Name of the Republic of Moldova

RESOLUTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

of January 20, 2015 No. 2

About interpretation of Art. 1 of the h. (3) in combination to Art. 69 and Art. 70 of the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova (immunity and the termination of the mandate of the deputy) (the Address No. 6b/2014)

Constitutional court in structure:

To Alexander Tenase, chairman,

Auryl to Beesh,

Igor Dolya,

Tudor Pantsyru,

Victor of Pop, judges,

with the assistance of the secretary of meeting Serdzhiu Stratan,

in view of the address provided and registered on February 6, 2014

having considered the specified address in open plenary meeting,

considering acts and case papers,

having held meeting behind closed doors,

issues the following decree.

Points of order

1. The address of the deputy of Parliament Grigory Petrenko brought into the Constitutional court on February 6, 2014 according to provisions of Article 135 of the h formed the basis for consideration of the case. (1) item b) Constitutions, Article 25 of the item g) Law on the Constitutional court and Article 38 of the h. (1) the item g) the Code of the constitutional jurisdiction, about interpretation of the Art. 1, Art. 69 and Art. 70 of the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova.

2. The author of the address asks the Constitutional court to explain sense of the constitutional regulations containing in Art. 69 ("The termination of the deputy mandate") and Art. 70 ("Incompatibility and immunity") in combination to Art. 1 ("Constitutional state"), proceeding from the following:

"Whether 1) there is deputy of Parliament of the Republic of Moldova condemned for making of acts of corruption and/or extraction of benefit from influence with imprisonment which is subject to execution, and put on the international wanted list in provision of political and moral incompatibility with the status of the deputy and final impossibility to continue the mandate?

Whether 2) the parliamentary privilege lost by right in case of removal of sentence, final and obligatory for execution, Is considered and whether the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova shall show initiative and deprive of the deputy of the mandate to provide execution of sentence about imprisonment?

Whether 3) the parliamentary privilege lost by right in case of condemnation of person during execution of the deputy mandate by the sentence of degree of jurisdiction of other state which took legal effect for making of acts of corruption and/or extraction of benefit from influence, with imprisonment which is subject to execution, put on the international wanted list, in the light of the observance of the Charter of the United Nations and agreements signed by the Republic of Moldova, in the ratio with the constitutional regulations Is considered and whether provisions of the national legal system and international/regional/bilateral agreements in the field for provision of the international legal assistance at the request of other state which citizen is the condemned deputy, for the purpose of ensuring execution of the judgment shall perform competent authorities?

3. Determination of the Constitutional court of March 19, 2014, without decision in essence, the address was acknowledged acceptable.

4. During consideration of the address the Constitutional court requested opinion of Parliament, the President of the Republic of Moldova, the Government and the Prosecutor General's Office.

5. At meeting of the Constitutional court the author of the address was not. Participated in meeting from Parliament Ion Kryange, the chief of the Head legal department of the Secretariat of Parliament, from the Government – the deputy minister of justice, to Nicolae Eshan. The president of the Republic of Moldova did not direct the representative.

Context

- Development of the provisions providing parliamentary immunity and the termination of the deputy mandate

6. Art. 69 and Art. 70 of the Constitution contain the general provisions providing the bases of the termination of the mandate, incompatibility and immunity of the deputy.

7. For the first time the institute of deprivation of the deputy mandate was fixed by the Constitution of 1994 in the Republic of Moldova.

8. The provisions of the Law No. 39-XIII of April 7, 1994 on the status of the deputy of Parliament providing the bases of deprivation of the mandate repeatedly changed. In the last edition, in statement of the Law No. 1157-XV of June 21, 2002, the Law on the status of the deputy provided withdrawal of the mandate of the deputy in two cases:

"a) incompatibility;

b) condemnations by the final decision of degree of jurisdiction for intentional crime." [Art. 2 of the h. (10)]

9. According to Art. 2 of the h. (11) the law the withdrawal of the mandate of the deputy was performed by the Constitutional court at the request of Parliament.

10. These provisions were acknowledged voided by the Law No. 141 of March 21, 2003. So far these legal institutions remain inapplicable as there are no relevant provisions.

11. In 2002 the project about modification of Art. 70 and Art. 71 of the Constitution which limited parliamentary privilege was developed. They would be accepted, arrest, search and involvement of the deputy to responsibility without the consent of legislature would become possible.

12. The Venetian commission for democracy through the right (further – the Venetian commission) in the report adopted at the 51st plenary session of July 5-6, 2002 criticized this project, having noted that it is caused by political crisis in the Republic of Moldova, with "almost daily" meetings in the capital held by opposition. The situation was in details described in the report of the Council of Europe of April 23, 2002 about functioning of democratic institutes in the Republic of Moldova (the Document 9418).

13. During the period from 2011 to 2014 new attempt to change Art. 70 and Art. 71 of the Constitution and to bring the provisions similar offered in 2002 was made. However the project which limited parliamentary immunity did not gather necessary poll.

14. The data on requests on deprivation of immunity (2001-2011) provided to Parliament by the Prosecutor General's Office confirm practice of legal bodies to require deprivation of parliamentary immunity only concerning the deputies representing parliamentary opposition.

Applicable legislation

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

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