The Constitutional Court of Romania (CCR) has postponed to March 21 the Ombudsman’s complaint on the Law no.90/2001 forbidding persons who are criminally convicted to hold any position in the Government. The complaint has been submitted in early January by Victor Ciorbea, one day after the Grindeanu Government’s oath at the Cotroceni Palace.
“The case has been postponed. The next term is on March 21. We failed to reach a solution. We felt the need to deepen the case better and to analyze the best of the versions that have been discussed today, which are several”, stated the CCR President, Valer Dorneanu.
“We don’t need other opinions, since we already have about four opinions. Deepening is required in order to give a good solution, not a wrong one. We’d rather risk to be criticized and ponder twice more to give a good solution, than issue a wrong or hasty solution to make you glad that we decided something”, Dorneanu told to the journalists.
He said that there were no political pressures in this case or in other cases, and that several versions for the decisions have been discussed, “in one way or another”.
“CCR’s own practice will be reflected by the final decision. Of course we started also from our practice and from ECHR’s practice and we had a documentary material from very many European countries on the way of regulating this matter, we had legal doctrine and everything”, Dorneanu added.
On January 5, Victor Ciorbea stated for News.ro that he sent to the Constitutional Court the complaint on the Law no.90/2001, which provides that only persons who haven’t been criminally convicted and who are not in any of the incompatibility cases, can be members of the Government.
According to the Ombudsman, Constitutional Court has been notified related to the Article no.2 of the Law no.90/2001.
This article provides that: “Only persons who have the Romanian citizenship and the domicile in the country, who can exercise their electoral rights, who haven’t been criminally convicted and who are not in any of the incompatibility cases provided by the Art. 4 para. (1), can be members of the Government”.
The Ombudsman stated later in a press release, that “the provisions of the Art.2 of the Law no.90/2001 breach the principle of the balance of powers, they do not meet the constitutional requirements of predictability and proportionality of the law, and they do not allow recognizing the right of difference for holding, in terms of equality and without unreasonable restrictions, a position which involves the exercise of the state authority”.