I. At the hearing of 17 June 2021, the Constitutional Court, in the context of the review of laws following promulgation, delivered the following decisions:
Unanimously,
1. Upheld the exception of unconstitutionality and found that the provisions of Article 8 (5) second and third sentences of Law No 77/2016 concerning the datio in solutum of certain immovable properties in order to settle the obligations resulting from loans were unconstitutional.
By a majority,
2. Dismissed, as unfounded, the exception of unconstitutionality and found that the provisions of Article 4 (1) ind.1-ind.3, (3) and (4), of Article 5 (3) and (3) ind.1, of Article 7 (4) and (5) ind.1 of Law No 77/2016, as well as Law No 52/2020, as a whole, were constitutional in relation to the criticisms made.
In arguing the solution of admitting the exception of unconstitutionality of the provisions of Article 8 (5) second and third sentences of Law No 77/2016, as subsequently amended and completed by Law No 52/2020, the Court has held that the absolute presumption of unpredictability in the event the debtor has been subject to a mortgage foreclosure, but is still being enforced for the original debt and its accessories, not covered by the foreclosure of mortgaged property, preserves elements of unconstitutionality contained in Decision No 731/2019. In these circumstances, the Court found that Article 8 (5) second and third sentences of Law No 77/2016 do not comply with the previous decisions of the Constitutional Court (Decision No 623/2016 and Decision No 731/2019), so that it infringes Article 147 (4) of the Constitution. It has been also retained that Article 1 (5) and Article 44 of the Constitution are infringed, in relation to those set out in Decision No 731/2019.
II. At the same hearing, the Constitutional Court, in the context of the review of the Parliament’s decisions, unanimously:
1. Upheld the referral made by the Parliamentary groups of the Social Democratic Party and found that the Romanian Parliament’s Decision No 32/2021 on the appointment of the interim director of the Romanian Radio Broadcasting Corporation was unconstitutional;
2. Upheld the referral formulated by the Parliamentary groups of the Social Democratic Party and found that the Romanian Parliament’s Decision No 32/2021 on the appointment of the interim director of the Romanian Radio Broadcasting Corporation was unconstitutional.
In order to rule these solutions, the Court found that both decisions of the Parliament have been adopted in violation of the constitutional principle enshrining the binding nature of the compliance with the laws, provided by Article 1 (5) of the Basic Law. Thus, the provisions of Articles 19 and 20 of Law No 41/1994 on the organization and operation of the Romanian Radio Broadcasting Corporation and of the Romanian Television Corporation have been ignored, as the Parliament invoked the applicability of Article 21 (1) and (3) of the same law, without meeting the condition in the normative hypothesis of this legal text, namely the special situation of the transitional situation between two parliamentary legislatures, in which the appointment of an interim director of the Romanian Radio Broadcasting Corporation, respectively of the Romanian Television Corporation is permitted.
*
The decisions are final and generally binding.
The arguments set out in the grounds for the decision of the Constitutional Court will be set out in the decision, which will be published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I.
External Relations, Press and Protocol Department of the Constitutional Court