I. During its sitting of 3 October 2023, the Constitutional Court conducted the a priori constitutional review and ruled as follows:
– Unanimously, upheld the objection of unconstitutionality raised by a number of 51 Deputies, belonging to the Save Romania Union Parliamentary Group and non-affiliated Deputies from the Chamber of Deputies, as well as by the President of Romania, and found that the Law amending Law No 287/2009 on the Civil Code was unconstitutional, as a whole.
In essence, the Court held that, although in light of its normative content this was an organic law, it was adopted as an ordinary law, in violation of the provisions of Article 73 (3) (m) and of Article 76 (1) by reference to Article 147 (4) of the Constitution.
– Unanimously, dismissed, as unfounded, the objection of unconstitutionality raised by the Advocate of the People and found that the Law approving Government Emergency Ordinance No 175/2022 establishing a series of measures regarding investment objectives aimed at building hydropower facilities under execution and other projects of major public interest using renewable energy, as well as amending and supplementing a series of normative acts was constitutional in relation to the pleas of unconstitutionality filed, and, by a majority vote, it dismissed, as unfounded, the objection of unconstitutionality and found that the provisions of Article l of Government Emergency Ordinance No 175/2022 were constitutional in relation to the pleas of unconstitutionality filed.
In essence, the Court held that, by issuing this emergency ordinance, the Government exercised its own regulatory power expressly provided for by the provisions of Article 115 of the Basic Law and, as such, this was not a case of subrogation to the powers of a ministry.
Also, the Court found that this was not a situation in which the aggrieved person lost all possibility to address a court of law, but one in which a different procedural path was established, considering that the provisions of Article 9 of the Law on Administrative Litigation No 554/2004 [proceedings against Government ordinances], and not those of Article 8 (1) of the same regulatory act, became applicable. Thus, there is still the legal possibility to address a court of law and request compensation for damages caused by Government ordinances, annulment of administrative acts issued on their basis and, where appropriate, force a public authority to issue an administrative act or to carry out a certain administrative action [according to Article 9 (5) of Law No 554/2004] and, moreover, to subject a decision issued by the latter to review by a hierarchically superior court [according to the general rules of the Code of Civil Procedure].
As such, the provisions of Article 1 (5), Article 21 and Article 115 (6) of the Basic Law are not violated.
*
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.
II. Also, the Constitutional Court postponed for 5 October 2023 its adjudication on the objection of unconstitutionality of the provisions of the Law regarding certain measures aimed at the continuation of their activity by persons meeting the retirement conditions, as well as amending and supplementing certain normative acts, objection raised by the High Court of Cassation and Justice – the Joined Sections.
External Relations, Press and Protocol Department of the Constitutional Court of Romania