RESOLUTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

of October 20, 2011 No. 21

About interpretation of Article 46 of the h. (3) Constitutions (Address No. 17b/2011)

Name of the Republic of Moldova,

Constitutional court in structure:

To Alexander TENASE - the chairman, the judge-speaker

Victor PUSKAS is judge

Petra RAJLJAN - the judge

Elena SAFALERU is judge

Valeria SHTERBETS is judge

the secretary of meeting is Dina Mustyatse,

in view of the address provided and registered on June 10, 2011

considering this address in open plenary meeting,

considering acts and case papers,

accepts the following resolution:

POINTS OF ORDER

1. Is the cornerstone of this case brought into the Constitutional court on April 5, 2011 according to provisions of Art. 25 of the h. (1) item c) Law on the Constitutional court and Art. 38 of the h. (1) the item c) the Code of the constitutional jurisdiction the address of the Minister of Justice Oleg Efrim about interpretation of Article 46 of the h. (3) Constitutions, according to which:

"(3) Legally got property cannot be seized. Legality got is meant."

2. The author of the address asks to explain the Constitutional court by interpretation of Art. 46 of the h. (3) Constitutions following:

"a) Whether the regulation equally protects property of government employees and other workers of the budget sphere who according to the constitutional provisions shall fulfill honesty the duties and whether the regulation implies legality of the implementation of the state position of property got by them for the period, in the same measure and in the same conditions, as for other categories of citizens,

b) What principles shall be the cornerstone of the demands made to government employees and other workers of the budget sphere who shall prove legality got by them during execution of the state position of property that Constitution provisions were not broken

c) What relation exists between regulation of the h. (3) Art. 46 (legality got is meant) and h. (1) Art. 127 (the state protects property), considering the fact that the state shall protect not only private property, but also public property, and for this purpose the state shall have appropriate means,

d) Are how compatible h. (3) Art. 46 (legality got is meant) and h. (2) Art. 54 of the Constitution, considering the fact that organized crime and corruption represent danger to the democratic state, cause loss to homeland security, undermine economic well-being of nation and public order, and affect the rights and freedoms of other persons,

e) Whether the provision of the h allows. (3) Art. 46 (legality got is meant) observance and effective implementation of the obligations undertaken by the Republic of Moldova in case of ratification of the Convention of the Council of Europe on money laundering, identification, withdrawal and confiscation of the income from criminal activities and terrorism financing"

3. Determination of July 11, 2011, without decision in essence, the Constitutional court recognized the address acceptable.

4. During preliminary consideration of the address the Constitutional court requested the points of view of Parliament, the Government, the office of the President, the Supreme council of magistracy, the Highest trial chamber, the Prosecutor General's Office, the Union of lawyers, the Ministries of Internal Affairs, the Center for fight against economic crimes and corruption, the Center for human rights, Academy of Sciences, "Lawyers for Human Rights", "Institute of Penal Reforms" and "Center of Legal Resources" public organizations.

5. In the open plenary session of court according to Art. 31 of the h. (3) the Code of the constitutional jurisdiction the author partially changed subject of the address, extending it and to other workers of the budget sphere.

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