Judgment no. 21 of 24.06.2015
Judgment on the interpretation of Articles 69 para.(2), 70 para.(1), 99 and 100 of the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova (situations of incompatibility of MPs) (Complaint no. 1b/2015)
The subject of complaint: Member of Parliament
Type of judgment: Interpretation of the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova
Provision: interpretation of the Constitution
Court ruling:
1. en-JCC212015eng7ae01.pdf
Application:
Communication:
1. The case originated with the complaint submitted to the Constitutional Court on 26 January 2015, according to Article 135 para.(1) p.b) of the Constitution, Article 25 p. g) of the Law on the Constitutional Court and Article 38 para. (1) p. g) of the Code of Constitutional Jurisdiction, by Igor Dodon, Zinaida Greceanîi, Vladimir Ţurcan, Vasile Bolea şi Grigore Novac, members of Parliament, on the interpretation of Articles 69 para.(2), 70 para.(1), 99 and 100 of the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova.
2. The authors of the complaint requested the Constitutional Court to interpret the aforementioned Constitutional provisions under the following aspects:
"- What is the moment when there arises the situation of incompatibility for persons elected as MPs and when does the capacity of MP cease legally (by law)?
- Can the MP hold cumulatively two positions: being an MP and at the same time member of the Government, local elected representative, or other incompatible position, after expiration of 30 days from the date of validation of the mandate?
- Is the MP holding cumulatively two incompatible positions entitled to attend plenary sessions of the Parliament, after the submission of the mandate and after expiration of 30 days period provided to reject the mandate of MP, and what are the legal effects of the legislation adopted by the Parliament, with his/her participation (vote)?
- Is the member of Government holding cumulatively the position of MP entitled to attend Government sessions and/or Parliament sessions and what are the legal effects of the legislation adopted by the Government, with his/her participation (vote)?"
3. By the Court decision of 2 February 2015 the complaint was declared admissible, without prejudicing the merits of the case.
4. In the process of examination of the complaint, the Constitutional Court requested the opinions of the Parliament, President of the Republic of Moldova and of the Government.
5. In the public hearing of the Court the authors of the complaint were represented by Mr. Vasile Bolea, Member of Parliament. The Parliament was represented by Mr. Valeriu Kuciuk, senior adviser within the General Legal Department of the Secretariat of the Parliament; the Government was represented by Mr. Sergiu Gurduza, Deputy Minister of Justice.







