On 13 December 1994 the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova adopted the Law on the Constitutional Court, promulgated by the President of the Republic of Moldova on 25 January 1995. The Constitutional Court started its activity on 23 February 1995, and, thus, after a few days the legal six-year mandate of the Judges of the Court of the first constituency expires. On 23 February 2001 an important period of setting and assertion of the Court as a sole body of constitutional jurisdiction comes to the end. For the first time in the history of the country it was established a body the main purpose of which is to secure the supremacy of the Constitution and the law, the real separation of powers, the substantiation and binding observance of human rights, the mutual responsibility of the state and the citizen, the protection of society from the possible abusive power of the authorities.

The foundation of the Constitutional Court in the Republic of Moldova has been viewed as an adequate step in the process of setting up the state governed by the rule of law, by its existence the Court having ascribed to the state a civilized level. It is worth mentioning that the setting up of the Constitutional Court in 1994 was conditioned by the economic, political and judicial factors, on the background of a great social enthusiasm and social aspirations. In the public life some new ideas on the reformation of the judiciary, the renewal of the institution of law and the improvement of the legislation appeared. None of the aforesaid ideas had such a fast positive reaction upon the social awareness, as the idea of constitutional justice, being accepted with no restrictions by the public opinion. The disputes held on this issue were referred to the establishment of a system of constitutional jurisdiction, and not the idea itself.

As for history the term of 6 years represents an unassuming date, but for us this event has a relevant significance. Throughout this period of time the Constitutional Court has asserted itself as an institution with a great potential, capable to protect the Constitution, and enjoying the fidelity and appreciation of the society.

The figures below represent a relevant example of the Court’s activity during the 6 year-term, which eloquently prove the role of the Court in setting up of the state governed by the rule of law.

As for instance, during the passed years, 450 applications have been lodged with the Court, their number being considerably increased every year. If throughout the first years approximately 30-35 complaints were submitted, then in the last years – 100-140 complaints.

During this period, the Court ruled on the constitutionality review of 160 Laws, 36 Decisions of the Parliament, 6 times it ruled on the Parliament’s Regulation, 34 Decrees of the President of the Republic of Moldova, 92 Decisions and 18 Orders of the Government. Thus, there have been lodged with the Court 67 applications on the interpretation of the Constitution and, accordingly, there have been requested 20 Advisory Opinions on the revision of the Constitution and an Advisory Opinion on the ascertaining the circumstances which justify the dissolution of the Parliament. The President of the Republic of Moldova has submitted to the Court 26 petitions, the Government – 15, the Ministry of Justice – 2, the Supreme Court of Justice – 14, the Prosecutor General – 17, the members of the Parliament – 310, the parliamentary groups – 18, the Ombudsmen – 14, the National Assembly of Gagauzia – 2 complaints, the Central Electoral Commission – 8 appeals on the validation of the member of Parliament mandate.

Thus, 225 complaints have been settled, 229 Judgments have been delivered (including 28 Judgments with reference to the functional competence of the Court), and 116 Decisions being handed down. There have been issued 13 Advisory Opinions on the initiatives of revising the Constitution, and an Advisory Opinion on the ascertaining the circumstances which justify the dissolution of the Parliament. By 29 Judgments, 42 articles of the Constitution have been interpreted.

The Court ruled as being unconstitutional, partially or completely, 53 Laws and 17 Decisions of the Parliament, an article of the Parliament Regulation, 8 Decrees of the President of the Republic, 43 Decisions of the Government, all in all 122 enactments. Throughout this period, the Court confirmed the results of election of the President of the Republic held on 1 December 1996, and the parliamentary elections held on 22 March 1998, it has also confirmed the results of the republican consultative referendum of 23 May 1999, and it has also declared as elected in the Parliament 27 substitute candidates for the office of the member of Parliament.

From the very beginning of the Court’s activity some of its Judgments constituted important prerequisites for the assertion of the Constitutional Court as an independent body and for its position on the hierarchy of the state powers.

Among the first Court Judgments of this kind we can mention the Judgment of 4 April 1996 on the constitutionality review of the Decree of the President of the Republic no. 68 of 15 March 1996, by which Pavel Creanga was dismissed from the office of the Minister of Defense without the Prime Minister proposal.

Analyzing the petitioners’ arguments brought forward and the constitutional acts with a direct reference to the powers of the President of the Republic, the Government, and the Parliament on the issue in question, the Court concluded that the aforesaid decree was unconstitutional on the reason of non-compliance with the constitutional provisions on the separation and co-operation of powers in the state.

We cannot disregard the Court Judgment no. 23 of 21 July 1997 on the constitutionality review of the presidential Decree no. 116-II of 7 April 1997 on the Department for Fighting the Organized Crime and Corruption, by which the Regulation of this Department has been endorsed.

The Decree in question was brought into disputes on the reason that the Department was ascribed an array of powers, which by impairment of the law, infringed upon the rights and fundamental liberties of the person, as provided for by the Constitution.

