A group of MPs of the parliamentary majority group proposed putting in place relevant legislation following the general verdict given by the Constitutional Court for the first time in the history of the Republic of Moldova, concerning the unconstitutionally of a party. The given intention got the shape of a law on the implementation of the reasons contained in the CC’s judgment, by which the Shor Party was declared unconstitutional. The bill was given a first reading on July 14 by the same majority group. The experts invited to IPN’s public debate “Parties between rights, responsibilities and unconstitutionality” discussed how good or bad, acceptable or unacceptable these normative regulations are for a democratic society.
Igor Boțan, the permanent expert of IPN’s project, said that under the national legislation, a political party is a voluntary association, with the status of legal entity, of citizens of the Republic of Moldova with the right to vote. By joint activities and based on the principle of free participation, the parties contribute to the conceiving, expressing and implementation their political will.
“A party is unconstitutional when its work is not compliant with the Constitution. Article 41, paragraph 4 of the Constitution explicitly provides that the parties or other sociopolitical organizations that, by their goals or work, plead against political pluralism, the rule of law principles, the sovereignty and independence of the Republic of Moldova are unconditional,” explained the expert.
The decision about the constitutionality of a party is taken by the Constitutional Court. “The declaring of a party unconstitutional means denial of this party’s right to existence. If the CC decides that the party is unconstitutional, dissolution or liquidation follow. The dissolution of a party means its dismemberment. Liquidation is almost synonymous with dissolution. It is the legal and economic operations by which active elements of the property usually turn into liquidity that is used to pay the creditors,” noted Igor Boțan.
According to the expert, the law provides that the right to be elected is a fundamental right and an exclusive political right. This stipulates a person’s right to be elected to the representative bodies of a state, to be able to fulfill an elective post in the state.
Ilie Chirtoacă, executive director of the Legal Resources Center, said the CC’s decision is an unprecedented one so far. “How was such a decision actually reached? Based on a request made by the Government. In the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova, there is a provision saying the parties that plead against political pluralism, against the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity are declared unconstitutional,” he stated.
According to Ilie Chirtoacă, the Constitutional Court made a retrospect based on the arguments of the sides, by which it fixed the violations committed by this party’s representatives who ran in elections chronologically, since 2016. The Court enumerated several irrevocable court judgments by which election contenders of this party were excluded from the electoral race and the party’s leader was convicted by the first and second courts. The Court also made reference to the reported cases of voter corruption.
“Both the law and the international standards say that the declaring of unconstitutionality should be the last and most serious penalty. Here, we can draw a parallel with the employee – the person cannot be dismissed immediately. Disciplinary punishment, remand, harsh remand are imposed and then this can be fired. The Court acted similarly and initially examined the violations ascertained by courts and ultimately decided that the declaring of the party unconstitutional is a proportional penalty,” explained Ilie Chirtoacă.
He also said that the Court ordered to immediately liquidate the outlawed party. The Ministry of Justice was entrusted with the task of constituting a liquidation commission that will manage the party’s property, will ensure the debts are cleared, etc. In practical terms, liquidation means the party’s stamp is no longer valid and the party does not have the right to sign contracts, to run in elections and is ultimately struck off the list of registered parties. At the same time, no state institution has the right to establish relations with this party, while the banks cannot open new accounts for this party and must close the existing accounts.
Political analyst Cornel Ciurea said that those who support this law will evidently insist on the obvious arguments and on those invoked by one of the authors, MP Olesea Stamate, who heads the Parliament’s legal commission on appointment and immunities, namely that following the CC’s decision, other state institutions, including Parliament, must act and adopt laws to clarify the unclear situation in which the members of the Shor Party are.
According to the expert, the opposition considers the reason that led to such a decision are hidden and the government’s sincere wish is to harshly hit the Shor Party as a serious election contender of the Party of Action and Solidarity in the upcoming elections.
“For this reason, the decisions that are taken do not derive from the Constitutional Court’s decision and do not bear relation with the constitutional judges’ intention to stop somehow the alleged dysfunctionality or irregularities. These are alleged because many of the abuses invoked with regard to the Shor Party haven’t been proven in court. This is one of the big stratagems or hypocrisies of this process. In fact, the idea is to eliminate the Shor Party as a serious contender and to institute a system similar to dictatorship. This is related to the obvious arguments that continue to be discussed by civil society and the PAS, while the hidden arguments are related to the debate between the supporters of the opposition and the government,” stated Cornel Ciurea.
As to the gradual punishment, the expert said the CC and the courts of law used up all the stages, but this is something false. “The operations of the Shor Party, for example, weren’t ceased. But the Constitution clearly provides this. The Ministry of Justice didn’t have discussions with the Shor Party on the issue. The stages were skipped and the punishment wasn’t gradual therefore,” noted Cornel Ciurea.
The public debate “Parties between rights, responsibilities and unconstitutionality” was the 286th installment of the series “Developing Political Culture through Public Debates” that are staged by IPN News Agency with assistance from the Hanns Seidel Foundation.
