Name of the Republic of Moldova

RESOLUTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

of December 14, 2017 No. 39

About exceptional case of illegality of Articles 15 of the h. (2) item d) and 38 h. (4) item f) Executive code of the Republic of Moldova (address No. 24g/2017 of)

Constitutional court in structure:

Tudor Pantsyru, chairman,

Auryl to Beesh,

Igor Dolya,

Victoria Iftodi,

Victor of Pop,

Vyacheslav Zaporozhan, judges,

with the assistance of the secretary of meeting Lyudmila Kikhay,

in view of the address provided and registered on February 22, 2017

having considered the specified address in open plenary meeting, considering acts and case papers,

having carried out discussion in the consultative room,

issues the following decree.

Points of order

1. The address about exceptional case of illegality of Articles 15 of the h formed the basis for consideration of the case. (2) item d) and 38 h. (4) the item f) the Executive code of the Republic of Moldova No. 443-XV of December 24, 2004, declared by the lawyer Aureliu Skortsesku in No. 2rh-164/2016, being in production of Appeal chamber Chisinau.

2. The address was brought into the Constitutional court on February 22, 2017 by board on civil cases of Appeal chamber Chisinau (Anna Panov, Maria Moraru, Valeriu Efros) according to Art. 135 of the h. (1) the item and) and the item g) Constitutions, in the light of its interpretation by the Resolution of the Constitutional court No. 2 of February 9, 2016, and also Regulations on procedure for consideration of the addresses brought into the Constitutional court.

3. The author of the address in effect claims that provisions of Articles 15 of the h. (2) item d) and 38 h. (4) the item f) the Executive code contradict Articles 1 of the h. (3), 46 h. (1) and h. (2) and 54 h. (1) Constitutions.

4. Determination of the Constitutional court of March 10, 2017 without decision in essence the address was acknowledged acceptable.

5. During consideration of the address the Constitutional court requested opinion of Parliament, the President of the Republic of Moldova, the Government and National union of legal executives.

6. In open plenary meeting of the Constitutional court the address was supported by the lawyer Aureliu Skortsesku. The parliament was represented by Valeriu Kuchuk, the chief of service of representation in the Constitutional court and law enforcement agencies of general legal management of the Secretariat of Parliament. The government was represented by Eduard Serbenko, the state secretary of the Ministry of Justice.

A. Circumstances of the main dispute

7. Court of the sector to Chentr мун. Chisinau transferred on March 21, 2006 to executive bureau of the sector of the Botanist of Executive department of the Ministry of Justice the writ of execution about collection with L.A. for benefit of L.S. of the alimony for content of the minor child.

8. The bailiff Marjan Naku took out on May 6, 2006 determination about adoption of the executive document to execution, excitement of enforcement proceeding and provision of term for voluntary execution. Afterwards based on the statement of the debtor of October 18, 2006 the executive document was transferred on its place of employment for implementation of payroll deductions by the employer.

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