Moldovan top court's president says Constitutional Court's decisions meet all European standards

Chisinau, 8 June /MOLDPRES/ - Interview given to the MOLDPRES State News Agency by President of the Moldovan Constitutional Court Alexandru Tanase.  

[MOLDPRES]: European experts have recently presented the findings of a peer review, which represents an assessment of the law-enforcement bodies of Moldova, including the Constitutional Court (CCM). We notice that the experts have remained with the impression that CCM works efficiently enough. The court is well-organised and well-endowed, both with human and material resources. Nevertheless, which would be the arrears of the institution in terms of independent activity and in which aspects do you feel need of a greater effort?   

[Tanase]: In fact, the most important ascertaining made by this mission was the assessment of the quality of CCM’s rulings. In this respect, the mission found out that the decisions adopted by the Court are perfectly in line with the quality standards of the European Union. In essence, experts come up with two recommendations. The first one deals with the amendment of the system of citizens’ access to CCM – an aspect changed through the adoption of the decision on the procedure of checking the constitutional challenge of art. for citizens. The second one concerns the Court’s communication with the public; thus, having a strategy of relationship, we will try to remedy this problem.

[MOLDPRES]: Experts recommended improving the communication with the public, in order to avoid misunderstandings and accusations, according to which CCM would act as a political institution, not a judicial one. How are you going to overcome this problem?

[Tanase]: In fact, CCM is also a political institution; yet, till 2011-2012, the Court was practically inexistent and a false perception was created for people that a Constitutional Court must be this way. In reality, in all democratic countries, the Courts are active and settle problems, being an important element of the political system. What we are set to do is to explain the society that a Constitutional Court is a political “player.” As long as you can cancel the political will of the parliament, government and head of state, obviously that, by the decisions taken, the Court assumes such a role.    

[MOLDPRES]: The report ascertains that there is no direct access to CCM, although the citizens have at their disposal, at least de jure, intermediaries: Ombudsman, Prosecutor General or a member of the parliament. Do you think that other instruments of access to CCM are needed at present as well?    

[Tanase]: The experts were extremely attentive in proposing this instrument, noting that they do not recommend, in particular, addressing of the appeal individually. If we accept individual appeals, we run the risk of blocking both the work of CCM and its transformation into the fourth court of jurisdiction, which would be absolutely wrong. Presently, the citizens have possibility to have access to CCM only in cases in which they are got involved in certain judicial procedures. Facing a court decision, in case a person considers that a certain normative act enforced against him/her is contrary to the Constitution, he/she may appeal to CCM. Thus, while in 20 years, we have had about 60 constitutional challenges of art., then starting from February till June 2016 alone, we have had 70 such cases, which proves that the system starts working.    

[MOLDPRES]: The report recommends extending the CCM’s constitutionality control over all types of administrative acts of general use (according to the Austrian model); what is your opinion about this suggestion?  

[Tanase]: The Constitution makes no difference between which can be or cannot be controlled by CCM; moreover, this would be a problem valid for the political zone, as the politicians are the ones who must accept an extension of CCM’s powers. Presently, the Court has wide enough powers; yet, if a decision is taken at the political level, so that CCM can check also other administrative or political acts, then we will cope with this. Nevertheless, I think that, at present, the legislation needs not to be amended.     

[MOLDPRES]: According to experts, an insignificant increase in the number of judges would be welcome; yet, this would be related to the providing of additional powers. In this case, the way of appointing the CCM judges could be completed with the inclusion of elements of the civil society, especially of bureau of lawyers. How realizable these provisions are and what results can they lead to?

[Tanase]: We are not the ones who could be able to influence this decision. At the same time, it would be good, if the parliament allows increasing the number of judges by one more person and accept that the latter be appointed by the civil society. On the other hand, I do not realize how such an exercise would look like, although I agree that the idea is good. As for the nomination of a judge from the lawyers’ guild, also, it is seems to me a courageous idea, which would offer CCM an extra reliability.       

[MOLDPRES]: Currently, CCM is made up of six judges, appointed for a mandate of six years. European specialists recommend avoiding the appointment of judges for the second mandate. Instead, their mandate can be extended. How applicable these options are and to what improvement can they lead?

[Tanase]: I think that the extension of the CCM judges’ mandates is absolutely necessary. For instance, in all Courts of Europe, they are appointed for a mandate from nine to 12 years. Nevertheless, 12 years is too much for Moldova, as the optimum term for a constitutional judge is eight or nine years. As for the appointment for the second mandate, a CCM ruling said that making a relation between any benefit coming from the position of judge and the getting of the second mandate is contrary to the Constitution and represents an element of pressure. This because a judge, appointed for a single mandate, will do its job honestly; yet, in case a judge has chance to have a new mandate, he/she will be always put in the situation to prove loyalty to those who appointed him/her to office. In this case, it is about the parliament, government and judicial power. Therefore, I opt for the extension of the mandate for a term of nine years and limiting of the second mandate.       

[MOLDPRES]: Which would be the next important steps for the improving CCM’s work, having as basis the recommendations of the European peer review?

[Tanase]: I hope that the government, in a short time, will appoint the sixth CCM judge, as it is inadmissible that, during two years, the Court acts without one judge. We intend to develop jurisprudence, to adopt courageous decisions, to settle problems and provide solutions, no matter whether some or other people are contented with the latter or not.     

[MOLDPRES]: What would you like to tell your critics, who say that CCM exceeds its powers?  

[Tanase]: They should read the report made by European Union experts, which shows that CCM does its job, and which has no ascertaining proving the fact that CCM would have exceeded its powers. Also, the report reads that the decisions taken by the Court meet all the European standards, which responds to all the charges brought so far.

- Thank you for the interview.

(The full interview may be watched on the webpage of MOLDPRES, at the Video section)   

(Reporter A. Plitoc, editor L. Alcaza)