1. The case originated with the complaint submitted to the Constitutional Court on 6 February 2014, 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 Grigore Petrenco, member of Parliament, on the interpretation of articles 1, 69 and 70 of the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova.

2. The author of the complaint requested the Constitutional Court to interpret Article 69 ("Cessation of the MP mandate") and Article 70 ("Incompatibilities and immunities") in conjunction with Article 1 ("Rule of Law") of the Constitution, and to explain:

”1) Is the Member of the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova, who has been convicted for acts of corruption and/or for influence peddling with deprivation of freedom, which is to be actually enforced, and who is internationally wanted, in a situation of political and moral incompatibility with the office of MP and in definite impossibility to continue exercising this mandate?

2) Is the immunity of the MP considered as consumed de jure following a final and enforceable sentence, in this case the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova being compelled to act ex officio with regard to the withdrawal the mandate of the MP aiming at ensuring the enforcement of a prison sentence?

3) In case of conviction of a person while holding the office of Member of the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova by a final judgment delivered by a court from a foreign state for acts of corruption and/or influence peddling with deprivation of freedom, which is to be actually enforced, being internationally wanted, in light of the United Nations Charter and treaties to which the Republic of Moldova is a party, in conjunction with the Constitution, is the immunity of the MP considered consumed de jure, and shall the competent authorities be compelled to execute the provisions of domestic legislation and international/regional/bilateral treaties in the field, with the purpose of providing international legal assistance, requested by the foreign state which citizen the convicted MP is, aiming at enforcing the judgment?"

3. By the Court decision of 19 March 2014 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, of the Government and of the Prosecutor General’s Office

5. In the public hearing of the Court the author of the complaint was not present. The Parliament was represented by Mr. Ion Creangă, Head of the General Legal Department of the Secretariat of the Parliament, the Government was represented by Mr. Nicolae Eșanu, Deputy Minister of Justice. The President of the Republic of Moldova has appointed no representative.