Juridical Tribune Volume 6, Issue 1, June 2016
appreciate the doctrine, constitutionalising law is the effect of Constitution
The Constitution7al Court Decision no. 442 from 10 June 2015
concerning the unconstitutionality of the provisions of the enactment to amend the
Law of public utilities services no.51/2006, it brings in front of us the
ascertainment that this law is unconstitutional.
The guiding idea of the majority which are presented every four years in
elections is based on the determination for an universal, equal, direct, secret and
freely expressed in order to facilitate the exercise of the mandates of elected
officials from local or center level, strictly serving the people, in the public interest.
All in service of the people, but in a different manifestation that legally
allows it to be the institution entitled to decide on its jurisdiction, The
Constitutional Court is the sole body of constitutional jurisdiction in Romania. And
the center around which the debate is weaving, the concern and ultimately our
convictions before submitting proposals to ferenda law, are based on the failure to
comply of the Decision no. 442 of 10 June 2015 referring to the objection of
unconstitutionality of the amending Law regarding changing the public utilities
services Law no. 51/2006,
pronounced by the Romanian Constitutional Court and
communicated to the Romanian President, the presidents of bought Parliament
Chambers and to the Prime Minister.
As the doctrine considers "all the decisions of the Court given both in
solving the objections of unconstitutionality, and the exceptions of
unconstitutionality of a Law, an ordinance or provisions of the Parliamentary
Regulations, result in forcing the Parliament and the Government, where
appropriate, to reconcile upon the unconstitutional provisions with the
A motivating and explainable logic of the Parliament in adopting a law
with a certain unconstitutional content even before promulgation
, we do not
identify nor do we intend, following the same idea path in what regards the failure
to comply on behalf of the Parliament of the unconstitutional provisions for
agreeing with the decision of the Constitutional Court.
But, what really worries us is the fact that these declared unconstitutional
provisions produce effects, without righteously suspending them so they cannot
Ștefan Deaconu, Drept constituțional (Constitutional right), 2nd edition, publisher C.H. Beck,
Bucharest, 2013, p. 109.
Published in the Official Gazette no. 526/15 07 2015.
Republished in the Official Gazette no. 121/ 05 03 2013.
Ioan Muraru in Ioan Muraru, Elena Simina Tănăsescu (coo rd), Constituția României. Comentariu
pe articole (Romanian Constitution, Comment on articles), Publisher C.H. Beck, Bucharest, 2008,
Law no . 313 from 7 december 201 5 amending the Law of pub lic utilities no. 51/2006, published
in Official Gazette no. 910 from 09. 12. 2015.
On the preventive control (a priori) conducted by the Constitutional Court before the presidential
promulgation of the law see Cătălin-Silviu Săraru, Legea contenciosu lui administrativ
nr. 554/2004. Examen critic a l Deciziilor Curtii Constitutionale , C.H. Beck Publishing House,
Bucharest, 2015, pp. 1,2.