Name of the Republic of Moldova

RESOLUTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

of September 20, 2011 No. 17

About interpretation of Art. 78 of the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova

Constitutional court in structure:

To Dumitr Pulbere - the chairman, the judge-speaker

Victor Puskas is judge

Petra Reiljan - the judge

Elena Safaleru is judge

Valeria Shterbets is judge

To Alexander Tenase - the judge

the secretary of meeting - Dean Mustyats, with the assistance of authors of the address, deputies of Parliament Mihai Ghimpu and Tudor Deliu, the permanent representative of Parliament in the Constitutional court Ion Kryange and the representative of Parliament Victor Pop, the permanent representative of the Government in the Constitutional court Oleg Efrim, being guided by provisions of Art. 135 of the h. (1) item b) Constitutions, Art. 4 of the h. (1) item b) Law on the Constitutional court, Art. 4 of the h. (1) item and) and Art. 16 of the h. (1) the Code of the constitutional jurisdiction, considered case on interpretation of Art. 78 of the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova in open plenary meeting.

The address of deputies of Parliament Mihai Ghimpu, Tudor Deliu and Raisa Apolsky provided on April 6, 2011 according to Art. 24 and Art. 25 of the Law on the Constitutional court, Art. 38 and Art. 39 of the Code of the constitutional jurisdiction formed the basis for consideration of the case.

The address was accepted determination of the Constitutional court of June 6, 2011 to consideration on the merits and is included in the agenda.

Having considered case papers, having heard the message of the judge-speaker and explanation of participants of process, the Constitutional court established:

1. The address of April 6, 2011 requests giving interpretation of provisions of Art. 78 of the Constitution for the purpose of explanation of the following aspects:

- whether the Parliament repeatedly on the same basis can be dismissed: not elections of the President of the Republic of Moldova;

- whether the procedure of election of the President of the Republic of Moldova provided in Art. 78 of the Constitution after early election of new Parliament is performed repeatedly if the previous Parliament was dismissed in connection with not election of the head of state;

- whether can develop Parliament the organic law the mechanism which would establish the procedure which is providing election of the head of state and not allowing repeated dissolution of Parliament;

As appears from contents of the address, impossibility of election of the President of the Republic of Moldova in the conditions provided by Art. 78 of the Constitution, 3/5 voices of the elected deputies became the basis for request. Authors consider that the solution of this problem which has political and legal character can be found by interpretation of the constitutional provisions of Art. 78 of the Constitution.

Authors of the address ask to consider the following during interpretation of the constitutional provisions of the Art. 78:

Circumstances on which the address is based resulted from change of Art. 78 of the Constitution by adoption of law No. 1115 of July 5, 2000 which project approved by the Constitutional court provided election of the President of the Republic of Moldova by a majority vote of the elected deputies, however afterwards deputies made amendments to the law and raised this threshold to 3/5.

The impossibility of formation of parliamentary majority which would provide election of the President of the Republic of Moldova created situation when function of the acting president can last beyond all bounds, doing possible repeated dissolution of Parliament.

2. Article 134 of the Constitution determines the status of the Constitutional court as single body of the constitutional jurisdiction in the Republic of Moldova which is independent of any other public power and submits only to the Constitution has obligation to guarantee rule of the Constitution by execution of the powers provided in Art. 135 of the h. (1) Constitutions.

According to Art. 135 of the h. (1) the item b) the Supreme law, interpretation of the Constitution belongs only to powers of body of the constitutional jurisdiction and consists in establishment of true will of the legislator, exact and complete sense of the constitutional regulations, their correct application in space and in time.

Disclaimer! This text was translated by AI translator and is not a valid juridical document. No warranty. No claim. More info