The argumentation of the Constitutional Court decision admitting PNL’s claim regarding the decision of the Senate in the matter of the detention and preventive arrest of PSD Senator Dan Sova has been published in the Official Journal. The Senate therefore must decide on how the CCR decision will be enforced.
At this point there are two options: either the Senate organises a new vote or reinterprets the vote given on 25 March.
Last week, CCR admitted PNL’s claim against the Senate decision on the arrest or Dan Sova.
After, last week, CCR President Augustin Zegrean had read the decision of the Court ion the Sova case, noting that the Senate decision was unconstitutional as it was adopted based on legal provisions and regulation contrary to the provisions of the Constitution, he said: ‘We will not indicate the way to follow because the Senate knows what they need to do’.
Senate Speaker Calin Popescu Tariceanu assured last week that the Senate ‘will abide and enforce’ the CCR ruling.
The Sova case is a premiere, the Legal Committee being put in difficulty ever since the scandal had started by the fact that the number of votes for the arrest was enough according to the Constitution, but insufficient under the Senate Regulation. Afterwards, the Regulation was brought in agreement with the Constitution, but the vote had already been given.
Senate Deputy Speaker: ‘The way to follow is probably a new vote’
The Deputy Speaker of the Senate, Ioan Chelaru (PSD), said on Monday that the vote should be held again in the Sova case in plenary sitting. Asked what was the way to follow in the Dan Sova case, after the Constitutional Court decision, Ioan Chelaru said that, after the Senate officially received the CCR decision, ‘the way to follow’ would be determined during the first meeting of the Standing Bureau. ‘I think the way to follow is the debate on the Legal Committee, drafting a decision and, the following week, after a plenary meeting of the Senate, probably a new vote’, Chelaru said.
The Deputy Speaker of the Senate noted that those speaking of a reinterpretation of the vote ‘either do not know it, or are ill-intended’.
‘I have heard positions suggesting a reinterpretation. As long as the Constitutional Court has ruled the whole decision unconstitutional, it means that the vote was also unconstitutional, therefore the entire procedure is, and we will need to do it all over again. This is why I said a reinterpretation was out of the question. Anyone who speaks in such terms either does not know it or is ill-intended’, Chelaru said.