I. At the hearing of 9 November 2022, the Constitutional Court, within the a priori constitutional review, ruled as follows:
1. By a majority of votes in respect of Article 88 (2), Article 206 final sentence, Article 234 (2), Article 271 and Article 290 of the Law on the status of judges and prosecutors and by a unanimous vote in respect of the Law on the status of judges and prosecutors as a whole, as well as of the other provisions thereof, dismissed, as unfounded, after joining, the objections of unconstitutionality raised by the People’s Advocate and by deputies belonging to the Parliamentary Group of the Save Romania Union and independent deputies and found that the Law on the status of judges and prosecutors as a whole, as well as the provisions of Article 17 (5), Article 21 (4), Article 22, Article 25, Article 26 (1), Article 33 (1), Article 43 (2), Article 45 (1), Article 59 (3) and (4), Article 63 (1), Article 75 (5), Article 88 (2), Article 89, Article 114, Article 115, Article 117 (6), Article 121 (4), Article 128, Article 132, Article 133, Article 135, Article 139, Article 140, Article 141, Article 143 (2), Articles 145-149, Article 150, Article 160 (6), Article 167, Article 169 (8), Article 172 (8), Article 188 (4), Article 206, Article 228 (5)-(7), Article 234 (2), Article 235 (2), Article 269 (16), Article 271, Article 273 (1) c) and d), Article 275 (1), (3) and (6), Article 277 (6), Article 278 (2), Article 279, Article 283, Article 284 (5), Article 289 (2), Article 290 and of Article 2 b) point B of Annex 1 thereto are constitutional in relation to the criticisms of unconstitutionality made.
2. Unanimously dismissed, as unfounded, the objection of unconstitutionality made by deputies belonging to the Parliamentary Group of the Save Romania Union and the independent deputies and found that the Law on judicial organisation as a whole, as well as the provisions of Articles 13, Article 15 (1), Article 21 (6), Article 28, Article 30 (1), (3) and (5), Article 31 (4), second sentence, Article 34 (3), Article 36 (3) and (8), Article 45 (1), (2) and (4), Article 54 (2) and (5), Article 57, Article 58 (4) and (5), Article 68 (3) and (4), Article 70, Article 82 (2) and (3) second sentence, Article 90 (2) and (3) second sentence, Article 93, Article 97 (2) and (3) second sentence, Article 107 (2), Article 115 (1), Article 150 and Article 58 thereof are constitutional in relation to the criticisms made.
3. By a majority of votes in respect of the provisions of Article 27 (2) final sentence and by a unanimous vote in respect of the Law on the Superior Council of Magistracy as a whole, as well as the other provisions thereof, dismissed, as unfounded, the objection of unconstitutionality made by deputies belonging to the Parliamentary Group of the Save Romania Union and the independent deputies and found that the Law on the Superior Council of Magistracy as a whole, as well as the provisions of Article 8 (3), Article 14 (3) and (4), Article 22 (3), Article 27 (2), Article 29 (1), Article 31 (1), Article 40, Article 41, Article 49 (5) and (7)-(9), Article 51 (3), Article 53 (2), Article 57 (4) and (6) and Article 59 (3) thereof are constitutional in relation to the criticisms made.
II. At the same hearing, the Constitutional Court, within the a priori constitutional review, unanimously dismissed, as inadmissible, the objections of unconstitutionality raised by 38 deputies belonging to the Parliamentary Group of the Alliance for the Union of Romanians and independent deputies, in respect of the Law on the status of judges and prosecutors, the Law on judicial organisation and the Law on the Superior Council of Magistracy.
The decisions are final and generally binding.
The arguments set out in the grounds for the decisions of the Constitutional Court will be presented in the decisions, which will be published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I.
III. The Constitutional Court also postponed the following cases for 23 November 2022:
– The objection of unconstitutionality of the Law amending and supplementing the Government Emergency Ordinance No 155/2001 approving the program for the management of stray dogs, objection raised by the President of Romania;
– 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 raised by the People’s Advocate.
External Relations, Press and Protocol Department of the Constitutional Court