RESOLUTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

of June 19, 2012 No. 8

About interpretation of Article 68 of the h. (1) and (2) and Article 69 of the h. (2) Constitutions (Address No. 8b/2012)

Name of the Republic of Moldova

Constitutional court in structure:

To Alexander TENASE, chairman,

Petra RAJLJAN, judge-speaker,

To Dumitr PULBERE,

Victor PUSKAS,

Elena SAFALERU,

Valeria SHTERBETS, judges,

with the assistance of the court clerk Tatyana Oborok,

in view of the address provided on April 27, 2012

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 April 27, 2012 based on Art. 135 of the h formed the basis for consideration of the case. (1) item b) Constitutions, Art. 25 of the h. (1) item g) Law on the Constitutional court and Art. 38 of the h. (1) item g) Code of the constitutional jurisdiction deputies of Parliament Victor of Pop and Valery Muntyanu:

- about interpretation of Article 68 of the h. (1): "In case of execution of the mandate deputies are on service of the people";

- about interpretation of Article 68 of the h. (2): "Any imperative mandate is invalid";

- about interpretation of Article 69 of the h. (2): "The mandate of the deputy stops in day of legal convocation of new structure of Parliament or in case of resignation, deprivation of the mandate, incompatibility of positions or death"

2. Authors of the address ask to give interpretation of Art. 68 of the h. (1) and h. (2) and Art. 69 of the h. (Constitutions and to understand 2):

a) Components of execution of the mandate and availability of communication between the provisions "be on service of the people" and "be the representative of the highest legislature";

b) Whether the constitutional provision according to which "any imperative mandate is invalid" allows, to deprive of the deputy of the mandate in case of evasion it from direct participation in obligatory activities for implementation of legislature which it represents;

c) Whether the syntagma implies "deprivation of the mandate" and cases when the deputy consciously evades from implementation of national sovereignty by means of legislature which part it is.

3. Determination of the Constitutional court of May 14, 2012, without decision in essence, the address acknowledged acceptable.

4. During consideration of the address the Constitutional court had the conclusions of Parliament, Government and Office of the President.

5. Authors of the address participated in open plenary meeting of the Constitutional court personally. The parliament was provided by the main consultant of legal management of the Secretariat of Parliament Serdzhiu Kirike. The government was provided by the Minister of Justice Oleg Efrim.

APPLICABLE LEGISLATION

6. Applicable provisions of the Constitution (M.O., No. 1/1, 1994 of):

Article 1 State Republic of Moldova

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