Name of the Republic of Moldova

RESOLUTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

of May 10, 2016 No. 10

About exceptional case of illegality of some provisions of Art. 345 of the h. (2) the Code about offenses (punishment individualization) (Addresses No. 26g/2016 and 34g/2016)

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 Alena Balaban,

in view of the addresses provided

and registered on March 18 and on April 7, 2016,

having considered the specified addresses 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. Addresses about exceptional case of illegality of the text "penalty on legal entities [Items d) and e)] and on officials [Items a) – f)] in the amount of 300 conventional units" to Art. 345 of the h formed the basis for consideration of the case. (2) the Code about offenses, provided at the request of the lawyer Vladimir to Groce in the cases No. 5r-110/2016 and 5r-109/2016, which are in production of court of the sector to Chentr мун. Chisinau.

2. Addresses about exceptional case of illegality were brought into the Constitutional court on March 18 and on April 7, 2016 by judges of court of the sector to Chentr мун. Chisinau Anna Kucheresku and Natalia Memelige according to provisions of Art. 135 of the h. (1) the item and) and 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 addresses claims that procedure for regulation of the punishment prescribed in Art. 345 of the h. (2) the Code about offenses, contradicts provisions of articles 20 and 22 of the Constitution.

4. Determinations of the Constitutional court of March 23 and on April 12, 2016 without decision on the substance of the address were recognized as acceptable.

5. Considering identity of subject, the Constitutional court decided to combine addresses to one production based on Art. 43 of the Code of the constitutional jurisdiction.

6. During consideration of the case the Constitutional court requested opinion of the President of the Republic of Moldova, Parliament, the Government and the Highest trial chamber.

7. In open plenary meeting of the address the lawyer Vladimir to Groce supported. The government was represented by Eduard Serbenko, the deputy minister of justice. The parliament was represented by Ion Kryange, the chief of General legal management of the Secretariat of Parliament.

Circumstances of the main disputes

1. Circumstances of administrative case No. 5r-110/2016

8. The consumer protection agency constituted on January 26, 2016 the protocol on application of punishment concerning Vitaly Timush, the administrator of Aurarie VS trade enterprise of Ltd company, based on Art. 345 of the h. (2) the item е) the Code about offenses, for lack of legalized gage of mass of objects from precious metal, having imposed on it penalty in the amount of 300 c.u.

9. The offender Vitaly Timush appealed on February 9, 2016 judicially the protocol and the resolution on imposing of penalty constituted by consumer protection Agency on January 26, 2016.

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