During its sitting of 18 October 2023, the Constitutional Court conducted the a priori constitutional review and ruled as follows:
By a majority vote, with regard to the Law on certain fiscal-budgetary measures aimed at ensuring Romania’s financial sustainability in the long term, as a whole, as well as with regard to Article III (19) [by reference to Article 1384] and, unanimously, with regard to the other impugned legal provisions,
– Dismissed, as groundless, the objection of unconstitutionality filed by 59 Deputies (42 Deputies belonging to the Save Romania Union Parliamentary Group, 2 Deputies belonging to the National Liberal Party and 15 non-affiliated Deputies) and found that the Law on certain fiscal-budgetary measures aimed at ensuring Romania’s financial sustainability in the long term, as well as the provisions of Article III (2) [by reference to Article 181 (1), (5) and (11), to Articles 182 and 183], Article III (9) [with reference to Article 60 (5) (c)], Article III (10) [with reference to Article 60 (7) (c)], Article III (13) [with reference to Article 117], Article III (19) [with reference to Article 1384], Article III (28) [with reference to Article 170 (1) and (3) (d)], Article III (29) [with reference to Article 174], Article III (30) [with reference to Article 1741 (12)], Article III (45) [with reference to Article 291 (38)], Article III (65) [with reference to Article 5003 (1)], Article V (1) and (2), Article VII (1), Article XIV (2) and (5), Article XV (1), Article XVII (3), (4), (5) (c), (l) and (n), (7) and (8), Article XVIII (2), Article XIX (2) and (3), Article XX (3) and (5), Article XXIII (3), (4) and (5), Article XXVI (1), Article XXVII (3), (4) and (5), Article XXVIII (1), Article XXIX, Article XXXI (1), Article XXXIII, Article XXXIV, Article XXXV, Article XXXVI, Article XXXVII, Article LI (1), Article LIV (1) and (3) and Article LV of the law were constitutional in relation to the pleas lodged.
In essence, the Court found that, when undertaking responsibility on the draft law, the Government had a single and unitary purpose, i.e., to increase revenues to the national public budget and reduce State spending.
During the extrinsic constitutional review, it was concluded that the procedure for adopting the law by engaging the responsibility of the Government complied with the requirements of the Constitution and the case-law of the Constitutional Court.
Also, from an intrinsic point of view, the Court noted that the legal provisions specifically impugned by the authors of the objection of unconstitutionality have been adopted within the margin of appreciation and opportunity enjoyed by the legislator in financial and fiscal matters.
*
The decision is final and generally binding.
The arguments retained as grounds for the solution delivered by the Constitutional Court shall be presented in the decision, to be published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I.
External Relations, Press and Protocol Department of the Constitutional Court of Romania