"I will not comply with the provisions of the Constitutional Tribunal of the Republic of Moldova"
During a press conference held on Wednesday, Holovnia expressed his view on the Constitutional Court's decision of 17 April.
A copy of the Constitutional Court's safeguard order on the application for a Court of State for the president of the NBP was sent to the Sejm. The “freezing” provision states that neither the marshal nor the Sejm has the right to deal with or do anything around Adam Glapiński.
The Marshal of the Sejm informed of his intentions in this matter. He stated that intensive legal analyses showed that the Constitutional Court exceeded its competence in its ruling. He stressed that the proposal would proceed to be made and would not comply with the provisions of Julia Przyłębska.
The Holovnia found the Constitutional Court's decision to exceed its powers and sent a letter to the Constitutional work Committee. The politician forwarded the committee's proposal to get an opinion in line with the analysis of parliamentary lawyers that it needed to be completed on any formal issues.
No rush
Mr Holovnia stressed that the appointment of the president of the NBP to the Court of State should be carried out without any formal or legal doubt. He besides expressed the belief that the urgency of the substance was not indicated, as the subject concerns an crucial state body and procedure.
Hołownia reported that it has given the print numbers of the “most of the laws” notified by the Law and Justice Office. He noted that the Law and Justice had introduced a number of draft laws into the Sejm in a short time, which he compared to "a clear rain of laws".
What's the substance with TK's decision?
In March of that year, Members of the ruling coalition applied in the Sejm to put the president of the NBP before the Court of State, indicating respective allegations. Earlier in January of the same year, the Constitutional Court held that the provisions allowing the Sejm to suspend the president of the NBP after the adoption of an absolute majority resolution are incompatible with the Constitution.
The Constitutional Tribunal stated that the Sejm should adopt specified a resolution by at least 3/5 votes (276 votes), while the parliamentary majority is 248 Members. The Court held that the Sejm could not examine applications for a Court of State for the president of the NBP until the amendments to the law were made.
Prime Minister Donald Tusk, however, stated that the TK verdict was not binding. He explained that there were different legal interpretations.
