusion of 8 June 2016, civil, commercial and administrative jurisdiction of enlarged Supreme Court has ordered the suspension of the process, raising the exception of unconstitutionality and send referral to the Constitutional Court for settlement.
2. The circumstances of the civil case No. 3-704/16 15. A decision on the application of economic sanctions on 14 September 2015, the head of the State Construction Inspection decided from the proceeds of the "Apartment" from the State budget income obtained illegitimately from exaggerating the volumes and value of the works performed at the Bacteriological Laboratory renovation of medical service of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, as well as charging a fine in the amount equivalent.
16. On 17 December 2015, disagreeing with the decision, "Consulting" LLC has filed with the Court, Riscani. Chisinau, claim in court in order for inspection of administrative courts against the State.
17. On 4 October 2016, the representative of the "Apartment" has applied for removal of non-constitutionality exception to the provisions of the first paragraph of point 34 and 3 of the annex. 3 the Government decision nr. 360 of 25 June 1996 on the control of construction quality, citing violation of art. 46 para. (4), 72 para. (3) (a)) and para. 102 (2) of the Constitution.
18. By the same date, the Court has ordered the suspension of the process of referral to the Constitutional Court and the transmission for settlement.
PERTINENT LEGISLATION. The relevant provisions of the Constitution (republished in the Official Gazette, no. 2016, 78, art. 140) are as follows: Article 60Parlamentul, the Supreme representative and legislative body "(1) Parliament is the Supreme representative body of the people of the Republic of Moldova and the sole authority of the laws of the State.
[...].”


Article 72Categorii of the law "(1) Parliament shall adopt constitutional laws, organic laws and ordinary laws.
(2) constitutional laws are aimed at revising the Constitution.
(3) organic law shall regulate: [...] n) crimes, punishments and their execution arrangements;
[...].”


Article 102 acts of Government "(1) the Government shall adopt decisions, ordinances and provisions.
(2) Decisions shall be adopted for organizing the execution of laws.
(3) Ordinances shall be issued under the terms of article 106/2.
[…]”.
20. The relevant provisions of law No. 721-XIII of 2 February 1996 concerning quality of construction (O.g. 1996, no. 25, art. 259) are as follows: section 9Obligaţiile and responsibilities of the State Building Inspection ". 31.-(1) inspection of construction State, established by the Government under the National Organ for directing the construction, as well as other bodies similar to powers laid down by laws, shall be responsible for the exercise of State control over the application of uniform legislation on quality at all stages of construction and construction quality system components, as well as establishing offences and stopping works performed improperly.
[…]”.


Section 10 criminal liability ". 32.-(1) design, verification, providing expertise, achievement of construction execution times of its changes, the person responsible, without complying with the normative documents regarding the strength and stability, and continuation of works performed and terminated by legislative control, where they can affect the strength and stability of constructions, are punishable under the criminal code.
(2) referral to prosecuting organs shall be made by the investor, owner, local public administration bodies or by State Construction Inspection. "section 11 Administrative Liability". 33.-citizens and people with responsible positions who committed acts that constitute offences under the law shall be imposed in accordance with the code of administrative offences of the Republic of Moldova. "


12Răspunderea heritage section "Art. 34.-traders-natural or legal persons, guilty of execution with deviations from the normative documents in force of the construction, alteration, transformation, modernization, consolidation and repair:

a) resolves, at its own expense, the qualitative defects arising from their fault both during construction and in the warranty period established in accordance with the law and the contract;
[…].”
21. The relevant provisions of law No. 317-XV of 18 July 2003 on the regulatory acts of the Government and of other authorities of Central and local public administration bodies (Official Gazette, 2003, # 208-210, art. 830) are as follows: Article 73Elaborarea orders, instructions and other normative acts of central public administration authorities "[...]
(3) the regulatory acts will be limited strictly to the framework established by the acts in the performance of which it is issued and may not be contrary to the provisions thereof. "
22. Relevant provisions of governmental decision No. 360 of 25 June 1996 on the control of construction quality (O.g. 1996, no. 49-50, art. 415) are as follows: Annex No. 3 to Government decision No. 360 of 25 June 1996 REGULATION relating to exercise control over the use of public investment in construction "[...]


