At the hearing of 7 April 2021, the Constitutional Court, in the context of the review of laws following promulgation, delivered the following decisions:
A. By majority vote, upheld the exception of unconstitutionality and found that the provisions of Article 20 (1) of the Government Emergency Ordinance No 111/2010 on parental leave and the monthly child-raising allowance are unconstitutional, with reference to the child-raising allowance provided by Article 2 (1) in this normative act.
The provisions found as unconstitutional read as follows:
“The rights stipulated by this emergency ordinance can only be forcibly pursed in view of recovering, according to the law, the amounts unduly collected in that respect”.
B. By majority vote, upheld the exception of unconstitutionality and found that the provisions of Article 400 (1), of Article 405 (3) and of Article 406 (1) and (2) od the Criminal Procedure Code are unconstitutional.
By unanimous vote, dismisses, as ungrounded, the exception of unconstitutionality and found that the provisions of Article 405 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code are constitutional in relation to the criticisms formulated.
The provisions found as unconstitutional read as follows:
– Article 400 (1): “The result of the deliberation shall be stated in the minutes, which must have the content stipulated for the operative part of the decision”;
– Article 405 (3): “(3) The Chairman of the court formation delivers the minutes of the decision”;
– Article 406 (1) and (2): “(1) The decision shall be drawn up no later than 30 days from delivery.
(2) The decision shall be drawn up by one of the judges who participated in solving the case, no later than 30 days from delivery, and shall be signed by all the members of the court formation and by the registrar”.
The Court found that the provisions of Article 400 (1), of Article 405 (3) and of Article 406 (1) and (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code infringe the provisions of Article 1 (3), Article 21 (1)-(3) and Article 124 (1) of the Constitution, as well as the provisions of Article 5 (1) and Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Moreover, the Court found that the provisions of Article 400 (1) and of Article 405 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code affect the provisions of Article 23 (11) of the Basic Law.
The Court held that the drafting of the criminal judicial decision (grounds in fact and in law) following the delivery of the given minutes (solution) deprives the convicted person of the guarantees of the administration of justice, affects the right of access to court and the right to a fair trial. At the same time, the Court found that the enforcement of a final criminal judicial decision, prior to its grounds in fact and in law, is contrary to the constitutional and conventional provisions referring to individual freedom and security of person and to those enshrining human dignity and justice as supreme values of the rule of law.
Therefore, the Court found as necessary for the judicial decision to be drafted, by also giving the grounds in fact and in law, at the time of its delivery.
As for the effects of the Constitutional Court’s decisions, according to Article 147 (1) of the Constitution, “The provisions of the laws and ordinances in force, as well as those of the regulations, which are found to be unconstitutional, shall cease their legal effects within 45 days of the publication of the decision of the Constitutional Court if, in the meantime, the Parliament or the Government, as the case may be, cannot bring into line the unconstitutional provisions with the provisions of the Constitution. For this limited length of time the provisions found to be unconstitutional shall be suspended de jure.”
*
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.
External Relations, Press and Protocol Department of the Constitutional Court