The european arrest warrant reflected In the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court Of Romania

Author:Bogdan Micu
Position:Associated professor, Law Faculty, Nicolae Titulescu University
Pages:35-44
SUMMARY

A member state of the European Union since 2007, Romania is bound to implement in its in domestic legislation many of the provisions of the Acquis Communautaire, including those of the Framework-Decision no. 2002/584/JHA of the Council of the European Union, dated June 13, 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States. This is a tool for judicial cooperation in criminal matters which enables the Members States to provide assistance to one another in a rapid manner based on the principle of mutual trust, which should apply within the European Union. As it is normal in a democratic state, the national provisions covered by exceptions for non-compliance with the Constitution invoked before the Constitutional Court of Romania, but they have always passed the test of compliance with the Fundamental Law.

 
CONTENT
The european arrest warrant reflected in the jurisprudence … 35
THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT REFLECTED
IN THE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
OF ROMANIA
Bogdan MICU
Associated professor, Law Faculty,
Nicolae Titulescu University
Abstract:
A member state of the European Union since 2007, Romania is bound to implement in its in
domestic legislation many of the provisions of the Acquis Communautaire, including those of the
Framework-Decision no. 2002/584/JHA of the Council of the European Union, dated June 13, 2002
on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States. This is a tool
for judicial cooperation in criminal matters which enables the Members States to provide assistance
to one another in a rapid manner based on the principle of mutual trust, which should apply within
the European Union. As it is normal in a democratic state, the national provisions covered by
exceptions for non-compliance with the Constitution invoked before the Constitutional Court of
Romania, but they have always passed the test of compliance with the Fundamental Law.
Keywords: European arrest warrant, constitutionality, mutual trust, cooperation in criminal
matters.
1. The regulatory framework for the European arrest warrant in the
Romanian legislation
In Romania, the Title III of the Law no. 302/2004 on the judicial cooperation
in criminal matters1, stipulates that “in terms of cooperation with the European
Union Member States for the enforcement of the Framework-Decision
no. 2002/584/JHA of the Council of the European Union dated June 13, 2002 on
the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between the Member
States2. These provisions have been included in the domestic regulations as a result
of the acceptance and implementation of the principle of mutual trust applicable
among the European Union Member States.
e-mail: bogdan.micu@mnpartners.ro
1 Republished in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 377 of May 31, 2011, as subsequently
amended and supplemented.
2 Published in the Official Journal of the European Communities no. L 190/1 of July 18, 2002.
Law Review vol. I, issue 1, January-June 2015, p. 35-44
36 BOGDAN MICU
Pursuant to the art. 84 herein, the European arrest warrant is a judicial
decision whereby a competent judicial authority in a Member State of the
European Union requests for the arrest and surrender of a person towards another
Member State, in order to allow for the performance of the criminal prosecution,
trial or for execution of custodial sentence or of a measure involving deprivation of
liberty.
According to the Romanian law, the judiciary authorities competent to issue
European arrest warrants are the courts of law and the Romanian judiciary
authorities competent for the enforcement are the courts of appeal. In terms of
competence to receive the European arrest warrant, the Romanian law indicates
the Ministry of Justice and the prosecutors ‘offices attached to the courts of appeal
of the jurisdiction where the concerned person was located. In case the
whereabouts of the concerned person remain unknown, the European arrest
warrant will be sent to Romania and directed to the Prosecutor’s Office attached to
the Court of Appeal of Bucharest.
The Romanian central authority is the Ministry of Justice, which, in this
capacity (art. 85 para 4 of the Law no. 302/2004): a) receives the European arrest
warrant issued by a judicial authority from another Member State of the European
Union and forwards it to the prosecutor’s office attached to the court of appeal of
the jurisdiction where the concerned person was located or to the Prosecutor’s
Office attached to the Court of Appeal of Bucharest, in case the concerned person
was not located, whenever the issuer judicial authority is unable to forward the
European arrest warrant directly to the recipient Romanian judiciary authorities;
b) forwards the issued European arrest warrant to a Romanian judicial authority ,
if this is unable to forward it directly to the foreign recipient judicial authority or
when a Member State where the mandate is to be executed indicated the Ministry
of Justice as the recipient authority; c) keeps record of the European arrest warrants
issued or received by the Romanian judicial authorities, for statistical purposes; d)
carries out any other tasks, established by law in order to assist and support the
Romanian judicial authorities for the issuing and enforcement of the European
arrest warrants.
The requirements to be fulfilled by the European arrest warrant in terms of
content and form are indicated in the art. 86 of the Law no. 302/2004. This piece of
law establishes that the European arrest warrant shall include the following data:
a) the identity and citizenship of the requested person; b) the name, address, phone
and fax numbers an email address of the issuer judicial authority; c) the mention
regarding the existence of a final judgment, a custody warrant or any other
enforceable judgment having the same effect which allows for cooperation; d) the
nature and judicial classification of the offence; e) a description of the
circumstances of the offence, including the time, place, level of involvement of the
The european arrest warrant reflected in the jurisprudence … 37
requested person; f) the sentence passed, if the judgment remained final or the
punishment stipulated by the law for the committed offence; g) other
consequences of the offence, if possible.
The European arrest warrant forwarded to the competent authorities of
another Member State needs to be translated into the official language(s) of the
enforcement state or in one or several of the official languages of the institutions of
the European Union, that the respective state accepts, according to the declaration
submitted to the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union. The
European Arrest warrant forwarded to the Romanian authorities in order to be
executed needs to be translated in Romanian or in either French or English.
2. Extradition of Own Citizens as Regulated by the Romanian Constitution
In Romania, since the EU pre-accession period, the Constitutional Court
