The Constitutional Court has deemed inadmissible the petition to assess the violations of constitutional norms and principles by courts of law and the Central Electoral Commission in their decision to annul the legality of the Chisinau municipal elections that took place on 20 May 2018 (first round) and on 3 June 2018 (second round). Judgment Nr. 93 of 06.09.2018 on the inadmissibility of Petition Nr. 106b/2018 concerning the review of certain provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova is available here.
On 20 July 2018, MPs Tudor Deliu, Maria Ciobanu, Iurie Ţap, Lilian Carp, Grigore Cobzac, and Vadim Pistrinciuc have submitted to the Constitutional Court a petition that was published by the Civic Coalition for Free and Fair Elections, concerning the review of constitutional norms through the following aspects:
- In absence of exact provisions and criteria, can certain authorized state institutions invalidate elections?
- Isn’t the invalidation of elections, in absence of exact provisions and criteria stipulated by legal norms, a violation of the constitutional guarantee of the rights to vote and to be elected, as well as the citizens’ right to participate in the administration of public affairs?
- Can elections be invalidated by courts of law by default, in response to poorly-argued motions to annul elections and in absence of relevant supporting evidence?
In the same petition, the authors asked the Court to provide a list of electoral fraud actions and other criteria conducive to invalidation of elections, and requested a statement concluding the lack of action by executive and legislative authorities, concerning the implementation of the Constitutional Court recommendations issued alongside Judgment Nr. 34 of 13 December 2016, as well as to establish the means of implementing the conclusions of said documents.
The Court has concluded that the authors of the petition haven’t requested the review of the Constitution, but rather the review of legal orders that institute the general grounds for declaring elections void. In light of this aspect, the Court has mentioned that in abstracto interpretation of provisions stated by organic laws would imply a breach of its competencies, as stipulated in 135 par. (1) of the Constitution (Judgment Nr. 1 of 15 March 2012, §36). In such a situation, the Court would assume the role of legislator and of common court of law. According to the judgment, the resolution of this issue falls under the competency of the Moldovan Parliament, which interprets laws and ensures cohesion of legislative regulations throughout the country, as well as under the competency of common courts of law that deal with such types of litigation. Furthermore, the judgment refers to article 114 of the Constitution, which stipulates that justice is done in the name of the law only by courts of law, thus granting them the competency to interpret laws.