The Constitutional Court of Romania (CCR) declined on Wednesday, after a few hours of debates, by majority of votes, the second contestation submitted by the National Liberal Party (PNL) regarding the vote in the Senate in the matter of the request for the detention and arrest of Social-Democratic Party (PSD) Senator Dan Sova.
In early June, the Senate voted a second time on the prosecutors’ request for lifting Dan Sova’s immunity in the Turceni-Rovinari matter, after the Constitutional Court had ruled the previous Senate decision unconstitutional. There were 72 votes opposed, 66 in favour and two were cancelled. Sova kept his immunity.
PNL challenged the second decision in Court, claiming that a new vote was not necessary and that the first one should have just been reinterpreted in agreement with the Constitution.
Dan Sova was saved from arrest on 27 March, with 79 votes in favour, 67 \opposed and 5 annulled, without obtaining the necessary majority of 85 votes in favour being obtained.
Under the Senate Regulation in force at that date (art. 173 that was the object of the PNL complaint), the decisions of the Senate were made only if voted by the majority of senators, not the majority of senators present during the meeting. The Regulation was changed the week after the vote.
On 8 April, the Constitutional Court, notified by the President of the Superior Council of Magistracy (CSM), found there was a conflict of a legal nature between the Public Ministry – the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice and the Senate, ‘triggered by the refusal of the Senate to edit and publish the decision on the result of the plenary vote’ in the matter of the request for the preventive arrest of Senator Dan Sova.
Following the CCR ruling, the Senate was supposed to write its decision, communicate it and publish it in the Official Journal.
The request of the National Anticorruption Directorate (DNA) on the detention and arrest of Senator Dan Sova was based on serious charges – falsification of documents, obstruction of investigation and attempted hiding of possibly incriminating evidence. Concretely, Dan Sova allegedly destroyed the hard-disks of the computers of the law firm in order to erase traces.