I. At its hearing of 28 November 2023, the Constitutional Court, in the context of its a posteriori constitutional review, decided:
– By unanimity on points 1 and 3, and by majority on point 2,
1. It upheld the exception of unconstitutionality and found that the provisions of Article I of Law No 192/2023 repealing Chapter XI of Law No 96/2006 on the Statute of Deputies and Senators were constitutional in so far as they did not apply to Deputies/Senators who had exercised at least one full parliamentary mandate prior to the entry into force of Law No 192/2023.
2. It upheld the exception of unconstitutionality and found that the provisions of Article II of Law No 192/2023 were unconstitutional.
3. It dismissed, as unfounded, the exception of unconstitutionality and held that Law No 192/2023 was constitutional from the viewpoint of the extrinsic unconstitutionality challenges.
In essence, the Court held that the repeal of the legal provisions establishing the old-age allowance granted to Deputies and Senators was carried out on the basis of the Parliament’s discretion in determining the entitlements attached to their statute. Parliament had the constitutional power to abolish the old-age allowance for the future. Therefore, the Court established that Article 69 of the Constitution on the representative mandate of Deputies and Senators had not been breached.
At the same time, the Court also observed that the old-age allowance, until the time when it was repealed, was a legal right granted to Deputies and Senators who had exercised at least one full parliamentary mandate at the time of reaching the retirement age. Since that allowance was granted, in accordance with the law, on account of the exercise of a full parliamentary mandate, the Court held that the principle of legal certainty protected the legal right to the old-age allowance of Deputies and Senators who had exercised at least one full parliamentary mandate before the entry into force of Law No 192/2023, whether or not such entitlement had been enforced.
The regulatory withdrawal and abolition of the old-age allowance in respect of those persons entitled to the statutory right affected the integrity and substance of a legal right acquired on the basis of the mandate already exercised and gave rise to manifest legal uncertainty, in breach of the non-retroactivity component of legal certainty. Future and uncertain events – of a regulatory nature – may affect neither the right acquired and falling within the property sphere of the person nor the effects of an act which already exhausted – the exercise of at least a representative mandate.
The Court therefore found the breach of the constitutional provisions of Article 1 (3) and (5) on the principles of the rule of law and legal certainty, of Article 15 (2) on the non-retroactivity of the law and of Article 44 (1), first sentence, and (2) on the right to private property.
– The Court unanimously upheld the exception of unconstitutionality and found that the legislative solution provided for in Article 17 (1) (e) of Law No 248/2013 on the organisation and functioning of the Economic and Social Council, which did not specify the cases and grounds for the dismissal of members of the ESC or the procedure for their dismissal, was unconstitutional.
In essence, the Court found that the provisions of Article 17 (e) of Law No 248/2013 did not specify the cases in which and the reasons why the removal from office of the members of the plenary assembly of the ESC could be ordered, which was contrary to the constitutional provisions of Article 1 (5) on the principle of legality and to those of Article 141 on the Economic and Social Council. At the same time, the provisions complained of did not regulate a procedure for removal from office of the members of the ESC, which was contrary to the constitutional provisions of Article 1 (5) on the principle of legality and to those of Article 21 on free access to justice and of Article 24 on the right of defence.
*
Decisions are final and generally binding.
The arguments substantiating the decisions of the Constitutional Court shall be set out in the decisions, which will be published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I.
II. At the same time, the Constitutional Court postponed to 30 January 2024:
– the settlement of the objection of unconstitutionality concerning the unconstitutionality of the provisions of Article 15 (1) and (3) with reference to the words ‘general assembly’ and of the provisions of Article 33 (3) and (4) of the Youth Law, raised by the Advocate of the People;
– the settlement of the objection of unconstitutionality of the Law amending Government Ordinance No 27/2011 on road transport, objection raised by 43 Deputies of the Save Romania Union Parliamentary Group and by 13 independent Deputies.
Department of External Relations, Press and Protocol of the Constitutional Court