I. At the hearing on 5 October 2022, the Constitutional Court, in the context of a priori constitutionality review, unanimously ruled as follows:
– Upheld the objection of unconstitutionality made by the President of Romania and found that to be unconstitutional, in its entirety, the Law amending and supplementing Law no. 17/2014 on some measures to regulate the sale of agricultural land located outside the built-up areas and amending Law no. 268/ 2001 regarding the privatization of companies that manage public and private state-owned lands for agricultural purposes and the establishment of the State Domains Agency.
In essence, The Court held that the criticized law had to be adopted as an organic law and not as an ordinary one, since it makes substantial changes to the general legal regime of property, which, according to Article 73 (3) (m) of the Constitution, must be regulated by an organic law. The criticized law removes the category of agricultural land located outside the built-up areas on which orchards and vine crops are located, owned by individuals, from the scope of an organic law – Law no. 17/2014 – and therefore establishes for this category a derogatory legal regime of its own, which required adoption by organic law.
– Dismissed, as ungrounded, the objection of unconstitutionality made by the Government of Romania and found that the provisions of the single article point 1 [with reference to Article 16 (2) index 2] of the Law amending and supplementing the Framework Law no. 153/2017 on the remuneration of personnel paid from public funds, as well as the law as a whole, are constitutional in relation to the criticisms made.
In essence, The Court ruled that the law, as a whole, is constitutional, since upon the initiation of the legislative process, information was requested from the Government on the budgetary implications of the criticized law, as well as the financial sheet. At the same time, regarding the specific criticism brought against the single article point 1 [with reference to Article 16 (2) index 2] of the law, the Court ruled that this text must be interpreted in correlation with Article 16 (9) from the Framework Law no. 153/2017 on the remuneration of personnel paid from public funds, which leads to the conclusion that the regulated salary increase is granted only under the conditions and limits of the budget of the project financed from non-reimbursable European funds. Therefore, the criticized text complies with the quality requirements of the law provided by Article 1 (5) of the Constitution.
*
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.
II. At the same hearing, the Constitutional Court postponed the start of the debates for the following cases:
– until 12 October 2022,
1. The objection of unconstitutionality of the Law amending and supplementing Law no. 78/2018 on the exemption of personnel paid from public funds from the payment of amounts representing income of a salary nature, objection made by the President of Romania;
2. 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 made by the People’s Advocate;
3. The objection of unconstitutionality of the Law approving the Government’s emergency Ordinance no. 10/2022 amending and supplementing Law no. 346/2004 on the stimulation of the establishment and development of small and medium-sized enterprises, objection made by the President of Romania;
– until 26 October 2022,
1. The objection of unconstitutionality of the Law amending and supplementing Article 56 index 1 of the Emergency Government Ordinance no. 57/2007 regarding the regime of natural protected areas, conservation of natural habitats, flora and fauna, objection made by 51 deputies belonging to the Parliamentary Group of the Save Romania Union;
2. The objection of unconstitutionality of the Aquaculture Law, objection made by the President of Romania.
The External Relations, Press and Protocol Department of the Constitutional Court of Romania