The Constitutional Court Recognized Unconstitutional the “Government’s Anti-Crisis Measures Package”. Now What?

On April 13 the Constitutional Court (CC) ruled at the meeting that the “anti-crisis measures package” the government took responsibility for, does not comply with the provisions of the Constitution of Moldova. Note that Head of the Constitutional Court Vladimir Tsurcan did not participate in the consideration of this issue. The chairman of the meeting of the Constitutional Court, Luba Shova, read out the Court’s decision, which upheld the PAS, DA and the Pro Moldova group deputies’ statements who asked the Constitutional Court to assess the constitutionality of the government’s “anti-crisis package”. She also noted that the judge of the Constitutional Court Eduard Ababii had a “dissenting opinion”. It will be published along with the motivational part of the decision. Political analyst Angela Colatchi, in a commentary to NM explained that now the government needs to re-develop the draft law - the new "package of anti-crisis measures." “Then they must again take responsibility for these projects, or come to parliament with these projects. Take the path of strict adherence to regulations. Moreover, after the amendments to the law on the state of emergency, the parliament is competent,” Colatchi said. Recall that the head of the Constitutional Court, Vladimir Tsurcan withdrew and refused to participate in the meeting of the Constitutional Court in order to "eliminate suspicions of impartiality of the Constitutional Court." The deputy from the party “Dignity and Truth Platform” (DA) Dinu Plingau appealed to the Constitutional Court. He asked the Constitutional Court to clarify the legitimacy of several points from the “anti-crisis measures package to support citizens and businesses,” which the government took on its own responsibility and which are in no way connected with the coronavirus epidemic. Since April 9, the Constitutional Court suspended until the final decision not only the measures mentioned by Plingau but the entire “anti-crisis package”. The Constitutional Court explained this with the desire "to avoid negative consequences for the constitutional order."