The Constitutional Court of Romania (CCR) rejected on Thursday the request of Senate President Calin Popescu-Tariceanu and established that there is no judicial conflict between the Government and the National Anticorruption Directorate (DNA) following the investigation into the legality of the Executive decisions under which parts of the Belina island and Pavel Arm were passed from the property of the state to that of Teleorman county.
“By the unanimity of the votes of those who were present, the Court rejected the request and found that there is no constitutional conflict between the Romanian Government and the Public Ministry – DNA. The brief presentation of the reasons will be made in the press release” the Chairman of the Court Valer Dorneanu announced.
In the request submitted to CCR, Tariceanu indicated the judicial conflict appeared following the criminal investigation conducted by the National Anticorruption Directorate on the legality of the Government’s Decision no.858/2013, respectively of the Government’s Decision no.943/2013.
“In the document submitted to the Constitutional Court of Romania is stated: the concrete actions and deeds presented in the request prove the existence of a judicial conflict of a constitutional nature between the Government and DNA – the latter being a component of the Public Ministry, consisting in a criminal prosecution started in relation with the adoption of a Government’s decision. But according to those provided by the Constitutional Court itself, the adoption of the Government’s decisions reflects the primary competence of the Government” according to the Senate President.
Calin Popescu Tariceanu asked CCR to establish the existence of the judicial conflict of a constitutional nature between the Public Ministry – the National Anticorruption Directorate, on the one hand, and the Romanian Government, on the other hand; to establish the cause of the conflict: the Public Ministry – the National Anticorruption Directorate has assumed the competence to investigate the circumstances, the context, the opportuneness and the legality of the issuance of the two Government’s decisions; to state that, in the future, prosecutors will no longer be able to investigate the circumstances, the context, the opportuneness and the legality of the Government’s decisions.