Advice of the Court:

On the basis of the arguments presented, the court established as a circumstance justifying the dissolution of the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova of the 10th legislative term the impossibility of forming a government in accordance with the provisions of Article 85 (1) and (2) of the Constitution. 

This opinion is final, may not be subject to any appeal, shall enter into force on the date of its adoption and shall be published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Moldova.

On Thursday, April 15, 2021, the Constitutional Court issued Opinion no. 1 for the ascertainment of the circumstances justifying the dissolution of the Parliament (referral no. 71f / 2021). The Court's hearing was held in compliance with measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 infections.

Circumstances of the case

At the origin of the case is the complaint filed by Ms. Maia Sandu, President of the Republic of Moldova. Pursuant to Article 85 (1) and (2) of the Constitution, the petitioner asks the Court to establish the circumstances justifying the dissolution of Parliament from the 10th Parliament, due to the expiry of the three-month period within which Parliament was to form the Government and the expiration of the term of 45 days from the first request and the rejection of two requests for investment by the Government.

The Court's analysis

In order to find, in this case, that the circumstances provided for in Article 85 (1) and (2) of the Constitution, which justify the dissolution of the Parliament, were met, the Court examined:

(a) if Parliament has rejected at least two requests for the Government to invest;

(b) if the Government has not been formed for three months;

(c) whether the parliamentary factions have been consulted pursuant to Rule 85 para. (1) of the Constitution.

a) If the Parliament has rejected at least two requests for the investiture of the Government

In the present case, the Court noted that the Government's first investment request dates from February 8, 2021, when Ms. Natalia Gavrilița, candidate for the position of Prime Minister, appointed by the President of the Republic by Decree no. 25-IX of January 27, 2021, submitted an application to the President of the Parliament, requesting the vote of confidence of the Parliament on the program of activity and the entire list of the Government.

On February 11, 2021, the Parliament rejected the Government's request for investment.

Therefore, the Court found that the Government's first request for investment was rejected.

In theproceedings for the first call for applications, it can be argued that parliamentary factions have reasonably had the opportunity to nominate a candidate and that their failure to exercise that power cannot be attributed to other authorities.

The Court therefore found that the failure to form the Government at the first request could be imputed to Parliament.

The Court underlined that, from February 11, 2021, an absolute parliamentary majority was formalized, which supported the candidacy of Ms. Mariana Durleșteanu for the position of Prime Minister.

Considering the refusal of Mrs. Mariana Durleșteanu to run, by the Decree of the President of the Republic of Moldova no. 47-IX of March 16, 2021, Mr. Igor Grosu was appointed as a candidate for the position of Prime Minister.

The appointment of Mr. Igor Grosu in this capacity was due to the discretionary power of the President of the Republic.

At the same time, the Court held that both

- the rejection of Mariana Durleșteanu as a candidate for the office of Prime Minister on the part of the formalised absolute parliamentary majority

- and the fact that the parliamentary majority did not ensure that the proposed candidate was persuaded to maintain her consent to run for the office of Prime Minister

could not be attributed to the President of the Republic. 

This situation is imputable to the Parliament, since the resignation of the representative (i.e. the candidate) manifests, on this constitutional level, negative effects for the represented (i.e. the parliamentary majority), effects that cannot be imputed to a third party.

The second investment request of the Government dates back to March 23, 2021, when Mr. Igor Grosu submitted an application to the Secretariat of the Parliament requesting the vote of confidence of the Parliament on the activity program and the entire list of the Government.

The debate on the work program and the Government's list was set for March 25, 2021.

The presentation of the work program and the entire Government list proposed by Mr Igor Grosu failed due to the lack of a quorum in Parliament.

In its case law, the Court has held that failure to meet a quorum when examining the subject of a Government's investment constitutes a failure of the investment.

Therefore, on March 25, 2021, the Parliament rejected the Government's second investment request.

The Court also noted that 45 days had elapsed from the first application for investment (i.e. 8 February 2021) to the rejection of the second application for investment (i.e. 25 March 2021).

The Court therefore found that the condition of rejecting at least two investment applications within a maximum of 45 days between them was met.

b) If the Government has not been formed for three months

In its jurisprudence, the Court held that the term of three months, provided by par. (1) of Article 85 of the Constitution, is a general term of formation of the Government, which begins to run from the date of the circumstances that determined the need to form a new Government and flows regardless of the initiation of the procedures for the formation of the new Government and / or fulfillment of the procedures provided for in paragraph 2 of Article 85 of the Constitution.

The three-month period includes periods of consultation of parliamentary factions and other legal proceedings and constitutes a time limit for the formation of the new Government.

In this case, the Court noted that the three-month period for the formation of the Government started on 23 December 2020 (the date of the Government's resignation) and expired on 23 March 2021.

Consequently, the Court noted that the condition regarding the impossibility of forming the Government for three months, as established by Article 85 para. (1) of the Constitution, is met.

c) If the parliamentary factions have been consulted on the basis of Article 85 (1) of the Constitution

The Court noted that on March 26 and 29, 2021, the President of the Republic consulted the parliamentary factions, thus fulfilling the requirement of Article 85 (1) of the Constitution.

Therefore, the Court found that the referral to the Court of Justice of the President of the Republic to establish the circumstances justifying the dissolution of the Parliament of the 10th Parliament was submitted after consultation of the parliamentary factions, as provided in Article 85 (1) of the Constitution.

Conclusions

The Court reported the facts to the number of applications for Government investment, in accordance with Article 85 (2) of the Constitution, to the fulfillment of the constitutional deadline for the formation of the Government and to the organization by the President of the Republic of mandatory consultations required by Article 85 (1) of the Constitution and found the meeting of constitutional circumstances justifying the dissolution of Parliament.

Advice of the Court:

On the basis of the arguments presented, the court established as a circumstance justifying the dissolution of the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova of the 10th legislative term the impossibility of forming a government in accordance with the provisions of Article 85 (1) and (2) of the Constitution. 

This opinion is final, may not be subject to any appeal, shall enter into force on the date of its adoption and shall be published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Moldova.

The full text of the decision will be available on the website of the Constitutional Court http://www.constcourt.md/