II. The BASIC FUNCTIONS of the STATE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION to CONTROL VOLUME and VALUE of CONSTRUCTION object 6. The volume control works and construction of value objects, State Construction Inspection performs the following basic functions: the control plans) draw up and coordinate with the Ministry of finance regarding the objects of construction and capital repairs, as provided for in the State budget law for the respective year;
(b) proposals concerning the composition of) the commissions of municipalities to carry out controls;
c) check the volumes and the cost for construction-Assembly works;
d) problems encountered during find solutions to exercise controls and to their completion;
(e) the Commission's work) organises and representatives of organizations involved in carrying out the inspection;
f) provides in terms of methodological and regulatory control.
[…]


Vi. EXAMINATION of CONTROL MATERIALS and 34 PENALTIES. After approval of the minutes of the head of the inspection on State control in construction shall, in case of detection of exaggerations and value volumes works performed, the decision on payment to the State budget the amounts obtained by illegitimate entrepreneur from exaggerating the volumes and value of the works performed.
Decision and control approved documents will be sent to the territorial State Tax Inspectorate of the entrepreneurial organization that performs the collection, Ministry of finance, financial bodies and to reduce the size of the investments from the State budget or from the local governments and the investor.
Concurrent receipt of amounts (income) obtained illegitimately, from entrepreneurial organization are subject to a fine in the same size, regardless of financial status and its interrelations with the budget. "
In LAW 23. The exceptions of unconstitutionality, the Court notes that they relate to the competence of the Government to regulate sanctions essentially cashing out from legal persons from the State budget the amounts obtained as a result of the illegitimate use of public investment in construction, as well as charging a fine of the same size.
24. Thus, the plea of unconstitutionality refers to a set of elements and principles with constitutional value related competence of the Government to organize and ensure the enforcement of laws and the competence of Parliament to regulate the organic law offences, punishments and their execution arrangements.
A. ADMISSIBILITY Of 25. By its decisions of 8 July 2016 and 2016 on October 28, the Court verified the meeting the following conditions for eligibility: (1) subject to the exception comes into the category of acts covered by article 135 paragraph 1. (1) (a). of the Constitution) 26. In accordance with paragraph 1 of article 135. (1) (a). the Constitution, the) constitutionality of Government decisions, in particular decision No. 360 of 25 June 1996 on the control of quality of construction, the competence of the Constitutional Court.
(2) the exception is raised by one of the parties or its representative, or indicates that it is lifted by the Court ex officio 27. Being raised by parties in civil on the role of the Supreme Court of Justice and the Court of Rascani, Chisinau municipality. Chisinau, exceptions are made by unconstitutionality subjects empowered with that right, 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.
(3) the provisions of the contested to be applied to the settlement of the case. Note that the power of the Court to settle, with the exceptions of unconstitutionality that had 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.
29. the Court note that object exceptions of unconstitutionality is the provisions of the first paragraph of point 34 and 3 of the annex. 3 in Government decision No. 360 of 25 June 1996 on the control of construction quality.
30. the Court supports the arguments of unconstitutionality, the authors of the exceptions under which the contested provisions are to be applied to the settlement of the case, because under their empire were born of legal relations, which continues to produce effects and are determined to resolve the matter on payment to the State budget the amounts obtained illegitimately from exaggerating the volumes and value of the work performed, and the levying of a fine to the entrepreneur in the same size.
(4) there is a previous judgment of the Court has as its object the contested provisions 31. The Court finds that the contested provisions have not previously been the object of constitutionality.
32. Thus, the Court considers that the exceptions of unconstitutionality cannot be rejected as inadmissible and there is no other grounds for interruption of the process, in accordance with the provisions of article 60 of the code of constitutional jurisdiction.
33. the Court observes that the regulation relating to exercise control over the use of public investment in civil engineering was approved by Government decision No. 861 of 31 July 2006 approving amendments to it operating in Government decision No. 360 of 25 June 1996.
34. At the same time, keep in mind that, according to the rules of legislative technique, the provisions amending and supplementing of a legislative act is incorporated, the date of their entry into force, in the basic instrument, identifying with it. Subsequent modification interventions and their add-ins must be reported in the Basic Act.
35. In this context, in order to ensure greater clarity and accessibility of the judgments of the Constitutional Court as a result of the practice of ruling (see Judgment No. 11 of 28 may 2013) will report to Court of appeals acts object. Therefore, the Court will be subject to the provisions of point control of constitutionality of paragraph 34 and three of Annex No. 3 to Government decision No. 360 of 25 June 1996 on the control of construction quality.
36. the Court retains that exceptions of unconstitutionality believes that the provisions are contrary to the criticism of articles 6, paragraph 1, 46. (4), art. 72 para. (3) (a). r) and art. 103 para. (2) of the Constitution.
37. In this case, the object of complaints concerning the plea of unconstitutionality, please note that the provisions of articles 6, paragraph 1, 46. (4) and 72 para. (3) (a). r) are irrelevant in relation to the disputed rule.
38. Thus, in order to elucidate the issues addressed in the exceptions of unconstitutionality, the Court will examine the challenged provisions in relation to article 7. 102 combined with art. 72 para. (3) (a). n) of the Constitution.
B. the CASE of alleged infringement of the FUND article 102 combined with article 72 paragraph 1. (3) (a). 39 of the Constitution). The authors consider that the exceptions of unconstitutionality provisions are contrary to the provisions of article criticism of 102 of the Constitution, whereby the Supreme: "(1) the Government shall adopt decisions, ordinances and provisions.
(2) Decisions shall be adopted for organizing the execution of laws.
[…].”
40. the contested Provisions are to be reported and to article 72 paragraph 1. (3) (a). n) of the Constitution, stating: "(3) by organic law shall regulate: [...]
n) crimes, punishments and their execution arrangements;
[…].”
A. Arguments of unconstitutionality authors exceptions

