Moldovan top court rules legal provisions on Nazi attributes, symbols unconstitutional

Chisinau, 23 November /MOLDPRES/-The Constitutional Court (CC) today examined a notification filed by Liberal Democrat MP Stefan Creanga and ruled that Nazi attributes and symbols had lacked a clear legal definition.
Creanga asked the Court to rule on the Article 1, letter b) of the law No 54 on combating extremist activities and which defines the notion and forms of extremist activity, one of them being the public propagation and demonstration of Nazi attributes or symbols, or any other similar attributes and symbols, that might be mistaken with the original ones. Creanga says the phrase “similar attributes or symbols that might be mistaken” from Article 1, letter b) of the aforementioned law is not clear and predictable enough, thus undermining the freedom of expression and violating the Articles 23, 32 and 45 of the Constitution.
After examining the notification, the court decided that “similar attributes or symbols that might be mistaken” do not comply with the law’s clarity principles, while according to the jurisprudence of the European Court, a law is accessible and predictable if formulated with sufficient precision.
The court strengthened that due to the lack of a list or clear definition of Nazi attributes and symbols, the provisions of the Article 1, letter b) of the law No 54 of 21 February 2003 were imprecise and unclear and did not allow citizens to understand which symbols are banned, which symbols are similar to the Nazi ones, and at the same time, granted courts a wide margin of discretion to rule on the use of such symbols.
The top court has also ruled that the lack of clarity concerning Nazi attributes or symbols and similar attributes or symbols, undermine the freedom of expression, running counter to the Articles 23, 32 and 54 of the Constitution.
Judges of the Constitutional Court declared the point b) of the Article 1 of the law No 54 of 21 February 2003 on combating extremist activity, as unconstitutional.
The court’s ruling is final and cannot be subject to any appeal.
(Reporter A. Zara, Editor A. Raileanu)