The Constitutional Court, acting as part of Mr. Alexandru Tanase, President, Mr. Aurel BĂIEŞU, Mr. Talbot GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION, Mr. Victor PALMER, Mr. Zadrahimi, judges, with the participation of Mr. Marcel Lupu, Registrar, considering the appeal filed on November 15, 2016, recorded at the same time, examining the admissibility of the referral, taking into account the laws and proceedings, Acting on November 18 in the Council Chamber, Pronounce the following decision : in fact 1. The origin of the case lies the plea of unconstitutionality of article. 271 of the civil code and art. 34 para. (1) and paragraph 1. (2) of the law on administrative courts no. 793 of 10 February 2000, adebowale Andrei, part in file No. 3ra -1532/16, on the role of the Supreme Court of Justice.
2. The plea of unconstitutionality has been lodged with the Constitutional Court on 15 November 2016 by the Panel of judges within the College of Civil, commercial and administrative law of the Supreme Court of Justice (Tatiana Valentin, Valentina, Mariana Clevadi, Tamara Chișca-Dwarf Doneva, Oleg Sternioală), 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 8 April 2015, Leslie Andrei has applied for judgment against the State Agency for intellectual property relating to disputes over administrative act. At the same time, the complainant requested the reinstatement of the action.
4. By decision of the Court of Râșcani. From October 1, 2015 action was rejected as being filed in violation of the limitation period.
5. By decision of the Court of appeal on June 15, 2016 Chișinău was rejected appeal Leslie Andrei, Râșcani Court judgment being maintained to mun. From October 1, 2015 Chisinau.
6. On 2 September 2015, Leslie Andrei said the appeal against the decision of the Court of appeal, cassation decision and requesting the lifting of the unconstitutionality of article exception. 271 of the civil code and art. 34 para. (1) and paragraph 1. (2) of the law on administrative courts.
7. by the conclusion of 9 November 2016, the Court upheld the application of non-constitutionality exception and has ordered the referral address forwarding to the Constitutional Court for settlement.
B. relevant Legislation 8. The relevant provisions of the Constitution (republished in the Official Gazette, no. 2016, 78, art. 140) are as follows: Article 20Accesul to justice "(1) Any person shall be entitled to effective satisfaction on the part of competent courts against acts which violate the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests.
(2) no law may restrict the access to justice. "
9. The relevant provisions of the civil code of the Republic of Moldova No. 1107-XV of 6 June 2002 (Official Gazette, 2002, no. 82-86, 661) are as follows: "Article 271Aplicarea concerning extinctive Action defending the right infringed is rejected under the expiry prescription extinctivă only at the request of the person in whose favor the course of prescription, filed up to the conclusion of the debate. In call or in appeal, the opposite of prescription can be justified only where the Court to pronounce as to its merit. "
10. The relevant provisions of the law on administrative courts no. 793 of 10 February 2000 (republished in M.O., 2006 Special Edition) are as follows: "Article 34 (1) the provisions of this law shall be supplemented by the provisions of the code of civil procedure.
(2) a person who considers himself aggrieved in his own right through an administrative act in force, issued before entry into force of this law, shall be entitled to apply to the issuing of public authority or its hierarchically superior body for review of that act under the present law.
[…]”
11. The relevant provisions of the European Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms (done at Rome on 4 November 1950 and ratified by decision of Parliament of the Republic of Moldova No. 1298-XIII of 24 July 1997) are as follows: Article 6Dreptul to due process "1. Everyone has the right to a fair hearing, publicly and in a reasonable period of its cause, by an independent and impartial court established by law, which shall decide upon the infringement of his rights and obligations, be civil on the determination of any criminal charges against him. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly, but access to the courtroom may be forbidden to press and public throughout the process or part thereof in the interest of morality, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the privacy of the parties in the proceedings so require, or to the extent considered necessary by the Court when in special circumstances, the advertisement would be likely to prejudice the interests of Justice. "
In the author's Arguments exception. neconsti-tuționalitate 12. The exception of constitutionality, the author alleges that the contested rules, according to which action of the Court in defence of the right violated is rejected if the limitation period has expired, limits free access to justice, which is contrary to articles 2 (2). (2), 4, 7 and 20 of the Constitution.
B. Assessment Of Court 13. Examining the admissibility of the referral regarding constitutionality exception, the Court notes the following.
14. In accordance with paragraph 1 of article 135. (1) (a). the control of the Constitution), on notification constitutionality of laws, in particular the civil code and the law on administrative courts, it is the responsibility of the Constitutional Court.
15. the Court finds that the appeal relating to the exception of unconstitutionality, being raised by Leslie Andrei, part in file No. 3ra -1532/16, on the role of the Supreme Court of Justice, is formulated 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.

16. 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.
17. In the present case, the Court retains the author essentially invokes exception neconstituționalitatea extinctivă the limitation period within which a person may defend, against filing an action in court, asking the right infringed in this regard on notification constitutionality control art. 271 of the civil code and art. 34 para. (1) and paragraph 1. (2) of the law on administrative courts.
18. the Court notes that, while the provisions being challenged. 271 of the civil code governs rejection of the action pursuant to the expiry of the limitation period, the extinctivă art. 34 para. (1) and paragraph 1. (2) of the law on administrative courts constitute the final and transitional provisions, which explains the method for implementing the law on the adoption thereof. In this respect, the Court shall indicate the lack of a causal link between the contested provisions of the law on administrative courts and the institution of the limitation period.
19. the Court finds that the author invokes exception limiting free access to justice through the establishment of limitation periods for addressing the Court. At the same time, the author has not reasoned exception incidence of constitutional norms on the provisions being challenged and exposed the circumstances on which its based requirements.
20. At the same time, the Court points out that in its constant jurisprudence noted that the right of access to justice cannot be an absolute right, but one that can involve limitations, including procedural, as long as they are reasonable and proportionate to the aim pursued. However, the limitations must not restrict the right of access in such a way as to be reached to substance itself.
21. the Court noted that, according to the civil procedure rules-to put into motion a civil action, it is necessary to carrying out cumulative conditions and form, as well as compliance with the jurisdictional competence of the limitation period, the existence of procedural capacity of exercise, compliance with the rules concerning the form and contents of the request in court.
22. the Court shall retain the obligation of individuals to exercise civil procedural rights within the deadlines set by law give content rule of law, thus ensuring the certainty and security of legal relations.
23. in its jurisprudence, the European Court has noted that in carrying out procedural actions, compliance with the requirements regarding eligibility shall constitute an important aspect of the right to a fair trial. The role played by the prescription deadlines is of major importance when it is interpreted in the light of the Preamble to the Convention, which, in its relevant part, States the rule of law a part of the common heritage of the Contracting States.
24. In the light of those exposed to supra, the Court finds that the exception of constitutionality does not meet the conditions as to form and Fund to be declared admissible.
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 of article 271 of the civil code of the Republic of Moldova nr. 1107-XV of 6 June 2002 and article 34 para. (1) and paragraph 1. (2) of the law on administrative courts no. 793 of 10 February 2000, adebowale Andrei, part in file No. 3ra -1532/16, on the role of the Supreme Court of Justice.
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