10 Nov 2017 20:18

Moldovan parliament refuses to discuss opposition initiative on no confidence vote in Constitutional Court

CHISINAU. Nov 10 (Interfax) - The Moldovan parliament refused to consider a vote of no confidence in the Constitutional Court, which the Communist and Socialist opposition parties attempted to initiate.

Elena Bodnarenco, a Communist party deputy, said in parliament on Friday that Socialists backed the initiative with which Communists came up last week.

"Thus we have collected more than the necessary 15 petitions and are insisting that the resolution we drafted on a vote of no confidence in the judges of the Constitutional Court be considered. We must condemn and stop the operations of the current composition of the court, which interprets the constitution to its own liking demonstrating absolute disrespect for it," Bodnarenco said.

She said the resolution's authors identified numerous abuses by judges, particularly "when they recognized the supremacy of the declaration of independence over the constitution which in the future gives the opportunity to change the name of the official language."

Parliament speaker Andrian Candu did not read out the draft resolution on the vote of no confidence or register it in keeping with the parliament's regulations.

"It is the first time that I am hearing anything of the kind. We cannot raise the issue of a vote of confidence in the Constitutional Court. Such a thing is absent from the constitution," he said.

Inna Supac, another Communist deputy, argued: "The regulations of parliament stipulate the bringing of no confidence votes."

Candu replied: "It is very difficult to provide explanations to stupid things. If the Communist Party faction needs legal consultations, then the legal department of parliament is at your disposal to render you help and consultations."

In turn, Communist Party chairman Vladimir Voronin said that the attitude of the legal department contradicts the regulations of parliament.

"For instance, to our protest that the speaker should not speak on behalf of the entire parliament your lawyers provide some explanations. But there is nothing to explain here - the speaker of parliament can express his personal point of view but not speak on behalf of the entire parliament," Voronin said.

In reply, Candu referred to the regulations of parliament saying that "the speaker represents parliament in the country and abroad."

The draft resolution which the left-wing parties tried to submit refers to "the provisions of the constitution and other legislative acts."

They suggest "bringing a vote of no confidence in members of the Constitutional Court, initiating the procedure of their dismissal and urgently making changes in the procedure of removing Constitutional Court judges from their posts."

The draft resolution refers to Article 105 of the constitution dealing with the relations between the parliament and government and saying that "parliament can pass a resolution reflecting its position on the subject of the inquiry [concerning the government and its members]."

However, in line with the constitution "the Constitutional Court is independent of any other public power and is subordinate only to the constitution." Article 137 of the Constitution states that "judges of the Constitutional Court are irremovable during their term of office, independent and subordinate only to the constitution."