Name of the Republic of Moldova

RESOLUTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

of November 17, 2016 No. 32

About exceptional case of illegality of some provisions concerning execution of requirements against the state (the Address No. 80g/2016)

Constitutional court in structure:

To Alexander Tenase, chairman,

Auryl to Beesh,

Igor Dolya,

Tudor Pantsyru,

Victor of Pop,

Vyacheslav Zaporozhan, judges,

with the assistance of the secretary of meeting Sorin to Muntyan,

in view of the address provided and registered on July 7, 2016

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 Art. 6 of the h formed the basis for consideration of the case. (1) the Law No. 87 of April 21, 2011 on compensation by the state of the harm done by violation of the right to legal proceedings in reasonable time or the rights to execution of the judgment in reasonable time, and also Art. 36-1 of the h. (3) and h. (4) the Law No. 847-XIII of May 24, 1996 on budget system and the budget process provided by the lawyer Nikolay Danilyuk in No. 2-2534/16, being in production of court of the sector Buyukan, мун. Chisinau.

2. The address was brought into the Constitutional court on July 7, 2016 by Dorin Dulgiyeru, the judge of court of the sector Buyukan, мун. Chisinau, based on 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, considers that provisions of Art. 6 of the Law No. 87/2011 and Art. 36-1 of the h. (3) the Law No. 847/1996 contradict article 120 of the Constitution which fixes obligation of observance of final judgments.

4. Determination of the Constitutional court of July 8, 2016, 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 the Highest trial chamber.

6. In open plenary meeting the address was supported by the lawyer Nikolay Danilyuk. The government was represented by Eduard Serbenko, the deputy minister of justice. The parliament was represented by Valery Kuchuk, the main consultant in the head legal department of the Secretariat of Parliament.

Circumstances of the main dispute

7. Olga Kaygorodtsev initiated on March 4, 2008 the civil action against the state about return of property and cost recovery of the property seized and nationalized as a result of political repressions of 1949, compensation of moral harm and court costs. This claim was considered in essence by court of the sector Buyukan, мун twice. Chisinau, twice court of Streshen, four times was considered by Appeal chamber Chisinau and once the Highest trial chamber which returned on January 22, 2014 the claim on new trial to Appeal chamber Chisinau.

8. Olga Kaygorodtsev filed a lawsuit on September 18, 2014 the claim against the Ministry of Justice with the requirement about factual determination of violation of the right to legal proceedings in reasonable time and about the damages recovery according to the procedure provided by the Law No. 87/2011.

9. Court of the sector Buyukan, мун. Chisinau, on January 29, 2015 partially granted the application of the claimant and established violation of the right to consideration of the case in reasonable time, having made the decision on collection in its advantage from the government budget, through the Ministry of Justice, the amounts of 25000 lei as compensation for the done moral harm.

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