Source: https://cis-legislation.com/document.fwx?rgn=15554
Timestamp: 2020-01-24 11:43:32
Document Index: 564080291

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 135', 'Art. 4', 'Art. 4', 'Art. 16', 'Art. 23', 'Art. 24', 'Art. 38', 'Art. 23', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 23', 'Art. 4', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 15', 'Art. 16', 'Art. 17', 'Art. 20', 'Art. 21', 'Art. 7', 'Art. 11', 'Art. 12', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 4', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 4', 'Art. 17', 'Art. 18', 'Art. 19']

Resolution of the Constitutional court of the Republic of Moldova "About control of constitutionality of the Law No. 551-XV of October 18, 2001 "About modification..."
of March 19, 2002 No. 14
About control of constitutionality of the Law No. 551-XV of October 18, 2001 "About introduction of amendments to article 23 of the Law on nationality of the Republic of Moldova No. 1024-XIV of June 2, 2000" *
To Dumitr Pulbere - the judge-speaker
Elena Safaleru is judge with the assistance of Alena Balaban, the secretary of meeting, Konstantin Lazarus, the parliamentary lawyer, the author of the address, Ion Kryange, the permanent representative of Parliament in the Constitutional court, Aleksandra Okhotnikova, the representative of the President of the Republic of Moldova, being guided by Art. 135 of the h. (1) item and) Constitutions, Art. 4 of the h. (1) item and) Law on the Constitutional court, Art. 4 of the h. (1) item and) and Art. 16 of the h. (1) the Code of the constitutional jurisdiction, N1024-XIV of June 2, 2000 considered in open plenary meeting case on control of constitutionality of the Law N551-XV of October 18, 2001 "About modification of Art. 23 of the Law on nationality of the Republic of Moldova".
The address of the parliamentary lawyer Konstantin Lazarus provided on November 7, 2001 according to Art. 24 and 25 of the Law on the Constitutional court, Art. 38 and 39 of the Code of the constitutional jurisdiction formed the basis for consideration of the case.
The address is accepted determination of the Constitutional court of November 19, 2001 to consideration on the merits and is included in the agenda.
During preliminary consideration of the address the Constitutional court requested the points of view of Parliament, the President of the Republic of Moldova, the Government, the Highest trial chamber, the Ministry of Justice, the Prosecutor General's Office, the Helsinki Human Rights Committee in Moldova, Representative offices of UN High Commission for cases of refugees in Moldova.
Having considered case papers, having heard the message of judges-speakers and arguments of the parties, the Constitutional court
1. On October 18, 2001 the Parliament adopted the Law N551-XV which single article made changes in Art. 23 of the h. (1) the Law on nationality of the Republic of Moldova N1024-XIV of June 2, 2000, from the item and) excluded the phrase "proved by degree of jurisdiction" and from the item c) - "proved by degree of jurisdiction" (further - the Laws N1024-XIV and N551-XV).
According to these changes by the presidential decree of the Republic of Moldova of nationality of the Republic of Moldova person which acquired it fraudulently by provision of false information or concealment of essential fact, or person who made especially heavy act which caused significant damage to the state can be deprived. The disputed law Parliament excluded provisions by which proof by degree of jurisdiction, to the publication of the decree, the facts of deception or making by the corresponding person of especially heavy acts which caused significant damage to the state was required.
Having made inquiry about control of constitutionality of the Law N551-XV, the author of the address claims that provisions of Art. 1 of the h were broken by the made changes in Art. 23 of the Law on nationality of the Republic of Moldova. (3), Art. 4 of the h. (1), Art. 6, Art. 15, Art. 16, Art. 17 of the h. (2), Art. 20 and Art. 21 of the Constitution. The author emphasizes that nationality is constitutional right of person and nobody can be randomly deprived of nationality.
At the same time the author considers that as a result of deprivation the presidential decree of the Republic of Moldova of nationality of the Republic of Moldova of person which acquired it fraudulently, or by concealment of the essential fact or which made especially heavy act which caused significant damage to the state, but not proved by degree of jurisdiction, breaks the constitutional principle according to which any person accused of crime execution is considered innocent until his guilt is not established by legal order by public legal proceedings in case of which all necessary guarantees for protection, and also the principle of equality of all citizens before the law and the authorities are provided to it. Thus, the author claims, Art. 7, by Art. 11 and Art. 12 of the European convention on nationality are violated Art. 6 of the European convention on human rights protection and fundamental freedoms, the Art. 4,.
2. Having correlated the challenged provisions to regulations of the Supreme law, the existing domestic legislation and rules of international law, the Constitutional court notes the following.
According to Art. 1 of the h. (3) Constitutions the Republic of Moldova is the democratic, constitutional state in which advantage of the person, its rights and freedom, free development of the human person, justice and political pluralism are the supreme values and are guaranteed.
According to Art. 4 of the h. (1) the Supreme law the constitutional regulations on human rights and freedoms are interpreted and applied according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, pacts and other agreements, one of the parties of which is the Republic of Moldova, and h. (2) the same Article provides that with Amezhdu's discrepancies pacts and agreements on fundamental human rights, one of the parties of which is the Republic of Moldova, and the internal laws the international standards have priority.
The constitutional court notes that the legal regime of nationality is guaranteed to the Art. 17, by Art. 18 and Art. 19 of the Constitution.