Conţinutul numărului revistei |
Articolul precedent |
Articolul urmator |
743 4 |
Ultima descărcare din IBN: 2023-09-27 10:54 |
Căutarea după subiecte similare conform CZU |
342.4/.565.2(478) (1) |
Constituții. Adunări legislative (228) |
SM ISO690:2012 BALMUŞ, Victor. Cu privire la constituționalitatea deciziilor de inadmisibilitate ale Curții Constituționale a Republicii Moldova. In: Revista de Ştiinţă, Inovare, Cultură şi Artă „Akademos”, 2019, nr. 4(55), pp. 91-99. ISSN 1857-0461. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3631363 |
EXPORT metadate: Google Scholar Crossref CERIF DataCite Dublin Core |
Revista de Ştiinţă, Inovare, Cultură şi Artă „Akademos” | ||||||
Numărul 4(55) / 2019 / ISSN 1857-0461 /ISSNe 2587-3687 | ||||||
|
||||||
DOI:https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3631363 | ||||||
CZU: 342.4/.565.2(478) | ||||||
Pag. 91-99 | ||||||
|
||||||
Descarcă PDF | ||||||
Rezumat | ||||||
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. |
||||||
Cuvinte-cheie Constitutional Court of the Republic of Moldova, principles of legal certainty and the quality of the norms of law, constitutionality, referral, exception of unconstitutionality, admissibility, decision of inadmissibility, Curtea Constituţională a Republicii Moldova, principiile securității juridice și calității normelor de drept, constituționalitate, sesizare, excepție de neconstituționalitate, admisibilitate, decizie de inadmisibilitate |
||||||
|
DataCite XML Export
<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?> <resource xmlns:xsi='http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance' xmlns='http://datacite.org/schema/kernel-3' xsi:schemaLocation='http://datacite.org/schema/kernel-3 http://schema.datacite.org/meta/kernel-3/metadata.xsd'> <identifier identifierType='DOI'>10.5281/zenodo.3631363</identifier> <creators> <creator> <creatorName>Balmuş, V.I.</creatorName> <affiliation>Institutul de Cercetări Juridice, Politice și Sociologice, Moldova, Republica</affiliation> </creator> </creators> <titles> <title xml:lang='ro'>Cu privire la constituționalitatea deciziilor de inadmisibilitate ale Curții Constituționale a Republicii Moldova</title> </titles> <publisher>Instrumentul Bibliometric National</publisher> <publicationYear>2019</publicationYear> <relatedIdentifier relatedIdentifierType='ISSN' relationType='IsPartOf'>1857-0461</relatedIdentifier> <subjects> <subject>Constitutional Court of the Republic of Moldova</subject> <subject>principles of legal certainty and the quality of the norms of law</subject> <subject>constitutionality</subject> <subject>referral</subject> <subject>exception of unconstitutionality</subject> <subject>admissibility</subject> <subject>decision of inadmissibility</subject> <subject>Curtea Constituţională a Republicii Moldova</subject> <subject>principiile securității juridice și calității normelor de drept</subject> <subject>constituționalitate</subject> <subject>sesizare</subject> <subject>excepție de neconstituționalitate</subject> <subject>admisibilitate</subject> <subject>decizie de inadmisibilitate</subject> <subject schemeURI='http://udcdata.info/' subjectScheme='UDC'>342.4/.565.2(478)</subject> </subjects> <dates> <date dateType='Issued'>2019-12-27</date> </dates> <resourceType resourceTypeGeneral='Text'>Journal article</resourceType> <descriptions> <description xml:lang='en' descriptionType='Abstract'><p>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.</p></description> <description xml:lang='ro' descriptionType='Abstract'><p>Autorul a supus analizei fenomenul ignorării principiilor securității juridice și calității normelor de drept atât de legiuitor în cadrul adoptării Legii cu privire la Curtea Constituțională și a Codului jurisdicției constituționale, cât și în actele normative derivate, adoptate de Curtea Constituțională a Republicii Moldova. În opinia autorului, Curtea își depășește competențele când interpretează prevederile Codului jurisdicției constituționale, ba chiar instituie norme primare. Regulamentul privind procedura de examinare a sesizărilor depuse la Curtea Constituțională nu poate să instituie „proceduri specifice examinării sesizărilor depuse la Curtea Constituțională” care nu sunt prevăzute de Codul jurisdicției constituţionale. După cum susține autorul, Curtea a interpretat voluntar sintagma „examinare preliminară” din art. 9 al Codului jurisdicției constituţionale prin „analiză prealabilă admisibilității”, pct. 5 din Decizia nr. AG-3, atât timp cât nici Codul jurisdicției constituţionale, nici Legea cu privire la Curtea Constituțională nu operează cu termenul „admisibilitate”. Autorul consideră că toate deciziile Curții Constituționale, inclusiv așa-numitele decizii de inadmisibilitate a sesizărilor, nu sunt definitive și pot fi contestate la Curte; nu sunt conforme principiilor clarității și previzibilității normelor juridice dispozițiile art. 26 alin. (5) din Legea cu privire la Curtea Constituțională, art. 5 lit. g), art. 78 alin. (7), art. 82 alin. (2)-(3) din Codul jurisdicției constituționale și-s contrare normei constituționale prevăzute de art. 140 alin. (2) din Constituție. Autorul conchide că Curtea Constituțională: nu este abilitată prin lege cu dreptul de a emite decizii de inadmisibilitate a sesizărilor, inclusiv a celor privind excepția de neconstituționalitate; este în drept să pronunțe decizii de respingere a sesizării în cazul când constată că sesizarea nu este motivată, nu cuprinde obiectul și împrejurările pe care subiectul își întemeiază cerințele, nu sunt expuse normele legale şi argumentele care justifică că norma contestată contravine Constituției.</p></description> </descriptions> <formats> <format>application/pdf</format> </formats> </resource>