I. At the sitting of 27 March 2025, the Constitutional Court, in the context of the a priori constitutionality review, by unanimity:
– Dismissed, as unfounded, the objections of unconstitutionality raised by Senators and Deputies belonging to the S.O.S. Romania Parliamentary Groups, the Alliance for the Unification of Romanians and the Young People’s Party, and found that the provisions of Articles 7 (2) and (3), 23, 25, 26 (1) and (2) of the Law on the control of the use of national airspace were constitutional in the light of the criticisms raised.
In essence, the Court noted that the participation and taking of measures by the designated military authorities of the North Atlantic Alliance or by allied and partner state forces structures for national air control should be seen in the context of Romania’s obligations as a Member State in N.A.T.O. Accession to N.A.T.O. requires both the transfer of certain attributes and the joint exercise of powers with the constituent States, which does not affect the sovereignty of the country.
The Court found that the regulation of shared competence between the structures of the institutions forming part of the national defence system and the structures of the forces of the allied and partner states is without prejudice to the exercise of sovereignty, since it constitutes a means of defending national airspace, which is integrated into the N.A.T.O. airspace.
The Court also found that the contested law does not regulate any legislative solution regarding the organisation of military or paramilitary activities, distinct from the regular armed forces, which do not form part of Romania’s national defence system or the allied or coalition armed forces.
At the same time, the Court found that the ‘transfer of authority’, governed by the contested provisions, envisages a handover/takeover of control and command by the designated military authorities of the North Atlantic Alliance over the national components of the military structure performing specific missions to control the use of national airspace, within the framework of the N.A.T.O. Integrated Air Defence and Missile Defence System or within coalitions, under the conditions strictly laid down by the rule, and not the employment into a military function in the system of the Ministry of National Defence. The duties, rights and freedoms of military personnel laid down in the Statute of Military Staff or other laws, in accordance with the Constitution, are incumbent only on active military personnel, who are within the military structures of the Ministry of National Defence, and not on the specialised military structures and assets of the N.A.T.O., or on the designated military authorities of the North Atlantic Alliance, who participate, in an alliate or coalition framework, in airspace control, in accordance with Romanian law and the treaties to which Romania is a party.
– Dismissed, as unfounded, the objections of unconstitutionality raised by Senators and Deputies belonging to the S.O.S. Romania Parliamentary Groups, the Romanian Alliance for the Unification of Romanians and the Young People’s Party, and found that the Law on the conduct of military missions and operations on the territory of the Romanian State in peacetime, and in particular the provisions of Article 3 (1) (d) and (e), Article 4, Article 6 (1) and (2), Article 7 (1) and (2) and Article 8 of the Law, were constitutional in relation to the criticisms raised.
In essence, the Court found, on the one hand, that it is not competent to censor the wording of the explanatory memorandum drawn up by the legislator and, therefore, that it cannot be held that Article 1 (5) of the Constitution has been infringed in relation to the contested law, and, on the other hand, that only Parliament may decide, within the limits laid down in the Constitution, on the content of the legal regulations and the appropriateness for their adoption. The Court also found that the ‘transfer of authority’, governed by the contested law, envisages the handover/takeover of control and command, at the operational and/or tactical level, of the military forces involved in the deployment, in peacetime, of military missions and operations on the territory of the Romanian State, along the lines of subordination and execution of the orders of the force commander to whom they are subordinanted, under the conditions strictly laid down by the rule, which does not mean entrusting the exercise of sovereignty to other subjects of law. The Court also found that the contested law does not regulate any legislative solution relating to the organisation of military or paramilitary activities, distinct from the regular armed forces, which do not form part of Romania’s national defence system or of the allied or coalition armed forces, and that the way in which the State provides the resources necessary to carry out the common security and defence policy is an aspect of the appropriateness of the legal regulation, which falls within the legislator’s discretion.
The Court also found that the ‘transfer of authority’ does not mean that members of foreign military forces/structures who participate in the deployment, in peacetime, of military missions and operations on the territory of the Romanian State have a military function in the system of the Ministry of National Defence. Therefore, the duties, rights and freedoms of military personnel, laid down in the Statute of Military Staff or other laws, in accordance with the Constitution, are incumbent only on active military personnel, who are part of the military structures of the Ministry of National Defence, and not on foreign ‘designated forces/structures/military structures’, who participate, in an allied or coalition framework, in the conduct, in peacetime, of military missions and operations on the territory of the Romanian State, in accordance with the Romanian law and the treaties to which Romania is a party.
II. At the same hearing, the Constitutional Court, in the context of the a posteriori constitutional review, by unanimity, upheld the exeption of unconstitutionality and found that the expression ‘which would render him/her incompatible with the exercise of the civil service’ in Article 54 (h) of Law No 88/1999 on the Statute of public servants was unconstitutional.
In essence, the Court held that the provisions of Article 1 (5) of the Basic Law had been disregarded, since, according to Article 54 (h) of Law No 88/1999, a person who also fulfils, inter alia, the condition that he or she has not been convicted of an offence against humanity, the State or the authority, offences of corruption and of office, offences preventing the administration of justice, offences of forgery, may occupy a public office. The list continues with intentional offences ‘which would render him/her incompatible with the exercise of the public service’, a term which leaves room for arbitrariness in the discretion of the employer authority. The term cited makes it possible to refuse access to the body of public servants for any other intentional offence, to order the suspension or even termination of the employment relationship on the ground that it would render the person in question incompatible with the exercise of the civil service, which may lead to abuse and arbitrariness, given that the text complained of already lists a number of offences which are clearly and objectively such as to render the person incompatible with the exercise of a public office. The addition of an ambiguous formula, which indefinitely broadens the range of such offences, by giving the employer authority the power to make a discretionary assessment, is contrary to the constitutional principle of legality, which requires legislative acts to be drafted with clarity, precision and foreseeability.
III. Likewise, the Constitutional Court, in the context of the review of Parliament’s resolutions, by unanimity, dismissed, as unfounded, the referrals of unconstitutionality brought by the S.O.S. Romania and the Young People’s Party Parliamentary Groups in the Senate and, respectively the S.O.S. Romania and the Young People’s Party Parliamentary Groups in the Chamber of Deputies concerning Senate Resolution No 5/2025 on the structure of Senate services and Resolution No 9/2025 of the Chamber of Deputies on the reduction of the number of posts allocated to the departments of the Chamber of Deputies.
In essence, the Court held, on the basis of its case-law on the principle of parliamentary autonomy and taking into account the provisions of Article 64 (1) of the Constitution, according to which the organisation and functioning of each Chamber shall be determined by its own regulations and that the financial resources of the Chambers are laid down in the budgets approved by them, that the resolutions complained of were issued on the basis of the organisational autonomy enjoyed by the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies, which alone are in a position to decide on any organisational measures relating to the activity of their specialised structures.
The Court also found that the contested resolutions did not contravene the constitutional provisions relied on by the authors of the referrals.
*
The decisions are final and generally binding.
The reasons underlying the solution adopted by the Constitutional Court will be set out in the decision, which will be published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I.
IV. Moreover, the Constitutional Court postponed:
for 2 April 2025,
– The objection of unconstitutionality of the Law approving Government Emergency Ordinance No 81/2024 establishing the National Regulatory Authority in the Field of Mining, Petroleum and Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide and amending and supplementing certain legislative acts in the field of mineral resources, oil and the geological storage of carbon dioxide, objection raised by the High Court of Cassation and Justice;
– The challenge against Decision No 8D/4.3.2025 of the Central Electoral Bureau;
for 8 April 2025,
– The objection of unconstitutionality of the Law approving Government Emergency Ordinance No 107/2024 regulating certain fiscal measures in the field of the management of budgetary debts and the budget deficit for the consolidated general budget of Romania in 2024 and amending and supplementing certain legislative acts, an objection raised by the President of Romania;
– The objection of unconstitutionality of the Law amending Article 24 (3) of Land Law No 18/1991, objection raised by the President of Romania;
– The objection of unconstitutionality of Article II of the Law amending Law No 51/1995 on the organisation and exercise of the profession of lawyer and amending Article 451 of Law No 134/2010 on the Code of Civil Procedure, objection raised by the High Court of Cassation and Justice;
– The objection of unconstitutionality of the Law on the transmission of immovable property – land with related buildings from the public domain of the State and the administration of the University of Life Sciences ‘King Mihai I’ in Timișoara into the private domain of the State and successively into the property of the University of Life Sciences ‘King Mihai I’ in Timișoara, Timiș County, and the transmission of immovable property – land from the public domain of the State into the property of the University of Life Sciences ‘King Mihai I’ in Timișoara, an objection raised by the President of Romania;
– The objection of unconstitutionality of the Law amending Law No 188/2000 on bailiffs, objection raised by the President of Romania.
Communication and Media Department of the Constitutional Court