Judgment no. 7 of 16.04.2015

Judgment on constitutional review of certain provisions of the Law no. 325/2013 on professional integrity testing (Application no. 43a/2014)


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


Court ruling:
1. en-h72015en2b6a8.pdf


Application:
1.


1. The case originated in an application lodged with the Constitutional Court on 20 June 2014 under Article 135 para. (1) let. a) of the Constitution, Article 25 let. g) of the Law on the Organisation and Operation of the Constitutional Court and Article 38 para. (1) let. g) of the Constitutional

Jurisdiction Code by the Members of Parliament Galina Balmoş, Maria Postoico, Artur Reşetnicov and Igor Vremea on the constitutional review of the phrases "The Constitutional Court" and "The Courts of all levels" provided by the Annex to the Law no. 325 of 23 December 2013 on professional integrity testing.

2. On 31 July 2014, according to Article 31 para. (3) of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Code, the applicants have supplemented the application with additional arguments.

3. The applicants alleged that professional integrity testing of the employees of the Courts of all levels and of the Constitutional Court, including judges, by the employees of an institution which is under the control of the Executive (the National Anti-corruption Center) breaches the principles of the rule of law, separation of state powers and independence of the judiciary, as well as the right to a fair trial and the right to respect for private life, as guaranteed by Article 1 para. (3), Articles 6, 28, 116 para. (1) and para. (6), Article 123 para. (1) and Article 134 para. (2) of the Constitution and by Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the European Convention").

4. On 11 September 2014, the Constitutional Court has declared the application admissible, without prejudicing the merits of the case.

5. The Court requested the opinion of the European Commission for Democracy through Law ("the Venice Commission"). On 15 December 2014, the Venice Commission communicated the Court its Amicus Curiae

Brief (CDL-AD (2014)039) on certain provisions of the Law on professional integrity testing, adopted at its 101st Plenary Session (Venice, 12-13 December 2014).

6. Moreover, in the process of examination of the application the Constitutional Court also requested the opinions of the President of the Republic of Moldova, of the Parliament, the Government and the Superior Council of Magistracy, both prior to and following the communication of the amicus curiae Brief by the Venice Commission (see below).

7. The applicants were not present during the public hearings before the Court to support the application. The Parliament was represented by Mr. Ion

Creangă, head of the General Legal Department within the Secretariat of the Parliament. The Government was represented by Ms. Cristina Țărnă,

Deputy Director of the National Anti-corruption Center, and y Ms. Natalia

Roșca, deputy Head of the General Legislative Department, Ministry of

Justice.

Phone.: +373 22 25-37-08
Fax.: +373 22 25-37-46
Total visits: 4329175  //   Visitors yesterday: 2906  //   today: 668  //   Online: 85
Quick access