41. The motivation of non-constitutionality exception, the authors claim that the provisions of the first paragraph of point 34 of the annex to the Government decision No. 360 of 25 June 1996, which empowers the head of State Construction Inspection to issue decision on payment of the amounts obtained illegitimately from exaggerating and volumes of works performed, violates constitutional provisions contained in article 11. 46 para. (4) because the decision of revenue to the State budget the amounts obtained constitutes an illegitimate confiscation and shall be carried out only in compliance with the law, but not under a regulation approved by the Government decision.
42. Also in the referral is that penalties imposed by the State Inspection for construction in the form of "fine" does not result from legal provisions, thus going beyond the competence of Government regulators.
43. Finally, it argues that the Government decision, being adopted into law enforcement. 721 of 2 February 1996 concerning quality of construction, cannot impose pecuniary penalties other than those stipulated by the law.
B. Arguments of authorities 44. According to the President, the provision of point 34 paragraph three of Annex No. 3 to Government decision No. 360 of 25 June 1996 has the status of a rule of law and, being adopted by the Government in the absence of a special law of competencies on the part of Parliament, exceeds the powers of the Executive, sanctioned by art. 102 paragraph 1. (2) of the Constitution.
45. The President contends that the provision is contrary to and criticised the provisions of art. 132 paragraph 2. (1) of the Constitution, according to which any income to the State budget shall be determined by the representative body.
46. in its written opinion, Parliament stated that the provisions of point 34 paragraph three of the regulation relating to exercise control over the use of public investment in construction does not contradict the constitutional provisions cited in the complaint, whereas the judgment in question was adopted into the fulfilment of law No. 721 of 2 February 1996 concerning construction quality.
47. In support of the thesis of constitutionalism, Parliament noted that the aim pursued through the adoption of such rules is to protect both individuals and legal entities of fraud committed in the construction business.
48. Furthermore, in the opinion of the Parliament shall be stated that the contested provision, which establishes the payment of the fine in the amount of 100% of the amount obtained illegitimately by exaggerating the volumes and value of the works performed, it is appropriate and reasonable, whereas any unlawful obtaining of financial sources must be punished to the full extent of the injury caused.
49. In the opinion of the Government, the provisions of point 34 paragraph three of annex 4. 3 the judgment shall not involve the primary character. These provisions take the form, in a field, the primary provisions expressly contained in law No. 721-XIII of 2 February 1996 concerning construction quality.
50. The Government argues that the contested rule violated provisions of articles not concerning separation and cooperation of powers of the State and has not exceeded its powers under article. 102 paragraph 1. (2) of the Constitution.
C. Assessment Of The Court 51. The court notice that one of the conditions to achieve the aims underlying the rule of law constitutes the proper functioning of the public authorities, while respecting the constitutional principles.
52. Thus, article. 60 para. (1) of the Constitution expressis verbis provides the principle that Parliament is the sole legislative authority of the State, and in accordance with the provisions of article 66 of the Constitution, laws and constitutes the sole prerogative of the Parliament.
53. At the same time, keep in mind that for organizing the execution of laws, according to the provisions of article 3. 102 of the Constitution, the Government shall adopt decisions.
54. the Court recalls that, in its judgement No. 23 of September 6, 2013, revealed that "[...] art.7. in conjunction with the provisions of article 96. 102 paragraph 1. (2) of the Constitution, the Government shall ensure that the internal and external policy of the State and exercises the General management of public administration. By virtue of this role, the Government carries out an activity exclusively for Executive, its main task being the Organization and ensuring the execution of laws, in which purpose issue legislative acts in the form of resolutions and provisions. The regulatory acts, adopted by the Government in accordance with and for the enforcement of laws, must not conflict with the provisions thereof, or to overcome them. "
55. Thus, Parliament, as the only legislative power under constitutional and legal provisions, may empower the Government to regulate certain aspects to drill through the provisions of laws normative acts.
56. In this respect, the Court indicates that through the decisions of the Government can be willing financial, organisational measures, in order to achieve institutional legal provisions.
57. the Court noted that, according to the preamble of the judgment No. 360 of 25 June 1996, the Government approved by the annex. 3 regulation relating to exercise control over the use of public investment in construction, for the fulfilment of the law No. 721 of 2 February 1996 concerning construction quality.
58. the court notice that this regulation provides for the mode of exercise of the inspection of construction of State control over the use of public investment in construction.
59. the Court observes that the first paragraph of point 34 of the regulation lays down that after approval of the minutes of the head of the inspection on State control in construction shall, in case of detection of exaggerations and value volumes works performed, the decision on payment to the State budget the amounts obtained by illegitimate entrepreneur from exaggerating the volumes and value of the works performed. Decision and control approved documents will be sent to the territorial State Tax Inspectorate of the entrepreneurial organization that performs the collection, Ministry of finance, financial bodies and to reduce the size of the investments from the State budget or from the local governments and the investor.
60. In this connection, the Court noted that, according to art. 31 of the law on construction quality, inspection and construction of State responsible for State control over the application of uniform legislation on quality at all stages of construction and construction quality system components, as well as establishing offences and stopping works performed improperly.
61. Furthermore, the Court notes that, in accordance with article 5. 28 of law No. 131 of 8 June 2012 State control over business and point 15 of annex II to regulations (until the entry into force of law No. 230 dated 23 September 2016 for the modification and completion of some legislative acts), inspection of construction State come under the category of the organs concerned with the right to initiate inspections and to issue decisions under the Act.
62. In this context, the Court finds that the construction of the State Inspection has been empowered with authority to exercise State control of quality in construction and to issue decisions on compliance with legislative and other normative acts in the field of construction.
63. the Court noted that the purpose of the construction of State control is to ensure the rational use of their investment, compliance with the rules for the use of building materials, construction machinery, the correctness of the calculations of the cost of construction works, the physical volume of actual compliance of the work with those defined in project documentation and execution.
64. Thus, with regard to the author's arguments that exception State budget collection of amounts obtained constitutes an illegitimate confiscation, Court note that purpose of issuing such a decision lies in fact in the repayment of public funds obtained from illegitimate entrepreneur exaggerating and volumes of works performed, recorded by the instrument of control over the use of public investment in civil engineering.
65. Consequently, the Court finds that, by applying the provisions of the first paragraph of point 34 of the annex. 3 the judgment, State Construction Inspection shall exercise its powers in accordance with the legal provisions.
66. At the same time, in accordance with point 34 of the regulation, paragraph three, along with the collection of amounts (income) obtained illegitimately, from entrepreneurial organization are subject to a fine in the same size, regardless of financial status and its interrelations with the budget.
67. the Court reveals that legal basis, organizational, technical and economic activity of natural and legal persons in the field of construction, the obligations and liability of construction quality are laid down in law No. 721-XIII of 2 February 1996 concerning construction quality.
68. In this regard, the Court observes that article. 32, 33 and 34 of the law on construction quality governs situations concerning the criminal liability, administrative and patrimonial.
69. Analysing the legal provisions set out, the Court finds that they do not provide for the levying of a fine to the entrepreneur in the size of the sums obtained illegitimately nor empowers the State Construction Inspection with the power to impose such fines.

