The Government didn’t name and didn’t empower an official delegation to negotiate the agreement with the Russian Federation for the provision of the state loan of €200 million. The negotiation was initiated in the absence of the appraisal of the parliamentary commission on foreign policy and European integration and the Ministry of Justice’s opinion about the compatibility of the draft agreement with the provisions of the Constitution and the national legislation. The signing of the agreement was approved in the absence of a Constitutional Court decision concerning its constitutionality, even if the Court was lodged with such a request, says the argued part of the Constitutional Court decision by which the lending agreement between the Government of the Republic of Moldova and the Government of the Russian Federation was declared unconstitutional, IPN reports.
In its decision, the CC noted that on April 23, when Parliament adopted the law to ratify the challenged agreement, the legislature’s commission on foreign policy and European integration presented a co-report on the bill by which it endorsed the ratification of the agreement. “The April 23, 2020 co-report of the parliamentary commission compensates for the procedural shortcomings witnessed in the negotiation and signing of the disputed agreement. But the Court ascertains that the given co-report does not contain references or explanations concerning the invoked procedural violations,” says the decision.
The CC reiterates that Parliament, as the supreme representative body of the people of the Republic of Moldova and as the only legislative authority of the state, is empowered with the duty to control and inform the people about the method of using the prerogatives of the people’s power. To maintain the balance of powers in the state and to respect the principle of preeminence of the law, the legislature should have exercised effective control on the negotiation and signing of the challenged agreement, as it is stipulated in the Constitution. As this condition wasn’t respected, the agreement was signed with violations of the provisions of article 1, par. (3) and article 66 letter i) of the Constitution.
The Court also referred to other challenged aspects, saying the text “outstanding debt and/or interest on the outstanding debt for any of the obligations of the Moldovan side” is not clear in terms of the total debt that should be repaid by Moldova and the way in which this debt is formed. In the absence of a clear limitation, by this agreement the Moldovan side could be obliged to repay the loan provided by the Russian side and also the debts and interest rates on the outstanding debt of Moldovan debtors that took out loans, with the consent of the Moldovan side, from Russian banks. It is not clear if this obligation is or is not limited in time and if it refers to debts accumulated before the signing of the agreement or to debts that will appear after the signing of the agreement.
The Court held that the phrase “Moldovan debtors” is not clear and can be interpreted extensively. The agreement does not provide if this phrase refers only to debtors that are legal entities or also to debtors that are private individuals and does not specify the connection between the debts of these debtors and the loan raised by the state. The agreement also does not limit the number of Moldovan debtors whose overdue debts or interest on overdue debts to Russian banks could be paid by the Moldovan side.
