At its sitting of 21 June 2023, as part of the a priori constitutional review, the Constitutional Court ruled as follows:
A. Unanimously, it dismissed as unfounded the objection of unconstitutionality raised by MPs belonging to the Save Romania Union Parliamentary Group and non-affiliated MPs and found that the provisions of Article 7 (3), Article 10 (2) and (3), Article 11 (4), Article 16 (2) and (6), Article 20 (1), Article 36 (4), Article 66 (2), Article 96, Article 122 (1), Article 128 (3), Article 149 (3) (g) and Article 240 (3) of the Higher Education Law, as well as the law as a whole, were constitutional in relation to the pleas filed.
In essence, with regard to the pleas concerning the alleged extrinsic unconstitutionality of the law, the Court found that it had been adopted in compliance with the requirements of the parliamentary procedure regarding the institution of return of the law, provided for by Article 75 (1), (4) and (5), by reference to Article 73 (3) (n) of the Constitution. Also, the Court held that the criteria related to the quality of the law were met, that the impugned provisions were not likely to undermine the principle of legal certainty, predictability and clarity of the rules and, consequently, that the provisions of Article 1 (3) and (5) of the Constitution were observed.
With regard to the pleas of an intrinsic nature, filed specifically in relation to the abovementioned legal provisions, the Court held that the principle of equal rights was not disregarded, nor was the right to education affected by the provisions contained in the impugned law regulating the reduction of fares on various means of transport granted to students, by those allowing higher education institutions to set up various types of entities so to contribute to the growth of their performance or by the provisions allowing higher education institutions to reallocate certain amounts in order to achieve their investment objectives and/or to grant scholarships to students. Moreover, the Court could not retain the plea filed in relation to the provisions of Article 148 of the Constitution, as the finding of granting State aid exceeded its competence.
B. Unanimously, it dismissed as unfounded the objection of unconstitutionality raised by MPs belonging to the Save Romania Union Parliamentary Group and non-affiliated MPs and found that the provisions of Article 13 (2), Article 17 (2), Article 19 (1) (a), Article 19 (2), Article 19 (25) to (29), Article 20, Article 28 (2), Article 30 (6), Article 31 (1), Article 32 (1), Article 66 (7) to (9), Article 83 (1) to (5), (7), (8) and (10), Article 101 (2), (4) to (12), Article 107 (5) (g), (h) and (i), Article 107 (10), (14) and (17), Article 128 (2), (10) and (11), Article 146, Article 152 (2), Article 193 (1) (a) and Article 237 (1) of the Law on pre-university education, as well as the law as a whole, were constitutional in relation to the pleas lodged.
In essence, the Court noted that the authors of the objection of unconstitutionality raised pleas of extrinsic and intrinsic unconstitutionality with regard to the Law on pre-university education.
Regarding the plea of extrinsic unconstitutionality, it was found that the legislative solutions introduced in the body of the law by the Senate, as the decision-making Chamber, were directly related to the subject-matter of the law, so that the Senate retained its quality of decision-making Chamber in their regard as well. Consequently, it was not necessary to return the law to the Chamber of Deputies in order for it to have the final say on the text of the law.
Regarding the pleas of intrinsic unconstitutionality, it was found that they concerned, in principle, the legal provisions regarding the conduct of the educational process, the liability and sanctions applicable to pupils, the discounts granted to them, access to the recordings made through the audio-video surveillance system of educational institutions, as well as the takeover, funding, management and ownership of educational units. The Court analysed the constitutionality of these legislative solutions in the light of the constitutional provisions regarding the requirements related to the quality of the law, the principle of equality, the right to intimate, family and private life, the right to education and the legal regime of public and private property and, taking into account the normative content of the law, it found that the pleas of unconstitutionality thus formulated were unfounded. Moreover, in its decision, it also pointed out to the fact that the aspects related to legislative expediency, equally impugned, could not be subject to constitutional review, as they fall within the legislator’s margin of appreciation.
C. Unanimously, it upheld the objection of unconstitutionality raised by the President of Romania and found that the Law amending Article 215 (1) of Law No 134/2010 on the Civil Procedure Code was unconstitutional as a whole.
In essence, the Court noted that the Senate did not have the opportunity to debate and vote on the regulatory scope of Articles II and III adopted by the Chamber of Deputies, which introduced new powers for the Superior Council of Magistracy and, consequently, fell within the decision-making competence of the Senate, therefore excluding it from the legislative process. Due to the major differences in legal content and the significantly different configuration between the forms debated and voted by the two Chambers of Parliament, the Court finds that the text of the law in the form adopted by the Chamber of Deputies brings a change in its essence and fundamentally departs both from the will of the initiators and from the will of the first notified Chamber and, as the provisions of Articles II and III have not been debated by the Senate, it dismissed the law in the form proposed by the initiators. Therefore, the amendments made by the Chamber of Deputies, decision-making Chamber, in terms of quantity and quality, are likely to contradict the requirements of the principle of bicameralism established by Article 61 (2) and Article 75 of the Constitution, which entails the unconstitutionality of the Law amending Article 215 (1) of Law No 134/2010 on the Civil Procedure Code as a whole.
Furthermore, by analysing the intrinsic pleas of unconstitutionality, the Court found them to be well-founded, and the provisions of Article I of the Law amending Article 215 (1) of Law No 134/2010 on the Civil Procedure Code were found unconstitutional because they are unclear, unpredictable and likely to affect the right to a fair trial.
*
The decisions are final and generally binding.
The arguments retained as grounds for the solutions delivered by the Constitutional Court shall be presented in the decisions, to be published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I.
External Relations, Press and Protocol Department of the Constitutional Court of Romania