Boris Negru: Outlawing of Shor Party can be a present for this party

The outlawing of the Shor Party can be a present for this party as its members can reorganize themselves into a new party and can compete in elections as a new party, doctor habilitate of law Boris Negru, university professor, stated in a public debate hosted by IPN.

“I want to say that the addressed problem is a relatively new one, but not absolutely new. In 1991, the Communist Party was outlawed. Then the given party was also dispossessed of property,” stated Boris Negru.

The outlawing of the Shor Party can be a present for this party. In the Republic of Moldova, a similar case was witnessed when the Communist Party overnight turned into the Agrarian Party and ran in elections, entering Parliament, said the professor.

He warned that the declaring of a party’s unconstitutionality will lose its legal importance if the Constitutional Court does not root out this practice or the same persons will come with a new electoral program and will run in elections. The Constitutional Court should consider and decide if persons who come from a party declared unconstitutional can run in elections, can be registered as candidates.

Boris Negru said this is an intricate issue because the Constitutional Court does not have practice to declare the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of a party, in this case. Unconstitutionality means emphasizing of the circumstances stipulated in the Law on Parties and in Article 41 of the Constitution, which provides that the parties and other sociopolitical organizations that, by their goals or activities, argue against political pluralism, the rule of law principles, the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of the Republic of Moldova can be declared unconstitutional. Even if the proving of a party’s unconstitutionality is initiated by the Ministry of Justice, this cannot complete the process without the Constitutional Court’s decision providing that there are well-founded reasons for outlawing a party.

Boris Negru noted the stopping of activities by a political party does not mean declaring of this party unconstitutional.

“Besides the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova, there is the law of December 21, 2007, whose articles 21 and 22 stipulate the cases in which the suspension of activities of a party can be raised. The declaring of a party’s unconstitutionality is a separate issue. In case of reorganization, this is done on the initiative of party members. Self-dissolution can also be initiated by party members. When it goes to dissolution, the responsible authorities intervene here. Sometimes, the party can be limited in its activity, for a period of up to six months, so that it deals with the objections to it. In six months, the party can return to normal activity,” stated the professor.

Asked about the norms on which the Constitutional Court can base its decision, Boris Negru said that even the name of the Shor Party is a reason for challenging the constitutionality of this party as it contains the name of a person who absconds from justice. Moreover, this party attracts citizens not by political sympathies or values, but by the power of money, including social stores and other methods of providing social assistance used by the party’s leader Ilan Shor.

The public debate entitled “Unconstitutionality of parties under rule of law: legality, benefits, risks?” was the 267th installment of IPN’s project “Developing Political Culture through Public Debates” that is supported by the Hanns Seidel Foundation.

Вы используете модуль ADS Blocker .
IPN поддерживается от рекламы.
Поддержи свободную прессу!
Некоторые функции могут быть заблокированы, отключите модуль ADS Blocker .
Спасибо за понимание!
Команда IPN.