JUSTICE POLITICS

Valer Dorneanu, CCR President: The Parliament and the Government should solve the situations by loyal cooperation; it’s not Constitutional Court’s business. Reactions after CCR ruled that Ombudsman’s notification on the GEO 13/2017 is inadmissible

The Constitutional Court of Romania (CCR) President Valer Dorneanu, stated on Thursday that the Parliament and the Government have to settle the way of solving the problems that were subject of the GEO 13 “by loyal cooperation, not by communicating over the fence”, mentioning that it’s not CCR’s business to decide the regulation modality.

“The consequences that will happen subsequently to solve the issues that were subject to the GEO, the adequacy with our decisions, amending certain texts of the Criminal Code, all these are the problems of the Executive and Parliament. They will have to settle together, based on a loyal cooperation, and not on a communication made over the fence, the most appropriate modality to solve these situations which are real” stated the CCR President Valer Dorneanu, after the Court has decided that Ombudsman’s notification on the GEO 13/2017 is inadmissible.

It’s not CCR’s “business” to decide which modality should be chosen, Dorneanu added.

“First of all, the real thing is the necessity for the Parliament and the Government to adequate their legislation according to our decisions. It’s not our business to decide, now or some other time, which modality should be chosen”, Dorneanu claimed.

 

CCR: Ombudsman’s notification on GEO 13/2017- rejected as inadmissible

 

The Constitutional Court of Romania (CCR), on Thursday, rejected as inadmissible the notification of the Ombudsman in respect to the emergency ordinance regarding the amendments to the Criminal Codes, because the emergency ordinance was repealed.

The announcement has been made by the President of the Constitutional Court, Valer Dorneanu.

“We were notified by the Ombudsman in regards to the constitutionality of the GEO No.13/2017. In such cases, in the first place we verify if the notification is legal and secondly we verify if the request is admissible. We established, while checking the legality of the notification, that the Ombudsman was entitled to make the notification on an ordinance which was in force. In respect to the admissibility of the request, according to the article 29 in our law of organization, we verify the constitutionality of laws and ordinances in force. (…) The Ordinance No.13 was repealed, it’s true that it was repealed after the notification of the Ombudsman, and from this point of view, we cannot establish the notification admissibility if the ordinance gathered the extraordinary conditions of opportuneness, on the content, or on the extrinsic method of control. In these conditions, with majority of votes, we have decided to reject the notification, as it became inadmissible. I said that “it became inadmissible,” because the repeal came up after our notification,” President of the CCR Valer Dorneanu stated.

He added that the CCR often gave opinions in respect to the unconstitutionality objections that were raised by the parties throughout the trials and in some cases the Court can also continue the investigation on the repealed acts when they generated judicial effects.

“In the notification made by the Ombudsman, we have jurisprudence and decided to reject as inadmissible or becoming inadmissible, precisely because in this case we make an analysis of the ordinance in an abstract manner, as we call it, and not enter in its content. We make the same analysis as in the case of exceptions raised in trials, where we take into account the presence of the parties and the effects which occurred to the parties involved in the trial. (..) Neither the intervention of the prosecutor, (…) nor the examination that we conducted has established elements that were already in force, that were already generating judicial effects. If such things exist, remedies will also exist, stipulated by the Constitution and by our law of organization,” Dorneanu added.

When asked about the possible consequences of rejecting the GEO No.14/2017, Dorneanu mentioned that the CCR does not rule on a case based on suppositions.

“Both from the Ombudsman and the prosecutor plea, we deducted that we should rule on the constitutionality, because the GEO No.14, which repealed the GEO 13, might be in its turn repealed and then I don’t know what consequences will be generated. We don’t rule on a case based on suppositions, possibilities, the moment when someone challenges the GEO 14 then the person who will be forced to solve it will establish all the outcomes related to the Ordinance effects that might occur. The correlations of that case will be made then, not now. (…) The GEO No.13 is no longer in the legislation in force,” Dorneanu explained.

 

Reactions after CCR has decided that Ombudsman’s notification on the GEO 13/2017 is inadmissible

 

Turcan: it’s obvious that the last way to prevent GEO 13 to enter into force is to be rejected by the Parliament

 

PNL Interim President Raluca Turcan, wrote on Facebook that she doesn’t comment on the Constitutional Court’s decision to reject Ombudsman’s notification against GEO 13 as being inadmissible, and asked the Parliament to reject, in emergency procedure, the normative act, simultaneously to the adoption of the GEO 14.

“I found out about the Constitutional Court’s decision, which I don’t intend to comment. It’s obvious now that the last way to prevent GEO 13 to enter into force is to be rejected by the Parliament, simultaneously to the adoption of the GEO 14. PNL requested this to take place in emergency procedure, but the PSD-ALDE majority ignored this call. I ask again that next week both GEOs to go in parliament and not to be kept in drawers to prepare who knows what other disasters in the criminal laws area” Turcan wrote on Facebook.

 

Gorghiu: I ask to have a single objective in Parliament on Monday: to vote GEO 14, which repeals GEO 13

 

Former Liberal leader Alina Gorghiu also reacted on Thursday on her Facebook page, after the Constitutional Court rejected the notification submitted by Ombudsman on GEO 13. Alina Gorghiu is asking to the PSD leaders to have a single objective in the next Parliament’s session: the vote for GEO 14, which repeals GEO 13.

“CCR has ascertained that the notification on GEO 13, the one designed for Dragnea, the maximum leader, is inadmissible. The simple reason: it cannot decide on a repealed ordinance.

I am asking to PSD, to Dragnea and to their majority, to have a single objective in Parliament, on Monday: to vote for GEO 14, repealing GEO 13, because it makes good to no one that the public fear related to the fact that the abuse of the GEO 13 can become reality soon. So, gentlemen, please don’t maintain the social tension and let’s solve the problem quickly” Alina Gorghiu wrote.

 

PICCJ: The repeal had the result of reinstating the constitutional framework in which the judiciary exercises its powers

 

In a press release issued on Thursday, the Prosecutor attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice (PICCJ) stated that the repeal of the Government’s Emergency Ordinance no.13/2017 had the result of reinstating the constitutional framework in which the judiciary exercises its powers.

“The decision of the Constitutional Court rejecting the constitutional challenge as inadmissible confirms that the GEO no.13/2017 produced no consequences.

In this context, we appreciate that the constitutional role of the Public Ministry to represent the general interests of the society, to defend the rule of law and the fundamental rights and freedoms of the people can be fully exercised” shows the PICCJ press release.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Related posts

Senate overrules passing STS to MAI, after negative responses of CSAT, SRI and SIE

Nine O' Clock

PPMT wants territorial reorganisation based on the model of historic regions

Nine O' Clock

Police investigating 111 students expelled from Baccalaureate in Hunedoara

Nine O' Clock