Home | Media | News | Alexandru Tanase: As for judges’ immunity, we will ask the opinion of the Venice Commission
Alexandru Tanase: As for judges’ immunity, we will ask the opinion of the Venice Commission
Alexandru Tănase: As for judges' immunity, we will ask the opinion of the Venice Commission
Published in Actualitate on September 24, 2012, 07:35
TIMPUL: The Constitutional Court released the first comment to the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova. How timely is this release, since AIE declared its intention to adopt a new Constitution?
Alexandru Tănase: Developing a comment to the Basic Law is a memorable moment for the legal and political community. Studies and research on the Constitution help not only develop a better understanding of the Constitution, but also develop the legal theory in general. In our case, the Constitution has been fully commented for the first time since its adoption in 1994. I believe that this comment, as the most recent of all that have been made, will serve as an important support in preparing amendments to the current Constitution and developing the text of the new Constitution.
T: Is this comment the official position of the Constitutional Court?
A. T.: The only interpretations of the Constitution that have legal force are those resulting from the rulings of the Constitutional Court. A research, however good it may be, cannot replace the official position of the Constitutional Court. But the fact that this comment is not an official interpretation of the Constitution in no way reduces its importance. A particular value of this comment derives from the fact that it is the result of the work of practitioners and theorists. This synergy between science and practice has allowed a much broader and deeper approach to the constitutional text. Therefore, it will not be an exaggeration if I say that this research is in itself a new building block in the foundation of national law research capacity. In this context, I want to mention that the development of this work was made possible due to the financial support provided by the German "Hanns Seidel" Foundation.
T: What is the agenda of the Constitutional Court for the judicial year 2012-2013?
This year, the Constitutional Court had to settle important issues such as observing the secrecy of vote in the election of the President of the Republic of Moldova, validating elections for the Presidency of the Republic of Moldova, interpreting Articles 68 para. (1), (2) and 69 para. (2) of the Constitution on the Status of Members of the Parliament, the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Law on allowances for temporary work incapacity.
The Court's agenda will be equally busy in the judicial year 2012-2013 as well. So far, the Court has been asked to establish the constitutionality of certain provisions of the law on the status of servicemen, of the Civil Procedure Code, Criminal Procedure, Enforcement Code and of the Broadcasting Code. Certain provisions of the Administrative Litigation Law, the Law on State Supervision of Public Health, Rules of the Parliament, Citizenship Law, the Law on Freedom of Expression, Regulation on citizens' enrolment in the military service have been challenged.
For the first time we are faced with an avalanche of complaints concerning several laws regulating the activity of financial institutions. It is the Law on the National Commission of Financial Market, the Law on licensing of entrepreneurial activity, the Law on Financial Institutions, Government Decision no. 78 of 02.02.1999 for confirmation of the state assets of Banca de Economii.
An important complaint was lodged by the Supreme Court, requesting constitutionality review of excluding the immunity of judges for crimes of corruption and influence peddling.
T: Why are there so many complaints? Is the quality of adopted laws so poor?
T: It has been rumored in the press that the outcome of the complaint on judges' immunity is predictable because dog does not eat dog...
This change is all the more curious as the Venice Commission itself, respecting the variety of legal systems, recommends states that the Council should have a pluralistic composition in all cases. In this respect, according to the Venice Commission, to meet the requirements inherent to independence of the judiciary, it is sufficient that a substantial part, if not most, of SCM members are judges. In the previous text, before the amendment, this requirement was fully met, or judges accounted for six of the 12 members of the SCM, thus even more than the minimum required by the Venice Commission