On Tuesday, the National Liberal Party (PNL) lodged with the Constitutional Court of Romania (CCR) a notification concerning the amendments brought to the regulations of the parliamentary committee on the oversight of the Romanian Intelligence Service (SRI), amendments that have introduced the obligation for any person to go before the committee if summoned.
The notification points out that the amendments break the principle of legality. The Liberals underscore that no standing parliamentary committee can have the perpetual character of a committee of inquiry.
“Consequently, the special attributes with which a committee of inquiry is invested can be used by a standing committee only via a specific decision adopted by Parliament, which should point out the purpose of the inquiry, its objectives and the limited period in which it will carry out the inquiry. The aforementioned solution – which is in line with regulations – is just, because the abusive use of the prerogatives of a committee of inquiry is thus prevented, prerogatives which include the subpoenaing and invitation of physical persons at the committee’s sittings. The abusive use of these prerogatives may harm the rights and freedoms of citizens, such as, for example, the inviolability of individual freedom,” the document reads.
The Liberals underscore that Parliament Decision no.85/2017 establishes – under Article 1, Point 4 – that “(5) The persons mentioned under paragraph (4) have the obligation to show up at hearings. The stipulations of Article 9 of the regulations of the Lower House and Senate’s joint activities are applicable,” this breaking the principle of legality because, contrary to the regulations in force, it confers upon a standing committee the prerogatives of a committee of inquiry, without the adoption of a specific parliamentary decision in this sense.
PNL also criticises other prerogatives included in the decision adopted by Parliament, namely:
-“The parliamentary committee of inquiry may subpoena any person who works within the Government or within other public administration bodies and who might know about a deed or circumstance liable to aid the uncovering of the truth in the case that is the object of the committee’s activity.”
-“In the case of groundless refusal of the committee’s requests, the committee may propose the notification of the head of the authority or institution for which the subpoenaed person is working, with a view to having the said institution’s regulations appropriately implemented, or may propose the notification of criminal prosecution bodies for the crime stipulated by Article 267 of law no.286/2009 on the criminal code, with subsequent modifications and supplements.”
-“The parliamentary committee may invite any other person who might have knowledge of a deed or circumstance liable to aid the uncovering of the truth in the case that is the object of the committee’s activity and who accepts being heard. The person invited may also answer the parliamentary inquiry committee in writing, providing the information requested, or may send by mail the documents or other pieces of evidence in their possession that are useful for the committee of inquiry.”
-“The invited persons’ refusal to provide the information requested or to put at the inquiry committee’s disposal other documents or pieces of evidence in their possession, which are useful to the committee’s activity, may be considered the obstruction or hampering of the process of uncovering the truth and may form the grounds for the notification of criminal prosecution bodies.”
The Liberals deem that, as a result of these amendments, the joint standing committee on the oversight of SRI’s activity becomes a joint standing committee on the oversight of SRI’s activity and of inquiry into aspects related to that activity, something that is nevertheless not permitted by the regulations of the Lower House and Senate’s joint activities, nor by the specific regulations of the two Houses of Parliament. In support of this argument, PNL points to CCR decisions no.209/2012 and no.924/2012.
The Liberals also criticise the unconstitutional extension, to other subjects of law, of the Government’s and other public administration bodies’ obligation to notify Parliament.
PNL also accuses the violation of provisions concerning the inviolability of individual freedom, corroborated with the restriction of some rights and freedoms.
The Liberals remind that, through decision no.411/2017, the CCR ruled that the obligation to go solely before a parliamentary committee of inquiry falls on every Romanian citizen provided he holds information relevant to the object of the investigation.
“The situation exceeds the constitutional provisions concerning the inviolability of individual freedom when the lawmaker proceeds to institute an obligation to go before a standing committee whose prerogative is the oversight of an intelligence service’s activity, because no action or deed carried out by a citizen who does not have employment rapports with the said intelligence service may constitute the object of the standing committee’s activity. The hearing can take place only if the standing committee is invested by Parliament with the prerogatives of a committee of inquiry. Otherwise, we find ourselves in the situation of violating the provisions of Article 23, Paragraph 1, of the Constitution, which states that “individual freedom is inviolable” and of Article 53, Paragraph 1, of the Constitution, which shows that “certain freedoms may be restricted only by law and only if necessary in a democratic society, and should be proportional to the situation that caused the restriction and should be applied without discrimination,” the notification reads.
