RESOLUTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

of November 23, 2011 No. 23

about interpretation of part (4) article 116 of the Constitution (Address No. 32b/2011)

Name of the Republic of Moldova

Constitutional court in structure:

To Alexander TENASE, chairman, judge-speaker,

Victor PUSKAS,

Petra RAJLJAN,

Elena SAFALERU,

Valeria SHTERBETS, judges,

with the assistance of the court clerk Dina Mustyatse,

in view of the address provided on October 10, 2011 and registered by the same number, having considered the specified address in open plenary meeting, considering acts and case papers,

issues the following decree:

POINTS OF ORDER

1. The address brought into the Constitutional court on October 10, 2011 based on Item b) to part (1) article 135 of the Constitution, Item g) formed the basis for consideration of this case to part (1) article 25 of the Law on the Constitutional court and Item g) parts (1) article 38 of the Code of the constitutional jurisdiction the deputy of Parliament Raisa Apolsky about interpretation of part (4) article 116 of the Constitution according to which:

"The chairman, vice-chairmen and judges of the Highest trial chamber are appointed by Parliament on representation of the Supreme council of magistracy."

2. The author of the address appealed to the Constitutional court with request by means of interpretation of part (article 116 of the Constitution to explain 4):

"a) What limits of competence of Parliament in the course of appointment of judges, the chairman and vice-chairmen of the Highest trial chamber; its resolution matters the determining act, or the act which is approving/performing investiture,

b) In what time the Parliament should make the decision on position assignment of judges, the chairman and vice-chairmen of the Highest trial chamber after introduction of the corresponding representation by the Supreme council of magistracy,"

3. The address was accepted determination of the Constitutional court of October 11, 2011 to consideration on the merits.

4. In the course of consideration of the address the Constitutional court requested opinions of Parliament, the President, the Government, the Supreme council of magistracy and the Highest trial chamber.

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