I. On 17 February 2021, within the a priori constitutional review, the Constitutional Court ruled as follows:
a) Unanimously, it upheld the objection of unconstitutionality filed by the Government of Romania and found the unconstitutionality, as a whole, of the Law approving Government Emergency Ordinance No 168/2020 supplementing Government Emergency Ordinance No 70/2020 regulating a series of measures, starting with 15 May 2020, in the context of the epidemiological situation caused by the outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, extending a series of deadlines, amending and supplementing Law No 227/2015 on the Fiscal Code, the National Education Law No 1/2011, as well as other regulatory acts, and amending and supplementing Government Emergency Ordinance No 37/2020 for granting a series of facilities with regard to the loans granted by credit institutions and non-banking financial institutions to certain categories of debtors.
The Court found that the law subject to review had been adopted in violation of the principle of bicameralism, enshrined in Article 61 (2) of the Constitution.
b) By a majority vote, it dismissed, as groundless, the objection of unconstitutionality (after joining the three referrals with the same subject-matter filed by the High Court of Cassation and Justice – Joined Sections, by the Government of Romania and by the Advocate of the People) and found that the provisions of the Law amending and supplementing Law No 241/2005 preventing and combating tax evasion were constitutional in relation to the pleas filed.
II. During the same sitting, within the a posteriori constitutional review, the Constitutional Court ruled as follows:
1. By a majority vote, it upheld the exception of unconstitutionality and found that the phrase “except for the circumstances regarding the existence of the criminal offence” in Article 52 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code was unconstitutional;
In order to reach this solution, the Constitutional Court held that the phrase “except for the circumstances regarding the existence of the criminal offence” in Article 52 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code lacked clarity, accuracy and predictability, as well as that it violated the principle of legal certainty and the principle of res judicata, thus being contrary to the provisions of Article 1 (3) and (5) of the Constitution and to Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
2. Unanimously, it dismissed, as groundless, the exception of unconstitutionality of the provisions of Article 249 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code and of Article 32 of Law No 656/2002 preventing and sanctioning money laundering, as well as establishing measures to prevent and fight the funding of terrorism.
*
The decisions are final and generally binding.
The arguments retained as grounds for the solutions delivered by the Plenum of the Constitutional Court shall be presented in the decisions, to be published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I.
III. The Constitutional Court also ordered the postponement, for 23 February 2021, of the proceedings in the case of the following referrals of unconstitutionality:
– The objection of unconstitutionality of the provisions of the Law amending and supplementing Law No 335/2007 on the Romanian Chambers of Commerce, objection raised by 51 Deputies belonging to the parliamentary group of the Save Romania Union, to the parliamentary group of the Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania, as well as unaffiliated Deputies;
– The objection of unconstitutionality of the provisions of the Law approving Government Emergency Ordinance No 31/2020 supplementing Government Emergency Ordinance No 77/2011 establishing a series of contributions intended for the funding of health-related expenditure, objection raised by the Government of Romania.
The External Relations, Press and Protocol Department of the Constitutional Court of Romania