The Constitutional Court rejected as inadmissible three applications challenging the constitutionality of some of the amendments made to the law on the prosecution service. These were filed by Prosecutor General Alexandr Stoianoglo and BCS MPs Vasile Bolea and Vladimir Voronin. Judges Sergey Țurcan and Vladimir Țurcan formulated separate opinions, IPN reports.

In a press briefing, CC president Domnica Manole said the challenged legal provisions refer primarily to the composition of the Superior Council of Prosecutors and the age limit of 65 years for the members of the Council, and also to the introduction of a mechanism for assessing the performance of the prosecutor general and the possibility of dismissing this if he performance is described as unsatisfactory. The disputed provisions also modified aspects of the disciplinary liability of the prosecutor general and the dismissal of the deputy prosecutor generals.

The authors of the challenge said the bill by which the criticized norms were introduced wasn’t appraised by the responsible bodies and institutions before this was given a first reading and it also reduced the number of members of the Superior Council of Prosecutors from 15 to 12, which affected the condition of the important number of prosecutors on the Council.

Domnica Manole noted that the Court could not identify any constitutional norms that would introduce the obligation to have the legislative proposals that refer to modifications or reforms in the prosecution bodies appraised and could not determine how the autonomy of the Prosecutor’s Office is affected by assessing the performance of the prosecutor general.

As to the reduction in the number of members of the Superior Council of Prosecutors, the Court held that the Supreme Law leaves to the discretion of Parliament the setting of the number of Council members and of the number of prosecutors on the Council, on condition that these represent an important part. The condition of an important part is not equal to the condition of a majority.

The Court also said that the setting of criteria for performing particular activities cannot be a priori regarded as a violation of the constitutional right to work or as discrimination in relation to the performance of other activities. “The introduction of an age limit does not prevent the persons from continuing work on other segments related to their profession. Based on its case law, the Court could not determine the violation of the right to work and of the indepoendece of the Superior Council of Prosecutors by the setting of an age limit for candidates for Council member and for the members of the Council” stated the president of the Constitutional Court.