Article 135.(1).g of the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova referring to the settlement of exceptional cases of unconstitutionality through submission of pleas to the Constitutional Court by the Supreme Court of Justice, constitutes at present one of the guarantees for citizens in view of sticking up for their fundamental rights and liberties. The exception of unconstitutionality represents a procedural means for putting in place citizen’s access to constitutionality control of laws as bearer of fundamental rights and liberties. The exception of unconstitutionality expresses an organic and logical link between the issue of constitutionality and the essence of the lawsuit being stated as an incident upon initiative of the parties or from the offi ce by the judicial body. Hence, unconstitutionality exception represents an exception, as a matter and in its capacity of public order, is a technical instrument of constitutionality control which can be evoked in each phrase of a lawsuit. The exception of unconstitutionality constitutes an important possibility of protecting the rights of citizens but it is an insuffi cient one. Under current situation, a person should at fi rst claim to be a victim of an unconstitutional law, then to bring an action against the respective act. In case a law runs counter to the Constitution and has not been subject of constitutionality control due to lack of complaint, then only the exception can preclude it from producing negative eff ects, at least, for a certain person whose case is under examination in a court. Accordingly, it is considered as appropriate both to review the Constitution with a view of enacting an institution for individual complaints on constitutionality and establishing certain legal mechanisms allowing to revive and reanimate an unconstitutionality exception that could be evoked not only through the Supreme Court of Justice but mainly directly by each court, as already stipulated in the Civil Procedure Code (Article 12/1).