Moldova (bbabo.net), - President of the Constitutional Court Domnica Manole issued a statement after the National Integrity Authority (NIR) discovered a conflict of interest. Domnica Manole says that the NON act causes her more bewilderment, reports noi.md

“Taking into account the Act of Statement of the National Integrity Authority No. 432/19 of December 31, 2021, which states that I did not declare or resolve the conflict of interest by abstention, as well as numerous press requests for feedback, I inform you the following:

The act in question raises a number of questions in me.

First of all, the inspector who suggested this ignores the fact that I was challenged in the trial in which I was accused of participation, and that the challenge was considered by my other fellow judges, who made a decision on April 27, 2021.

This decision states that the conflict of interest assumed within the framework of the constitutional jurisdiction procedure is resolved by the Constitutional Court in the manner prescribed by Articles 134, 137 and 140 of the Constitution and 27 of the Code of Constitutional Jurisdiction. The Constitutional Court is guided in its activities by the Constitution, the Law on the Constitutional Court and the Code of Constitutional Jurisdiction, which do not permit the application of other laws in proceedings in the Constitutional Court.

In addition, both the Constitution and the special laws applicable to the constitutional procedure do not allow other public authorities to exercise control over the acts of constitutional jurisdiction. The court also emphasized in the ruling that the only court with jurisdiction to consider and resolve conflicts of interest alleged in the course of constitutional proceedings is the Constitutional Court.

Moreover, if other state bodies were allowed to revise the acts of the Constitutional Court, the guarantees of immunity and independence enjoyed by constitutional judges would be devoid of their content. When exercising their powers, judges of the Constitutional Court are subject only to the Constitution, and they adopt acts on the basis and on behalf of the Constitution.

The decision is binding not only for the judges of the Constitutional Court, but also for the entire legal system of the Republic of Moldova. Ignoring it by the integrity inspector is a gross violation of the Constitution and constitutional laws that require compliance with the jurisdictional acts of the Constitutional Court.

Secondly, the integrity inspector ignores the provisions of the Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 18 of July 10, 2021, which have the same legal force as the operative part of the Decision. In fact, the decisions of the Constitutional Court clarify the Constitution and have the force of the Constitution. Consequently, no state official can apply the provisions of the law that are contrary to the provisions of the judicial act of the Constitutional Court.

In Decision No. 18, the Constitutional Court ruled that the alleged conflict of interest in the context of the constitutional jurisdiction procedure should be resolved only by the Constitutional Court and only in the manner prescribed by Articles 134, 137 and 140 of the Constitution and Article 27 of the Code of Constitutional Jurisdiction, which regulate the recusation of a judge in case of doubt. impartiality.

The court states that the institution of recusal of a constitutional judge is also applicable in the event of a possible conflict of interest in a judicial proceeding, and the institution that makes the final decision on recusal of a constitutional judge (including in the event of a possible conflict of interest in a judicial proceeding) is the Constitutional Court.

The Court also referred to the standard of necessity recognized in the Venice Commission's opinions, which presupposes that the constitutional courts are obliged to rule on the constitutionality of any law challenged by them. If it allowed the blocking of constitutional review through recusals due to the possibility that one or more of its members would face a political challenge, the Constitutional Court would no longer be able to fulfill its role.

The Constitutional Court, as the guarantor of the Constitution, must remain a functioning institution, and the possibility of challenging a judge must not lead to blocking the decision of the Constitutional Court. The court concluded that external control of judicial activity was inadmissible. The only body authorized to carry out such verification is the Constitutional Court. Appointing an executive body, such as the National Integrity Authority, to review the jurisdictional activities of the Constitutional Court would mean recognizing the powers of the executive to resolve constitutional issues, which is prohibited by the Constitution.

bbabo.Net