Considering as unquestionable the necessity of undertaking some organisational economico-financial and legal measures for fighting the organized crime and corruption, the Court argued, however, that these measures have to be embarked upon only within the limits and conditions of the law. Amongst other infringements, the Court asserted that the enforcement of some provisions enshrined in the Regulation might lead to the restrictions of human rights and liberties, including the right to security of a person, the right to family and private life, the right to the inviolability of domicile and the secrecy of correspondence (articles 27, 28, 29 and 30 of the Constitution), and it found as unconstitutional this Decree.

A positive impact on the public opinion had the Court Judgment no. 7 of 17 February 1998, by which it handed down as unconstitutional an array of articles under the Law on the status of the member of Parliament, amended by another law on 25 June 1997.

These provisions stipulate that: at the expiration of the term of service, the member of Parliament which has been acted in Parliament for a period of at least 2 years, should be paid a sole tax-free indemnity of dismissal, equal to the amount of all wages of the member of the Parliament for a term of 10 months; the member of Parliament is entitled to take from the National Bank of Moldova, according to the rules and with the rate of interest established by this financial institution, a bank loan, having a special destination, on amount of no more than 100 thousand lei (national currency) with a resumption term of 15 years, with the purpose of solving the dwelling problems; there have been assimilated the office of the member of Parliament, after the mandate’s expiration, to the public office of the first rank as provided for by the Law on the public service, as well as, the way of granting the qualification degree; there have been established some other advantageous conditions to the members of Parliament.

Having declared these amendments to the Law on the status of the member of Parliament as unconstitutional, the Court emphasized, inter alia, the violation of the Constitution, the non-compliance of some appealed articles to the principles of equality of all citizens before the law and public authorities, regardless as to the race, nationality, ethnic origin, language, religion, sex, opinion, political affiliation, private property or social origin (article 16 of the Constitution).

Following the issue of this Judgment, the members of Parliament feeling worried, probably, of being deprived of all advantageous conditions they were aspired to, have passed four Decisions of the Parliament, by which once again they ascertained the same favourable conditions. The Court handed down as unconstitutional these decisions as well.

A huge response had in the Republic the Court Judgment of 6 March 1999, by which it performed the constitutionality review of the Parliament Decision no. 303-XIV of 3 March 1999 on granting the vote of confidence to the Programme of work and the whole list of the Government. This decision was adopted with the vote of 51 members of the Parliament, from the total number of 101 members. In its Judgment the Court maintained that the voting of the organic laws presupposes the voting of a law being supported by at least half plus one of the casting vote of the members of Parliament. As for the reason that half of the legislature’s constituency represents a fractional number, and the dividing into fractions of a vote is inadmissible (a member of Parliament is entitled to a single vote), thus, the number representing the majority of the elected members in Parliament is of 52 members. As a follow-up to the aforesaid reasons, the Court delivered this Parliament Decision as unconstitutional as well.

The content of the complaints in 2000 has been considerably influenced by the serious discrepancies appeared between the President of the country and the Parliament on the form of governing – the semi- presidentia1, presidential or parliamentary.

Thus, throughout the past year the Court has exercised for three times the constitutionality review of some articles under the Electoral Code.

The issues having a major importance were approached upon in these petitions. Amongst them is the new clause introduced by the Parliament – ”the substitute membev of Parliament”, the issues on the programme broadcasting allowed to the electoral competitors; the date for holding the republican referenda, which, pursuant to the law cannot be carried out on the same day of the parliamentary, presidentiary or general local elections, the right of the Parliament to disclaim proposals concerning the unfolding of the referenda. The Court has been also questioned to examine and to rule on the petitions on the way of organizing the Central Electoral Commission and the election of its Chairman, on the right of political parties to talke part at elections, on the way of conducting the electoral propaganda, on the setting up of the new threshold of representation in the Parliament (6% threshold of the number of all valid votes expressed throughout the republic for supporiting the political parties, or other socio-political organisations and electoral groups, and a 3% threshold of the total number of valid votes for supporting the independent candidates). The Law of 22 September 2000 on the election procedure of the President of the Republic of Moldova, the mechanism of enforcement of the people’s initiative to revise the Constitution, was also submitted to constitutionality review. Other issues with the same content have been challenged at the Court.

Serious discrepancies between the President of the country and the Parliament and their supporters on the form of governing, as mentioned before, had as a result the adoption by the Parliament on 5 July 2000 of the Law on the amendment and completion of the Constitution, by which a parliamentary form of governing has been established in the country. As in pursuance to the amended Constitution, the election of the President of the Republic by the Parliament should be held, but they were blocked by the majority of the members of Parliament. In this case, as in conformity with the constitutional provisions, the Constitutional Court examined this situation and issued a positive Advisory Opinion on the ascertaining the circumstances which justify the dissolution of the Parliament. This situation permitted to the President of the Republic of Moldova to dissolve the Parliament of the XIV-th legislature and to set the date of 25 February 2001 for the parliamentary pre-elections.