REGARDING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF INADMISSIBILITY DECISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

The author has made an analysis to the phenomenon of ignoring the principles of legal certainty and the quality of the norms of law both by legislative in the adoption of the Law on the Constitutional Court and the Code of constitutional jurisdiction, as well as in the derived normative acts, adopted by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Moldova. The author considers that the Court exceeds its powers when interpreting the provisions of the Code of constitutional jurisdiction and even establishes primary rules. The regulation on the procedure for examining the referrals lodges to the Constitutional Court cannot establish ”specific procedures for examining the referrals lodged to the Constitutional Court”, which are not provided by the Code of constitutional jurisdiction. The author argues that the Court voluntarily interpreted the phrase ”preliminary examination” in art. 9 of the Code of constitutional jurisdiction by”preliminary analysis of admissibility”, point 5 of Decision no. AG-3, as long as neither the Code of constitutional jurisdiction nor the Law on the Constitutional Court does not operate with the term ”admissibility”. The author considers that all the decisions of the Constitutional Court, including the so-called decisions of inadmissibility of the referrals, are not final and can be appealed to the Court; not conforming to the principles of clarity and predictability of the legal norms the provisions of art. 26 paragraph (5) of the Law on the Constitutional Court, art. 5 lit. g), art. 78 paragraph (7), art. 82 paragraph (2) - (3) of the Code of constitutional jurisdiction and contrary to the constitutional norm provided by art. 140 par. (2) of the Constitution. The author concludes that the Constitutional Court: is not empowered by law with the right to issue decisions for inadmissibility of referrals, including those regarding the exception of unconstitutionality; it is entitled to make decisions to reject the referral if it finds that the referral is not motivated, does not include the object and circumstances on which the subject bases its requirements, is not exposed the legal norms and the arguments that justify the contested norm is contrary to the Constitution