70. the court notice that the Government, being an authority of executive power has the power to adopt decisions in order to organize the execution of the laws. Thus, the law empowers the Supreme Government with no right to institute primary rules.
71. the Court recalls that the regulatory by-laws cannot contain primary rules, and the contents of the normative act to be in strict compliance with the rules and the law or normative act superior and cannot introduce new rules other than those laid down by law, regulation or act superior. Furthermore, the Act cannot intervene in areas not covered by the law. Acts of Government are complementary documents that develops and approves the provisions of the law.
72. In this regard, the Court reiterates that the Government, being an authority of executive power to execute the laws. Once the law is directly applicable, the need and legitimacy of a ruling Government appears only in so far as the implementation of a legal advertisement to establish rules consequential to ensure their correct application or corresponding organization activities.
73. Moreover, article 73 paragraph 2. (3) of law No. 317 of 18 July 2003 on the regulatory acts of the Government and of other authorities of Central and local public administration provides that normative acts shall be confined strictly to the framework established by the acts in the performance of which it is issued and may not be contrary to the provisions thereof.
74. Therefore, the Court reiterates that the law should preexiste judgment, thus the Government decision was a legal act secundum legem.
75. 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.
76. In Judgement No. 6 of 16 April 2015 Court held: "[...] by virtue of art. 72 para. (3) (a). n) of the Constitution, regulation of crime, punishment and enforcement regime to their legislative competence, which, in consideration of the specific circumstances, may adopt appropriate legislative measures in the spirit of constitutional principles. The legislature has the right appreciation of situations that need to be covered by the rules. "
77. In such circumstances, the court notice that Government, exercising the responsibility of enforcing the laws, acted ultra vires, entering into the area of competence of the legislative authority.
78. Consequently, the Court finds that by approving the provisions of item 34 three of the regulation relating to exercise control over the use of Government investment in public construction has exceeded the powers, infringing the provisions of art. 102 combined with art. 72 para. (3) (a). n) of the Constitution.
79. In addition, the Court points out that the provisions of law No. 721-XIII of 2 February 1996 concerning quality of construction does not regulate in detail the powers of the State Building Inspection, in particular as regards the issuance of decisions and sanctions in the event of detection of infringements in the field of construction. In doing so, the Court will issue an address to Parliament with a view to regulating its powers to impose sanctions within the framework of the exercise of State control of quality in construction.
For these reasons, under articles 135 para. (1) (a). a) and g) and 140 of the Constitution, 26 of the law on the Constitutional Court, 6, 61, 62 lit. ) and (e)), and 68 of the code of constitutional jurisdiction, the Constitutional Court DECIDES: 1. it recognizes the exception of unconstitutionality raised by Oleg Dațco, Manager of the company "Loveable Grup" SRL, in file No. -580/2016 3ra, pending at the Supreme Court of Justice.
2. partially admit the plea of unconstitutionality raised by LLC "Consulting" in file No. 3-704/2016, pending before the Court, Riscani. Chisinau.
3. Recognizes the constitutional point 34 of Annex No. 3 to Government decision No. 360 of 25 June 1996 on the control of construction quality.
4. Declare unconstitutional three point 34 of Annex No. 3 to Government decision No. 360 of 25 June 1996 on the control of construction quality.
5. 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 No. 29 Alexandru Tanase. Chisinau, October 28, 2016.


