Source: http://cis-legislation.com/document.fwx?rgn=15581
Timestamp: 2019-05-22 03:02:26
Document Index: 102672750

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 135', 'Art. 4', 'Art. 4', 'Art. 24', 'Art. 25', 'Art. 38', 'Art. 39', 'Art. 16', 'Art. 24', 'Art. 46', 'Art. 54', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 102', 'Art. 102', 'Art. 6']

Resolution of the Constitutional court of the Republic of Moldova "About control of constitutionality of some provisions of Appendix No. 1 to the Resolution..."
of October 6, 2005 No. 18
About control of constitutionality of some provisions of Appendix No. 1 to the Order of the Government "About Obligatory Civil Liability Insurance of Owners of Vehicles and Urban Electric Transportation" No. 956 of December 28, 1994
Ion VASILATI is judge with the assistance of Lyudmila Kikhay, the secretary of meeting, the parliamentary lawyer Yuriye Perevoznik, the author of the address, representatives of the Government: Victoria Iftodi, the Minister of Justice, Mihai of Pop, the Deputy Minister of Finance, Aleksandra Muntyana, the chief of the State inspectorate for supervision of insurance and non-state pension funds under the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Moldova, according to 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) the item and) the Code of the constitutional jurisdiction considered in open plenary meeting case on control of constitutionality of some provisions of the Appendix N1 to the Order of the Government "About Obligatory Civil Liability Insurance of Owners of Vehicles and Urban Electric Transportation" N956 of December 28, 1994.
The address of the parliamentary lawyer Yuriye Perevoznik provided on June 2, 2005 according to Art. 24 and Art. 25 of the Law on the Constitutional court, Art. 38 and Art. 39 of the Code of the constitutional jurisdiction formed the basis for consideration of the case.
The address was accepted determination of the Constitutional court of June 14, 2005 to consideration on the merits.
In subject of the address the Constitutional court requested the points of view of Parliament, the President of the Republic of Moldova, the Government, the Prosecutor General's Office, the Ministry of Justice, the Highest trial chamber, the State inspectorate for supervision of insurance and non-state pension funds under the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Moldova.
Having considered case papers, having heard the message of the judge-speaker and arguments of participants of meeting, the Constitutional court established:
1. On December 28, 1994 the Government accepted the Resolution N956 "About Obligatory Civil Liability Insurance of Owners of Vehicles and Urban Electric Transportation" (further - the Resolution N 956) by which approved the Conditions of obligatory civil liability insurance of owners of vehicles and urban electric transportation stated in Annex N1 to the resolution (further - Appendix N 1).
According to provisions of Item 28 of the Appendix N1 the insurance indemnity is paid to the injured third parties for the damage caused by bodily harms or death of the road accidents injured with making by unspecified vehicles from Fund of the assistance to the victims of accidents formed under the National agency of insurers of the civil responsibility due to expels of insurers, in the amount of the valid damage, but no more than 2000 minimum wages established in the republic on the date of approach of insurance event, irrespective of the number of victims.
Item 30 of Appendix determines that the insurance indemnity in case of damage or destruction of property as a result of the road accidents is appointed in the amount of the valid damage estimated in the prices operating on the date of loss occurrence taking into account depreciation and ten thousand of minimum wages established in the republic, irrespective of the number of persons, guilty persons or victims in the same road accident are limited to limit.
According to the parliamentary lawyer, these provisions, limiting the amount of compensation of damage, break the constitutional provisions of Art. 16 of the h. (2), Art. 24 of the h. (1), Art. 46 of the h. (1) also contradict Art. 54 of the Constitution as violate human rights.
The author of the address refers also to violation of Art. 6 and Art. 102 of the h. (2) Constitutions, emphasizing that the criticized provisions contain primary precepts of law. However according to Art. 102 of the h. (2) Constitutions of the order of the Government are accepted for the organization of execution of the laws and do not may contain primary precepts of law. Having accepted the Resolution N 956, the Government appropriated functions not peculiar to it, intruded in the area which requires regulation the law, having broken those Art. 6 of the Constitution.