Judgment no. 14 of 02.05.2017
Judgment on the interpretation of Article 11 of the Constitution
The subject of complaint: A group of MPs of Parliament of the Republic of Moldova
Type of judgment: Interpretation of the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova
Provision: interpretation of the Constitution
1. The case originated in the complaint lodged with the Constitutional Court on 26 May 2014 under Article 135 para.(1) p.b) of the Constitution, Article 4 para.(1) p.b), Article 25 p.g) of the Law on the Constitutional Court and Article 4 para.(1) p.b), Article 38 para.(1) p.g) of the Code of Constitutional Jurisdiction by the MPs Mihai Ghimpu, Valeriu Munteanu, Gheorghe Brega and Corina Fusu on the interpretation of Article 11 of the Constitution, which reads as follows:
"(1) The Republic of Moldova proclaims its permanent neutrality.
(2) The Republic of Moldova does not admit the stationing of any foreign military troops on its territory."
2. The author of the complaint asked the Constitutional Court to interpret Article 11 of the Constitution and thereby to explain whether:
"1. The provisions of Art. 11 of the Constitution is applicable, considering that following the adoption and entering into force of the Constitution, on the territory of the Republic of Moldova there were deployed military troops of another state, these provisions thus being deemed null and void ab initio?
2. Considering the raison d,être of the state the Republic of Moldova, is it admissible any derogation from the principle of permanent neutrality enshrined in Article 11 of the Constitution, in case the perpetuation of neutrality may lead to the state being dismantled or even to its disappearance?
3. The deployment on the territory of the Republic of Moldova of military troops of a group of states or under an international warrant is in breach of Article 11 of the Constitution?"
3. By the Decision of the Constitutional Court of 10 September 2014, the complaint was declared admissible, without prejudicing the merits of the case.
While examining the complaint, the Constitutional Court requested the opinions of the Parliament, of the Presidency, of the Government, as well as other information from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration.