I. At the hearing of 12 October 2022, the Constitutional Court, within the constitutionality review a priori, unanimously rules as follows:
1. Upheld the objection of unconstitutionality formulated by the President of Romania and found unconstitutional the phrase “inclusively the legislative proposals of deputies and senators” in the provisions of the sole article point 1, referring to Article 9 (2) of the Law approving Government Emergency Ordinance No 10/2022 amending and supplementing Law No 346/2004 on the stimulation of the establishment and development of small and medium-sized enterprises, is unconstitutional.
With regard to the provisions of the sole article point 2, with reference to Article 9 ind. 1 paragraph (4) ind.2 of the contested law, it dismissed, as unfounded, the objection of unconstitutionality and found that they were constitutional in relation to the criticisms made.
In essence, the Court held that the phrase “inclusively the legislative proposals of deputies and senators” contains a confusing, ambiguous regulation capable of generating unpredictability in the manner of interpretation and application, being contrary to the requirements of Article 1 (5) of the Constitution, in terms of the principle of legality, in its component relating to the quality of legal norms.
2. It dismissed, as unfounded, the objection of unconstitutionality formulated by the President of Romania and found that the Law amending and supplementing Law 78/2018 on the exemption of staff paid from public funds from the payment of certain amounts representing income of a salary nature was constitutional in relation to the criticisms made.
In essence, the Court held that the legislative initiative was accompanied by the proof of the request to the Government to inform the Parliament with the financial statement, and the norm in the amended form following the review does not bring any element of novelty regarding the object of the exemption from payment, which remains circumscribed to the incomes from salaries. It was also found that the legislative solution for forgiveness from the payment of certain sums owed to the public administration authorities and institutions does not establish a regulation amending the legal regime of the acts issued by the Court of Auditors and no derogation from the effects of its acts, since the normative content of any offence has not been reconfigured.
3. It dismissed, as unfounded, the objection of unconstitutionality formulated by the President of Romania and found that the provisions of Article I (4) relating to the introduction of Article 254 ind. 2, of the Law amending and supplementing the Law 1/2011 on national education were constitutional in relation to the criticisms made.
In essence, the Court has held that the contested provisions comply with the quality requirements of the rules on clarity, accessibility and predictability and, implicitly, the principle of legal certainty and are not contrary to the principle of equal rights of citizens.
II. At the same hearing, the Constitutional Court, in the context of the review of the Parliament’s decisions, unanimously dismissed, as inadmissible, the referral of unconstitutionality formulated by the “Parliamentary Group of the Right-Wing Independent Deputies” concerning the Decision of the Parliament of Romania No 8/2022 on the establishment of the Joint Standing Committee of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate in the field of national security.
In essence, the Court held that the exercise of the constitutional review of the decisions of the Plenum of the Chamber of Deputies, of the decisions of the Plenum of the Senate and of the decisions of the Plenum of the two joint Chambers of the Parliament is carried out at the request of one of the Presidents of the two Chambers, of a parliamentary group or of at least 50 Deputies or 25 Senators. In the present case, the referral was made by the “Parliamentary Group of the Right-Wing Independent Deputies”; however, this group is not part of the parliamentary structures of the Chamber of Deputies. The Court therefore found that the “Parliamentary Group of the Right-Wing Independent Deputies” does not have the status of holder of the right to refer the matter to the Constitutional Court and, consequently, dismissed the referral made by it as being inadmissible.
*
The decisions are final and generally binding.
The arguments set out in the grounds for the decisions of the Constitutional Court will be presented in the decisions, which will be published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I.
III. The Constitutional Court also postponed the following cases for 9 November 2022:
1. The objection of unconstitutionality of the Law amending and supplementing the Government Emergency Ordinance No 155/2001 approving the stray dogs management programme, objection formulated by the President of Romania;
2. The objection of unconstitutionality regarding the provisions of Article 15 (1) and (3) with reference to the phrase “general assembly” and Article 33 (3) and (4) of the Youth Law, objection formulated by the People’s Advocate.
External Relations, Press and Protocol Department of the Constitutional Court