On 20 August 2019, the Constituitonal Court of Moldova declared inadmissible the request of judge Domnica Manole to revise the Judgment no. AG-6 of 19 August 2019 on the election of the President of the Constitutional Court and of the Judgment AG-7 of 19 August 2019 on the election of the judge discharging the duties of the President of the Constitutional Court during his absence.
The Court recalls that judges Vladimir Ţurcan and Ludmila Şova were proposed as candidates for the office of President of the Constitutional Court by the other members of the Court. Judge Țurcan secured a number of four votes and judge Liuba Şova – two votes.
The applicant stated there were reasonable doubts that the secret vote for the office of President of the Constitutional Court was rigged, a vote cast when the Judgment of the Constitutional Court no. AG-6 of 19 August 2019 was delivered. According to her, the doubts concerning the legality of judgments’ adoption can only be verified and removed by way of revision.
When deciding on the admissibility of the application, the Court had to assess whether the revision conditions required by Article 72 para. (1) let. a) of the Code of Constitutional Jurisdiction were complied with.
The Court observed that the requested revision under Article 72 of the Code of Constitutional Jurisdiction resided in new circumstances, unknown at the date the judgment was delivered, where such circumstances could bring a substantial change to the judgment. Accordingly, the Court was called to find whether the circumstances alleged by judge Domnica Manole were such as to bring a substantial change to the judgment.
In order to deliver on the existence of circumstances that would bring a substantial change to the judgment, the Court requested a clarification from judge Liuba Șova, whose claims judge Domnica Manole relied on in her application.
Judge Liuba Şova provided the Court with a clarification stating that at the moment the vote was cast, she “trusted the legality, independence and impartial nature of the [voting] process.” She maintained that “the secret vote’s result expressed in Court’s plenary is a correct and legal one” and that she does not challenge or put it into doubt from a procedural perspective.
The judge also stated that she received texts on her phone from someone whose identity she did not disclose, texts which she however had not read prior to casting the vote, but only on Monday (19 August 2019) after working hours. Subsequently, judge Liuva Şova stated her vote had not been influenced.
The Court noted that from a time perspective, no influence could had been exercised on judge Liuva Şova as regards the vote cast for the presidency of the Constitutional Court. The Court also noted that judge Liuva Şova stated she voted for herself as candidate.
Moreover, the Verbatim Report no. 1 of the sitting of 19 August 2019 of Constitutional Court’s judges, signed by each judge of this Court, contains the report of the cast votes. Thus, judge Liuva Şova secured a number of two votes and judge Vladimir Țurcan – for votes. The Verbatim Report was based on the filled in voting ballots, which were countersigned. Besides, no one else attended the voting procedure but the Court’s judges – a circumstance precluding any allegations on the vote being rigged when electing the President of the Constitutional Court, a fact which was confirmed by all the six judges.
The Court considered that the circumstances brought in by judge Domnica Manole as grounds for a revision are not so as to change the substance of the Judgments of the Constitutional Court no. AG-6 and AG-7 of 19 August 2019.
This a courtesy translation of the original text of the press-release in Romanian.