Lower Chamber Judiciary Committee Chairman Eugen Nicolicea stated on Wednesday that the members of the committee will adopt government emergency ordinance no.14 (GEO 14) next week, with the proposal that the text of the law should specify that GEO 13 ceased generating effects the moment it was abrogated.
“We received the notice; for the time being we don’t have it at the committee, GEO 14 hasn’t been sent or hasn’t arrived. Taking advantage of this discussion, I personally placed the entire paperwork at my colleagues’ disposal for them to be able to take the following measures during the next meeting and this was the consensus. The consensus is that OUG 14 should be approved and the situation of GEO 13 clarified, in the sense that it ceased generating all juridical effects on the date on which GEO 14 came into force. Namely, OUG 13 was abrogated on that date,” Eugen Nicolicea said.
According to the chairman of the judiciary committee, “the consensus is on this solution.” “Until Monday, when this meeting is scheduled, my colleagues will come up with proposals impervious to any challenge,” he added.
“I will ask the Standing Bureau for us to work in parallel with the plenary meeting on Monday, so that the plenum would be able to have its say on ordinance 14, to approve it, on Monday or Tuesday,” the PSD lawmaker added.
Eugen Nicolicea also stated that he proposed that the law adopting GEO 14 should specify the fact that GEO 13 ceased generating effects on the date on which it was abrogated.
“Ordinance 13 hasn’t arrived. I proposed that the law approving ordinance 14 should specify that ordinance 13’s effects ceased on the date on which it was abrogated by ordinance 14 and, consequently, the legislative procedure ceases,” the Social Democrat said.
Asked whether a law to approve or reject ordinance 13 is needed, Eugen Nicolicea said: “According to a Constitutional Court decision – opinion expressed by professor Vida, professor Muraru and Ms Elena Simina Tanasescu –, Parliament can legislate anything, but it cannot legislate into nothingness, it cannot legislate an ordinance that is abrogated.”
Likewise, when asked why members of the press were asked to leave the room, the Lower Chamber lawmaker explained that the members of the Judiciary Committee had to discuss some internal regulations issues.
“We had internal regulations problems and we don’t want to make statements for the press related to these internal regulations problems, we want to solve some problems. We didn’t kick you out, we just told you that the meeting is over and issues unrelated to the meeting were up next,” Eugen Nicolicea concluded.
Law no.24/2000 on legislative norms stipulates, under Article 64, Paragraph 3, that “the abrogation of a legislative disposition or act has a final character.” “It’s not permissible for the initial legislative act to be reinstated in force by abrogating a prior act of abrogation. Exceptions to this rule are the provisions of Government ordinances that stipulate abrogation norms and are rejected by Parliament through the passing of a law,” the law reads.