Home | Media | News | Dissolution of the Parliament in the event of the impossibility to form the Government within 3 months
Dissolution of the Parliament in the event of the impossibility to form the Government within 3 months
On 1 October 2013 the Constitutional Court delivered its judgment on the interpretation of Article 85 para. (1) and (2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova (Complaint No. 22b/2013).
Circumstances of the case
At the origin of the case lies the complaint submitted to the Constitutional Court on 28 May 2013 under Articles 135 para. (1), lett. b) of the Constitution, 25 para. (1) lett. g) of the Law on the Constitutional Court and 38, para. (1), lett. g) of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Code, by the MP, Mr Serghei Sîrbu, to give the interpretation of the Art. 85 para. (1) and (2) of the Constitution.
The author of the complaint requested the Constitutional Court to give the interpretation of the provisions of Art. 85 para. (1) and (2) of the Constitution in the following aspects:
– The ground of the dissolution of Parliament provided by the art. 85 para. (2) of the Constitution is a continuation of the grounds regulated by paragraph. (1) or it can be applied self-contained?
– Does the impossibility of the Parliament to form the Government within 3 months represents a ground for the dissolution of the Parliament, regardless of the reasons that generated this impossibility and, eventually, since when this term of 3 months begins?
– In the event the circumstances to dissolve the Parliament occur, and if there is no other possibility to overcome the political conflict between authorities, the phrase “may dissolve the Parliament” should be understood as a presidential discretionary right to decide on the dissolution – which eventually could refuse it – or as an obligation of the President of the state to dissolve the Parliament?
– The finding by the Constitutional Court of the circumstances to dissolve the Parliament may be carried out only at the request of the President of the Republic of Moldova, or in order to remove any abuses, this process can be initiated by other subjects with the right to appeal to the Constitutional Court?
The Constitutional Court ruled on the complaint in the following composition:
Mr Alexandru TĂNASE, President,
Mr Aurel BĂIEŞU,
Mr Igor DOLEA,
Mr Victor POPA,
Mr Petru RĂILEAN, judges
Judgment of the Court
Under Article 135 para. (1), lett. b) of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court gave the interpretation of the Article 85 para. (1) and (2) of the Constitution and explained:
– The three months term for the dissolution of the Parliament refers to blocking the procedure of adopting the laws and the impossibility to form the Government;
– Three months term begins to run from the date when the circumstances that led to the need to form a new Government occur, regardless of the starting procedures of setting up a new Government and/or the performing the procedures provided by paragraph (2) of Article 85 of the Constitution; it includes the periods of time for the consultations of the parliamentary fractions and other legal proceedings and it represents the deadline for setting up the new Government.
– The right of the President of the Republic of Moldova to dissolve the Parliament, in the event that the vote of confidence for setting up of the new Government has not passed, occurs within the term of 45 days from the first presidential request and only after the decline of at least two requests of investiture, until the expiry of three months term.
– After the expiry of three months term, the President of the Republic of Moldova is obliged to dissolve the Parliament if the formation of the Government has failed, including if the vote of confidence for the new Government has not passed.
The Judgment of the Constitutional Court is final, cannot be appealed, shall enter into force on the date of passing, and shall be published in the Official Journal of the Republic of Moldova.