I. At the hearing on 31 January 2023, the Constitutional Court, in the context of the a priori constitutional review, unanimously decided the following:
1. Dismissed as unfounded the objection of unconstitutionality of Article I (4) of the Law amending and supplementing the Emergency Government Ordinance no. 155/2001 regarding the approval of the stray dog management program, objection formulated by the President of Romania. At the same time, it upheld the objection of unconstitutionality and found that the provisions of Article I (5) of the Law amending and supplementing the Emergency Government Ordinance no. 155/2001 regarding the approval of the stray dog management program are unconstitutional.
In essence, with regard to the solution of unconstitutionality, the Court found that the provisions of Article 34 of the Fundamental Law were violated, since the removal of the administrative offence sanction for non-compliance with the obligation to vaccinate dogs against rabies, an obligation provided by Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/689 of the Commission, takes the form of a legislative omission that can lead to the violation of the right to the protection of health and to the elimination of the elements of coercion that can lead subjects of law to comply with the provisions of the legal rules contained in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/689 of the Commission. This amounts to a lack of coercive measures, which can lead a situation where surveillance and eradication programs against the rabies virus (RABV) can no longer be carried out effectively, thus creating a state of danger for both public health and for the health of animals, by avoiding vaccination and, implicitly, the spread of the rabies virus, as well as for the environment, as the framework in which human life takes place.
2. Upheld the objection of unconstitutionality formulated by 44 Deputies belonging to the parliamentary group of the Save Romania Union party from the Chamber of Deputies, as well as by 12 non-affiliated Deputies, and found that the Law supplementing the Cadastre and Real Estate Advertising Law no. 7/1996 is unconstitutional, in its entirety.
In essence, The Court found that, between the form of the law proposed by the initiators, debated and rejected by the Senate, and the form adopted by the Chamber of Deputies, there are a number of significant differences in legal content, likely to lead to a substantially different vision of the decision-making Chamber, regarding the original regulatory subject of the law. The Senate, as the first chamber referred, did not have the opportunity to debate and express itself by vote regarding the regulatory field of the amendments adopted by the Chamber of Deputies, being therefore excluded from the legislative process.
Under these conditions, the Court found 1that the criticized law does not observe the principle of bicameralism, being adopted in violation of the provisions of Article 61 (2) and Article 75 of the Constitution.
II. Also, in the same hearing, the Constitutional Court, in the context of the a posteriori constitutional review, unanimously decided the following:
1. Upheld the exception of unconstitutionality and found that the provisions of Article 252 index 1 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and of Article 29 (1), (3) and (4) of Law no. 318/2015 for the establishment, organization and operation of the National Agency for the Management of Seized Assets and amending and supplementing certain normative acts are unconstitutional insofar as they do not list the judge of the preliminary chamber among the judicial bodies that can order the valorization of seized movable assets.
In essence, The Court held that the failure to list the judge of the preliminary chamber, in the content of Article 252 index 1 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code and of Article 29 (1), (3) and (4) of Law no. 318/2015, among the judicial bodies with powers to proceed with the valorization of seized movable assets, deprives the owner of these assets of the possibility to request their valorization, in the stage of the preliminary chamber, under the conditions of Article 252 index 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He is, thus, deprived of a procedural means of defending his rights and interests, necessary in order to preserve the right of private ownership that he has over the respective assets. For these reasons, the Court decided that the criticized legal provisions violate the constitutional provisions regarding free access to justice and the right to private property, provided in Article 21 (1) and Article 44 of the Constitution.
2. Upheld the exception of unconstitutionality and found that the Emergency Government Ordinance no. 50/2021 amending and supplementing the National Education Law no. 1/2011 is unconstitutional.
In essence, The Court found that it was not possible to prove the request for the opinion from the Economic and Social Council, violating the provisions of Article l (3) and (5), in conjunction with those of Article 141 of the Constitution, with the consequence of the unconstitutionality of the Emergency Government Ordinance no. 50/2021 in its entirety.
*
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.
III. In the same session, the Constitutional Court postponed:
– until 15 February 2023, the objection of unconstitutionality of the Aquaculture Law, objection formulated by the President of Romania;
– until 28 February 2023, the following cases:
– 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;
– The objection of unconstitutionality of the Law on the approval of the Emergency Government Ordinance no. 115/2022 supplementing Article I of the Emergency Government Ordinance no. 130/2021 regarding certain fiscal-budgetary measures, the extension of certain deadlines, as well as amending and supplementing certain normative acts, objection formulated by 44 Deputies belonging to the Save Romania Union Parliamentary Group and 7 non-affiliated Deputies.
The External Relations, Press and Protocol Department of the Constitutional Court of Romania