The last decisions by the Constitutional Court were adopted in a hurry, with serious deviations from justice and from constitutional justice, by applying an arbitrary procedure. This is the unanimous conclusion of the participants in a roundtable meeting staged by the Institute of International Relations of Moldova, IPN reports.

Attending the event, doctor habilitate in law Teodor Cârnaț said the Constitutional Court’s decision says the time limit for forming a parliamentary majority is June 9. As June 9 fell on a Sunday, the decision was to take effect the next day, on June 10.

As regards the dissolution of Parliament by Pavel Filip, who was named acting President by a decision of the same Court, Teodor Cârnaț said the decision was to meet three conditions cumulatively – the deadline of three months of the validation of the election outcome, consultation of parliamentary groups and the Constitutional Court’s appraisal. “There is no legal reason for suspending Parliament. The Constitutional Court’s decision of June 9, 2019 served as a reason for the usurpation of power by Pavel Filip,” he stated.

Doctor habilitate in law Alexandru Arseni said that from legal viewpoint, the Parliament and the Government led by Maia Sandu work legally and constitutionally. “The Constitutional Court’ s decisions should be based on legal regulations and should not exceeded the institution’s powers,” he noted.

According to Alexandru Arseni, the Constitutional Court is obliged to ensure the supremacy of the Constitution and to make sure that any act that runs counter to the supreme law does not have legal power. “The Constitutional Court’s rulings were adopted in breach of the case law. The examination procedure took place in the absence of documents and without listening to the sides,” stated the expert.

Institute of International Relations rector Valentin Beniuc said the roundtable meeting centers on two vectors of social-human sciences: case law and political sciences. The final resolution of the participants in this event says the Constitutional Court’s decisions generate in society the conviction that the constitutional judges weren’t free and non-influenced in the decision making process.

“In this connection, the participants in the roundtable meeting request the CC judges to review the adopted decisions and to this way show their independence, inalienability and high professional qualities, as they showed before this stalemate,” said Valentin Beniuc, reading the resolution.