PCC-01/73 g/125 g/nr. 29 October 28, 2016 Chişinău, Moldova's Parliament ADDRESS on 28 October 2016 Constitutional Court decision No. 29, whereby, in the way of non-constitutionality exception, on notification constitutionality control exercised point 34 and three first paragraphs in annex 4. 3 in Government decision No. 360 of 25 June 1996 on the control of construction quality.
By that judgment, the Constitutional Court recognized in paragraph first and declared unconstitutional paragraph three of point 34 of the annex to the Judgment No. 360 of 25 June 1996 on the control of construction quality.
The Court noted that, according to art. 31 of the law on construction quality, inspection and construction of State responsible for State control over the application of uniform legislation on quality at all stages of construction and construction quality system components, as well as establishing offences and stopping works performed improperly.
At the same time, in view of the powers of Inspection of the construction State, enshrined by law No. 721-XIII of 2 February 1996 concerning quality of construction, the Court drew attention to the fact that the law does not regulate in detail the powers to issue decisions and to apply penalties in the event of the detection of infringements.
Therefore, taking into account the reasoning set out in Judgment No. 29 dated 28 October 2016, the Court stresses the need for regulating the powers of the State Building Inspection to issue decisions and to apply sanctions in the framework of the exercise of State control of the construction quality.
In accordance with the provisions of article 28/1 of the law on the Constitutional Court, the Court shall request Parliament to examine this address to be communicated the results of its examination within the time limits prescribed by law.

President Alexandru Tanase