Home | Media | News | Complaints rejected by the Constitutional Court of Moldova as being inadmissible
Complaints rejected by the Constitutional Court of Moldova as being inadmissible
On 18 November 2014, the Constitutional Court of Moldova examined the admissibility of two complaints lodged by the Communist Party and by the MPs Igor Dodon and Ion Ceban on 17 November 2014 (complaints no. 55b and 58a of 2014).
The Communist Party lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court asking for the interpretation of the phrase contained in the Articles 1 para. (3), 60 para. (2) and 68 para (1) of the Constitution related to the Judgment of the Constitutional Court no. 4 of 22 April 2013. More specifically, the author asked the Court to make it clear whether Government members dismissed by a no confidence vote for acts of corruption are compatible with exercising their duties as Government members and whether they have the right to be elected as MPs of the Republic of Moldova in the future.
The complaint lodged by the two MPs refers to the Government Decision no. 872 of 20 October 2014 on arrangements related to polling stations abroad, asking the Court to undertake its constitutional review.
Although under the regulations on examining the admissibility of complaints there are 2 months available, considering the potential impact on the electoral process, the Constitutional Court examined them as a matter of priority and delivered the following decisions:
1. The Court rejected as inadmissible the complaint no. 55b on interpreting a phrase contained in the Articles 1 para. (3), 60 para. (2) and 68 para (1) of the Constitution related to the Judgment of the Constitutional Court no. 4 of 22 April 2013, as the norms called upon do not need to be interpreted.
Thus, the Court noted that in its Judgement no. 4 of 22 April 2013 it ruled on a concrete act – a Presidential Decree related to a situation brought about in a Parliament Decision on passing a no confidence vote. The Court also explained the special status of the PM as compared to other Government members. Hence, though the PM carries personal liability for the Government he is leading, the Court made it clear that although the no confidence vote is casted for the entire Government members list and although it was sworn as a bloc and not each member separately, granting confidence to a PM it has a special nature, as he is the one who in his capacity of candidate for the office asked the Government for a confidence vote, which he managed to do in line with constitutional provisions. Ultimately, the Government composition is the expression of confidence which the Parliament is granting to the candidate for the office of a PM.
In the part related to the right to be elected as an MP, eligibility and validation criteria are provided for by the legal framework in force, this being subjected to verifications of authorities having competence in this field.
2. The Court rejected as inadmissible the complaint no. 58a on the constitutional review of the Government Decision no. 872 of 20 October 2014 on arrangements related to polling stations abroad, as these are issues related to legality and opportunity, which is not the competence of the Constitutional Court. Furthermore, the Court noted that this Government Decision has been passed aiming at executing the law (which is not challenged), thus not falling into constitutional jurisdiction, being susceptible to a review of legality, which is the competence of ordinary law courts.
In the same context, the Court stated that establishing the number of polling stations oversees is an issue of opportunity, falling into the competence of the authorities entitled to organise the elections.