I. At the hearing on 2 November 2022, the Constitutional Court, in the context of a priori constitutionality review, unanimously upheld the objection of unconstitutionality made by deputies belonging to the Parliamentary Group of the Save Romania Union and found that the Law amending and supplementing Article 561 of the Emergency Government Ordinance no. 57/2007 regarding the regime of natural protected areas, the conservation of natural habitats, flora and fauna is unconstitutional.
In essence, the Court found that the criticized law violates the principle of bicameralism, since the text adopted by the Senate was entirely concerned with the procedure and conditions under which the limits of protected natural areas can be changed (who can request the change of limits, the manner and conditions in which it is carried out), while the text adopted by the Chamber of Deputies refers tangentially to this issue, the substance of the normative regulation referring to the conditions under which hydropower projects undergoing execution with a progress percentage of more than 60%, as of 1 May 2022, are to continue to be executed, by way of derogation from a series of regulations that refer to the protection of the environment. It follows that the substance of the law, as approved by the Second Chamber, no longer concerns the modification of the limits of natural areas, but the legal regime of hydropower projects already started within them, a derogatory regime from that of the common law.
The Court held that, although there is no significantly different configuration between the texts adopted by the two Chambers of Parliament, there are major differences in legal content between the texts adopted by the two Chambers of Parliament, which contain different conceptual visions. Under these conditions, the Court found that the criticized law does not observe the principle of bicameralism, being contrary to Article 61 (2) and Article 75 of the Constitution.
II. In the same hearing, the Constitutional Court, in the context of the a posteriori constitutionality review, by majority of votes, upheld the exception of unconstitutionality raised directly by the People’s Advocate and found that the provisions of Article 36 (3) of the Law no. 335/2007 on Romanian chambers of commerce are constitutional to the extent that the renewal of the term of office of the president and vice president of the National Chamber for a duration of 5 years only takes into account a previous full 5-year term of office.
In essence, the Court found that the criticized text, according to which the term of office of the president and vice-presidents of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Romania is 5 years and can be renewed only once, enshrines an incomplete legislative solution, since it does not include provisions regarding the renewal of the term of office under the assumption of the previous exercise of a remaining term. This omission with constitutional relevance deprives the analyzed norm of predictability and affects the security of civil legal relations. The quality requirements of the law do not allow its addressee to arrive at a subjective or discretionary interpretation of the legal norm. It must be based on a good quality legal norm that guides its social conduct. Finding the lack of such a rule in conjunction with the constitutional relevance of the identified legislative omission, the Court ruled that the criticized provisions are constitutional only to the extent that the renewal of the term of office of the president and vice president of the National Chamber takes into account, on the one hand, a previous election for a full term of 5 years, and on the other hand, a new election for a full term of 5 years.
*
The decisions are final and generally binding.
The arguments set out in the grounds for the decisions of the Constitutional Court will be set out in the decisions, which will be published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I.
The External Relations, Press and Protocol Department of the Constitutional Court of Romania