The Inadmissibility of the Duality of the Exclusive General Competence of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Moldova in Relation to the Powers of the Courts

Abstract

Starting from 2011, the competence of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Moldova in relation to that of the courts was unclear and unstable, which depended on the interpretations given by the Constitutional Court itself. In particular, we are referring to the competence in examining applications regarding contesting the decrees of the President of the Republic of Moldova and the Decision of the Government of the Republic of Moldova. In the last period, the Constitutional Court carried out such a different practice, that in some cases it stated that the control of some Decisions of the Government of the Republic of Moldova belongs to the competence of the courts of common law, and in other cases the same Government Decisions considered to be the object of the constitutional jurisdiction. From the analysis of several decisions of the Constitutional Court, we found that the litigants face a deep problem when they determine at which court they will challenge the decrees of the President of the Republic of Moldova and the Decision of the Government of the Republic of Moldova. That's why in this paper we sought to present this problem that exists in judicial theory and practice, and we submitted recommendations for the resolution of this conflict of competence. We also started from Romanian specialized literature, which mentions that the object of constitutional jurisdiction is entirely particularized. An important solution is that the Moldovan legislator is to stipulate in art. 135 lit. a) from the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova, the particularities of the decrees of the President of the Republic of Moldova and the Decisions of the Government of the Republic of Moldova that can be subject to constitutional jurisdiction.