A. On 30 September 2020, the Plenum of the Constitutional Court, issued the following admission decisions:
– Within the a priori constitutional review:
It unanimously
- Upheld the objection of unconstitutionality filed by the High Court of Cassation and Justice and found that the Law amending and supplementing Law No 286/2009 on the Criminal Code was unconstitutional, as a whole, being enacted in violation of the principle of bicameralism;
- Upheld the objection of unconstitutionality raised by the President of Romania and found that the Law on the opening, by the Government of Romania, of diplomatic negotiations for the signing of an agreement with the Republic of Hungary concerning the opening of the international border crossing point at Beba Veche (Romania) – Kubekhaza (Hungary) was unconstitutional, as a whole;
- Upheld the objection of unconstitutionality raised by the Romanian Government and found that the Law on the organization and operation of the Environmental Investigation Directorate, as well as amending and supplementing a series of regulatory acts, was unconstitutional;
- Upheld the objection of unconstitutionality (after joining the two referrals having the same subject-matter, filed by the President of Romania and the Government of Romania, respectively) and found that the Law on the transfer of a piece of land under the administration of the Ministry for Transport, Infrastructure and Communications and under the concession of the National Railway Company CFR SA, from the public domain of the State to the public domain of the Municipality of Bucharest, was unconstitutional, as a whole;
- Upheld the objection of unconstitutionality (after joining the two referrals having the same subject-matter, filed by the President of Romania and the Government of Romania, respectively) and found that the Law on the transfer of several pieces of land from the public domain of the State and from under the administration of the Ministry of Environment, Waters and Forests – The National Forest Administration – Romsilva, to the public domain of the Municipality of Slatina and under the administration of the Local Council of the Municipality of Slatina, was unconstitutional, as a whole;
- Upheld the objection of unconstitutionality filed by the President of Romania and found the unconstitutionality of the provisions of Article I of the Law amending Law No 165/2013 on measures to complete the process of restitution, in kind or by equivalent, of the real estate taken over abusively during the Communist regime, as well as amending and supplementing Law No 46/2008 – The Forestry Code.
The decisions are final and generally binding and they shall be notified to the President of Romania, to the Presidents of the two Chambers of Parliament and to the Prime Minister.
– Within the a posteriori constitutional review:
By a majority vote, it upheld the exception of unconstitutionality of the provisions of Article 23 (3) of Law No 334/2006 on the financing of political parties’ activity and electoral campaigns and found that the phrase “are not subject to forced execution by attachment” was unconstitutional.
The provisions of Article 23 (3) are worded as follows: “(3) The subsidies from the State budget granted to political parties have the status of special allocation and are not subject to forced execution by attachment.”
Unanimously, it dismissed, as inadmissible, the exception of unconstitutionality of the provisions of Article 25 (1) (v), (w) and (y) of Law No 334/2006 on the financing of political parties’ activity and electoral campaigns.
The decision is final and generally binding and it shall be notified to the two Chambers of Parliament, the Government and the court of law that referred to the Constitutional Court, respectively the Court of First Instance of Sector 1, Bucharest.
B. On the same day, the Plenum of the Constitutional Court, within the a priori constitutional review, by a majority vote, dismissed as groundless the objection of unconstitutionality raised by the Government of Romania and found the provisions of Article I (1) and (2) of the Law amending and supplementing Law No 286/2009 on the Criminal Code, as well as amending Article 223 (2) of Law No 135/2010 on the Criminal Procedure Code, to be constitutional.
The decision is final and generally binding and it shall be notified to the President of Romania.
*
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.
C. With regard to:
– The objection of unconstitutionality of the Law on the amalgamation of agricultural lands owned by agricultural associations set-up by religious units, objection filed by 51 Deputies belonging to the parliamentary groups of the Save Romania Union Party, the Hungarian Democratic Union of Romania, the National Liberal Party, the Minorities Group, and by unaffiliated Deputies,
the Constitutional Court decided to postpone the deliberations for 28 October 2020.
– The objections of unconstitutionality of the Law amending and supplementing Law No 227/2015 on the Fiscal Code, objections raised by the Advocate of the People and, respectively, by the High Court of Cassation and Justice,
the Constitutional Court decided to postpone the deliberations for 4 November 2020.
The postponement of these cases was ordered because the constitutional court is waiting to receive the viewpoints of the presidents of the two Chambers of Parliament, requested based on Article 16 (2) and Article 17 of Law No 47/1992, as well as the information requested from several public authorities under Article 77 of Law No 47/1992.
– The objection of unconstitutionality of the Law amending Article 7 of Law No 1/2011 on National Education, objection raised by the President of Romania,
the Constitutional Court decided to postpone the deliberations for 28 October 2020.
External Relations, Press and Protocol Department