Judgment no. 10 of 12.07.2012
JUDGEMENT on constitutionality control of some provisions on the status of the Member of Parliament
The subject of complaint: Member of Parliament
Type of judgment: constitutional review of laws, regulations and decisions of the Parliament
Provision: provisions declared constitutional in part/unconstitutional in part
Application:
Communication:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in the complaint filed with the Constitutional Court on 27 March 2012 by Members of Parliament, Mr. Serghei Sirbu, Artur Resetnicov and Igor Vremea, under articles 135 paragraph (1) letter a) of the Constitution, 25) letter g) of the Law on the Constitutional Court and 38 paragraph (1) letter g) of the Code of Constitutional Jurisdiction, for the control of constitutionality of certain provisions of Law No. 26 of 1 March, 2012 for the amendment and addition of some legislative acts (hereinafter referred to as Law No. 26), by which in the Law on status of parliamentarian in the Parliament and in Parliament s Regulation were introduced norms to provide for the loss of a part of the parliamentarian s salary and other allowances in the event of repeated absence without good reason at plenary sessions of the Parliament or of the meetings of the Standing Committee to which he/she is part of (article I and article II of the Law No. 26).
2. In the public plenary session the representative of the authors of the referral stated that he did not request the control of constitutionality of the provisions as amended by the article III of Law No. 26.
3. The authors of the complaint claimed, in particular, that the provisions of the Article 16 paragraph (3) and (4) of the Law on status of MP and articles 129 and 131 of the Parliament s Regulation, in the redaction of Law No. 26, were in conflict with articles 1 paragraph (3), 2, 7, 16, 18, 43, 46, 47, 54, 60, 64, 66, 68, 69, 70 and 71 of the Constitution and Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
4. By the decision of the Constitutional Court of 12 April 2012 the complaint was declared admissible, without prejudice to the merits of the case.
5. In the examination of the referral, the Constitutional Court requested the opinion of the Parliament, President of the Republic of Moldova and Government.
6. In the public plenary session the authors of the referral were represented by Mr. Serghei Sirbu, Member of Parliament. The Parliament was represented by Mr. S. Chirică, Senior Adviser in the Legal Directorate of the Parliament Secretariat. The Government was represented by Mr. Vladimir Grosu, Deputy Minister of Justice, and Sergiu Sainciuc, Deputy Minister of Labor, Social Protection and Family.







