ficially explained only by the Constitutional Court of the Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublika in session, at the petition of bodies or persons having the right to application to the Constitutional Court of the Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublika, other bodies and persons to whom the petition is directed. The decision of the Constitutional Court is subjected to execution in no event after its publication or delivery of its official text if no other terms are specially fixed in it. Non execution, inadequate execution or hindrance to execution attracts the responsibility established by the current legislation of the Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublika. Thus, the validity of decisions of the supreme body of the constitutional justice of the Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublika is determined by the special legal status and the place of this body, both in the system of bodies of the government, and in the system of bodies of the judicial power. decisions of the Constitutional Court materializing such powers of Court, as: the verification of constitutionality of laws, of sublawful acts, contracts, etc., the resolution of disputes about the competence, and interpretation of the Constitution, are the special kind of sources of the constitutional law. The basic property of decisions of the Constitutional Court is their compulsion. Property of compulsion, first of all, means, that the act admitted unconstitutional, can not be executed, applied or realized in different ways. The given act can not form the basis for adoption of other legal acts henceforth. Besides the decision of the Constitutional Court generates for separate subjects of the constitutional legal relations absolutely other legal consequences. For example, judicial bodies and other law enforcement bodies are obliged to reconsider their decisions adopted on the basis of the act, admitted unconstitutional. it is necessary to note that the legislation on activity of the Constitutional Court does not establish, whether the binding character is distributed to the motivation part of the final decision or the given characteristic is inherent only to the deciding part. We think that the resolution part is inextricably related with the motivation part which grounds their adopted decision and in this connection it is impossible to consider the deciding part as independent. Moreover, the motivation part contains such regulations without which the resolution part would be not clear; therefore it also possesses the obligatory validity, the same as the deciding part of the decision of the Constitutional Court. As decisions of the Constitutional Court are insuperable, hence, it is impossible to overcome decisions of the given Court with the repeated adoption of the act admitted unconstitutional. Besides the decision of the Constitutional Court can not be overcome as the decision adopted by the Constitutional Court is final, comes into force in no event after its declaration. And as the decision is made by the supreme judicial body of the constitutional control, hence, constitutionally it has final character and is not subjected to t appeal. The specified feature of decisions of the Constitutional Court emphasizes once again the significance of acts of the supreme body of the constitutional control of maintenance of the priority of the Constitution of the state. the question on the validity of decisions of the Constitutional Court as they directly are connected with the problem of their realization, it is necessary to note the following. A number of jurists including jurists of the Russian jurisprudence, relate the given question to the debatable one, for example, judges of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation VO Luchin and O.N. Doronina specify that decisions of the Court approach to laws owing to their validity raquo ;. At the same time, they are not directed to creation of the new norms of the law, they only cancel them and therefore ... it is not necessary to define these decisions as the new kind of statutory acts. Decisions of Court have subconstitutional character, they are secondary and have not regulative but protective character raquo ;, and it differs them from laws. In the opinion of the given authors, the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation can be defined as, the legal act issued by court within the limits of the competence during realization of the constitutional control on the basis and in the performance of the Constitution, expressing its will by means of ascertaining conformity or discrepancy to the Constitution of the law considered by the Constitutional Court ... [10]. of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation BS Ebzeev believes, that decisions of the Constitutional Court, being sources of the law, form constitutionally legal precedents [11]. However the decision of Court is not considered as the precedent having statutory - regulativee value...
