At the hearing of 23 November 2021, the Constitutional Court, in the context of the review of laws subsequent to the promulgation, decided:
I. By a majority, upheld the exception of unconstitutionality and found that Law No 161/2019 amending and completing the Government Emergency Ordinance No 24/2008 on the access to the personal file and the disclosure of the Securitate was unconstitutional was a whole. By the same decision, the Constitutional Court unanimously dismissed, as unfounded, the exception of unconstitutionality and found that the provisions of Article 2 b) first sentence of the Government Emergency Ordinance No 24/2008 on the access to the personal file and the disclosure of the Securitate were constitutional in relation to the criticisms made.
In order to give this decision, the Court held that Law No 161/2019, legislative act amending the Government Emergency Ordinance No 24/2008, did not establish an autonomous administrative authority and did not regulate the powers of such an authority, but it regulated matters relating to the organisation and functioning of CNSAS. Therefore, the constitutional requirement regarding the regulation by organic law concerns only the status of CNSAS as an autonomous administrative authority, so that the adoption of Law No 161/2019, erroneously, as an organic law violates the constitutional provisions on the functional bicameralism of the two Chambers of Parliament, as well as those of Article 117 (3) on the establishment of autonomous administrative authorities.
In view of the case-law of the Constitutional Court and of the fact that Article 12 ind. 1 of the Government Emergency Ordinance No 24/2008 was inserted into the body of the legislative act by Law No 161/2019, the unconstitutionality of which as a whole was upheld concerning the merits of the grounds for extrinsic unconstitutionality, the Court found that there was no longer any need to examine the criticisms of intrinsic unconstitutionality in relation to Article 12 ind. 1 of the Government Emergency Ordinance No 24/2008.
II. By a majority, upheld the exception of unconstitutionality and found that the phrase “is not under disciplinary investigation” contained in Article 27 ind. 46 (1) b) of Law No 360/2002 on the status of the police officer was unconstitutional.
III. By unanimous vote, upheld the exception of unconstitutionality and found that the provisions of Article 34 (2) of Law No 188/1999 on the status of the civil servants, in the drafting prior to the amendments brought by Law No 156/2018 amending and completing Law No 188/199 on the status of the civil servants, were unconstitutional.
*
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.
External Relations, Press and Protocol Department of the Constitutional Court of the Constitutional Court