I. At the hearing of 21 September 2022, the Constitutional Court, within the a priori constitutional review, unanimously ruled as follows:
1. Upheld the objection of unconstitutionality made by the People’s Advocate and found that the Law amending and supplementing the Government Ordinance No 2/2001 on the legal regime of administrative offences was unconstitutional.
In essence, the Court held that, due to the way the criticised law is drafted, the procedure for the judgment of the contravention complaint against the penalty of warning or fine of up to 3000 lei is impossible to apply, so that the law contravenes the provisions of Article 1 (5) of the Constitution, in the components relating to the clarity and predictability of the law.
The Court also held that the lack of appeal against the judicial decision by which the contravention complaint was resolved, in the event that the contested sanction is warning or fine not exceeding 3000 lei, contravenes the provisions of Article 21 (3) of the Constitution on the right to a fair trial.
2. Upheld, after joining, the objections of unconstitutionality raised by the Government and the President of Romania and found that the Law on the transfer of a part of a land located in the town of Teiuș, from the public property of Teiuș and the administration of the Local Council of Teiuș, county of Alba, to the private property of Teiuș and amending Law No 54/2018 on the transfer of a land from the public domain of the State and the administration of the Ministry of Transports, under the concession of the National Railway Company “C.F.R.” – S.A., to the public domain of Teiuș and into the administration of the Local Council of Teiuș, county of Alba is unconstitutional as a whole.
In essence, the Court held that the transfer from the public domain of the administrative-territorial unit to the private domain by the law subject to constitutional review, and not by decision of the local council prejudices Article 1 (4) and (5), Article 61 (1) and Article 120 (1) of the Constitution.
On the one hand, the law governing such a transfer is contrary to Article 1 (4) and Article 61 (1) of the Constitution because it is an act expressing the will of the legislative authority, issued in an area in which the will of the local public administration authorities had to be expressed.
On the other hand, the non-existence of the agreement of the administrative-territorial units regarding the transfer of the goods from their public property to the private one, but also the fact that they did not have the opportunity to justify the cessation of use or local public interest, are likely to affect Article 120 (1) of the Constitution.
Also, the law subject to review maintains the legislative solution of Article 1 (1) of Law No 54/2018, namely the transfer of the land from the public property of the state to the public property of the administrative-territorial unit by law, in disagreement with the case-law of the Constitutional Court, in which it was held that the transfer from the public property of the state to the public property of the administrative-territorial units is made, by Government decision, at the request of the local councils, which affects Article 61 (1), Article 102 (1), final sentence, Article 120 (1) and Article 136 (2) of the Constitution.
It is also well founded the criticism concerning the violation of Article 147 (4) of the Constitution, because the decisions of the Constitutional Court regarding the prohibition of regulation by law on a specific case are not respected.
3. Upheld the objection of unconstitutionality made by deputies belonging to the Parliamentary Group of the Save Romania Union and found unconstitutional the provisions of Article I, points 2-4 and 6-9 of the Law supplementing the Framework Law No 153/2017 on the remuneration of staff paid from public funds and supplementing Law No 7/2006 on the statute of the parliamentary public servants;
4. Upheld the objection of unconstitutionality made by deputies belonging to the Parliamentary Group of the Save Romania Union and found unconstitutional the provisions of Article I, points 2 and 3 and Article II of the Law amending and supplementing the Framework Law No 153/2017 on the remuneration of staff paid from public funds and for the establishment of fiscal-budgetary measures.
In essence, with regard to the last two files, the Court found that there were major differences in legal content and a significantly different configuration between the forms of the law adopted by the two Chambers of the Parliament, which is contrary to the principle of bicameralism.
II. At the same hearing, the Constitutional Court, unanimously dismissed, as unfounded, the objection of unconstitutionality made by deputies belonging to the Parliamentary Group of the Save Romania Union and found that the provisions of Articles I points 3 and 20 and Article II of the Law amending and completing Law No 7/1996 on cadastre and real estate advertising, as well as the law as a whole, were constitutional in relation to the criticisms made.
In essence, the Court found that the amendments made to the Law amending and supplementing Law No 7/1996 on cadastre and real estate advertising meet the quality requirements of the law, which are clear, precise and predictable. At the same time, the provisions relating to the remuneration of the staff of the National Agency for Cadastre and Real Estate Advertising do not infringe the principle of equal rights.
*
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 5 October 2022,
1. The objection of unconstitutionality of the Law amending and supplementing Law No 78/2018 on the exemption of staff paid from public funds from the payment of certain amounts representing income of a salary nature, an objection raised by the President of Romania;
2. 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;
– for 12 October 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.
External Relations, Press and Protocol Department of the Constitutional Court of the Constitutional Court of the Constitutional Court