I. At its sitting of 9 July 2024, as part of the a priori constitutional review, the Constitutional Court ruled as follows:
– By a majority vote, it dismissed, as unfounded, the objection of unconstitutionality filed by the President of Romania and found that the Law amending and supplementing Law No 73/1993 for the establishment, organisation and functioning of the Legislative Council was constitutional in relation to the pleas filed.
In essence, the Court found that, by taking into account the purpose of the request for review, namely the improvement of the normative act, and the case-law of the Constitutional Court, the amendments brought to Law No 73/1993 for the establishment, organisation and functioning of the Legislative Council did not violate the limits of the request for review filed by the President of Romania, pursuant to Article 77 (2) of the Constitution.
– Unanimously, it upheld the objection of unconstitutionality filed by the High Court of Cassation and Justice and found that the Law approving Government Emergency Ordinance No 71/2023 for the establishment of an extension of the deadlines provided for in Article 262 (32) of Law No 85/2014 on insolvency prevention and insolvency proceedings was unconstitutional, in relation to Article 1 (5), Article 61 (2), Article 75 (1) and Article 115 (7) of the Constitution.
In essence, the Court found: (i) the existence of major differences in legal content between the forms adopted by the two Chambers of Parliament – the introduction of an Article II – regulating aspects related to the procedure for the arrangement with creditors, as well as the existence of a significantly different configuration between the forms adopted by the two Chambers of Parliament, which leads to the final form of the law substantially departing from the very original purpose and conception of the law, thus entailing the violation of the requirements of the principle of bicameralism established by Article 61 (2) and Article 75 (1) of the Constitution; (ii) the provisions of Article II of the impugned law are not subsumed either to the regulatory object and are not reflected in the title of the adopted law, which is contrary to the provisions of Article 115 (7) of the Constitution and Article 1 (5) of the Constitution.
II. Also, as part of the a posteriori constitutional review, the Constitutional Court ruled as follows:
– Unanimously, it upheld the exception of unconstitutionality and found that the provisions of Article 7 of Law No 314/2001 on the regulation of the situation of certain companies were unconstitutional.
In essence, the Court held that Article 7 of Law No 314/2001 established exceptional proceedings, which derogated from the ordinary law represented by Law No 31/1990 and involved the expeditious transfer, from the patrimony of a trading company, of its movable and immovable property into the patrimony of the State, which amounts to a forced transfer of those assets into the property of the State, in violation of Article 44 (3) of the Constitution, which regulates expropriation for reasons of public utility, established according to the law, with just and prior compensation. At the same time, the Court held that the transfer, into the private property of the State, of certain assets belonging to other private legal persons, as a sanctioning measure including for the associates/shareholders of the deregistered company, for failure to fulfil a legal obligation incumbent upon the trading company that was sanctioned with automatic dissolution and start of liquidation, established by the impugned Article 7, was equivalent to a seizure, in violation of Article 44 (8) of the Constitution.
– By a majority vote, it upheld the exception of unconstitutionality and found that the provisions of Article 1391 (1) of the Civil Code were unconstitutional insofar as they limit the possibility of indirect victims to be compensated for the restriction of their family and social life as a result of a bodily injury or impairment of health of the direct victim.
*
The decisions are final and generally binding.
The arguments retained as grounds for the solutions delivered by the Constitutional Court shall be presented within the decisions, which shall be published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I.
Foreign Relations, Press and Protocol Department
of the Constitutional Court