found that “in order to express certain requirements of the Acquis Communautaire
regarding the fight against terrorism, transnational criminality, organized crime,
drug and human trafficking the circumstances of the constitutional interdiction
regarding the extradition of Romanian citizens need to be presented"3. Under these
circumstances, the art. 19 para (1) and (2) of the Constitution, as reviewed by the
Law no. 429/2003, stipulates that a Romania citizen may be extradited from
Romania provided that three conditions are met: the existence of an international
convention that Romania is a part of, based on mutuality and according to the law.
Under these circumstances, Romania has not experienced any difficulties in
the implementation at national level of the cooperation instrument called the
European arrest warrant, and it happened in other states, despite the existence of
the exceptions raised by the litigants or even by courts ex officio4.
3. Decisions of the Constitutional Court of Romania in relation to the
European arrest warrant
As regards the constitutionality control over the national regulation
implementing the European arrest warrant – the Law no. 302/2004, the
Constitutional Court issued several decisions regarding its constitutionality.
The first reference to the European arrest warrant from the jurisprudence of
the Constitutional Court of Romania is found in the Decision no. 134 of February
20, 20075. It refers to an exception for non-compliance with the Constitution of the
provisions of the art. 54 (turned 52 after the re-publication of the law) para (2) of
the Law no. 302/2004 on the international judicial cooperation in criminal matters
justified according to its author by the fact that the said legal provisions infringe
3 The Decision no. 148 of April 16, 2003, published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I,
no. 317 of May 12, 2003.
4 All the notifications and the decisions passed in this respect may be viewed on the official
website of the Constitutional Court of Romania - https://www.ccr.ro/ccrSearch/MainSearch/
SearchForm.aspx
5 Published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 190 of March 20, 2007.
38 BOGDAN MICU
the constitutional provisions of the art. 17 regarding the Romanian citizens living
abroad and of the art. 21 para (3) on the parties’ right to a fair trial, because the
Romanian judiciary observes, without any censorship, an arrest warrant issue
abroad in the absence of the concerned person and without subpoenaing them. In
relation to this exception, the Ombudsman presented an opinion whereby the
exception for non-compliance with the Constitution is not justified, because, if the
court of law competent to decide also on the fulfilment of the extradition
requirement would decide on the grounds of the criminal prosecution or sentence
or on the opportunity of taking these measures, this would be an infringement of
the provisions of the art. 19 para (2) of the Constitution, whereby, "By derogation
from the provisions of the paragraph (1), the Romanian citizens may be extradited based on
the international conventions that Romania is part of, according to the law and based on
mutuality."
The piece of law claimed to be unconstitutional states that the art.54 (52 after
re-publication) para (2) of the Law no. 302/2004 with the following wording: "The
Court of Appeal is not competent to state on the justification of the prosecution or
conviction for which the foreign authority requires the extradition, nor on the opportunity
of the extradition."
After examining the invoked exception of unconstitutionality, the Court
retained that the procedure of passive extradition stipulated in the Law no. 302/2004
is the natural expression of the constitutional norm, whereby the Romanian citizens
may be extradited based on the international conventions that Romania is part of, according
to the law and based on mutuality - art. 19 para (2). Consequently, the regulation of
the procedure for judging such an incident lies, according the art. 126 para (2) of
the Fundamental Law, with the Romanian lawmaker, of course complying with
the fundamental rights and freedoms, among which there is the right to a fair trial.
Moreover, the Court showed that by virtue of the art 17 of the Constitution,
given that they are Romanian citizens, the Romanian citizens living abroad enjoy
the protection of the Romanian state. This implies the existence of agreement and
conventions enabling a judicial cooperation in line with the generally
acknowledged norms of the international law. Thus, “the protection invoked by
the author of the exception for non-compliance with the Constitution may be
turned into a case of impunity for anti-social actions perpetrated on the territory of
a foreign state, the Romanian court being obliged to the check only the compliance
with the conditions required for the extradition, not to state whether the
prosecution or conviction established by the foreign authority is well grounded or
not nor on the opportunity of the extradition. Otherwise, this would be an
infringement of the principle of mutual recognition of criminal judgments6.
6 The same thesis was reiterated in the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Romania,
no. 1193/2009, published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 731 of October 28, 2009, as well
as in the decision of the Constitutional Court of Romania no. 1.290/2010, published in the Official
Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 749 of November 10, 2010.
The european arrest warrant reflected in the jurisprudence … 39
In particular, the Constitutional Court shows that for “Romania, after joining
the European Union, the European arrest warrant is the vault key of the judicial
cooperation implementing the principle of the mutual recognition of repressive
judgments. Moreover, the framework Decision of the Council of the European
Union dated June 13, 2002, intended on the one hand, the implementation of a
simplified procedure to replace the formal and cumbersome procedure of
extradition established by the international documents, and on the other hand, the
transformation of the European Union into a free area of security and justice”.
Since the first year of Romania’s accession into the European Union, the
Constitutional Court of Romania stated that the simplified cooperation instrument
represented by the European arrest warrant is in line with the provisions of the
Romanian Constitution.
As regards the application of the institution of the European arrest warrant
over time, the art. 108 (currently the art. 122) of the Law no. 302/2004, whereby,
“The decisions herein shall apply to the European arrest warrants received by the
Romanian authorities after its entry into force, although they concern facts
occurred prior to this date”. The date referred to in the respective piece of law is
January 1, 2007, the date of Romania’s accession to the European Union. The text
was challenged or grounds of unconstitutionality, the author of the exception
raised claiming, in essence, that the judicial situation which is about to occur and
which the Constitutional Court may prevent is the occurrence of certain
differentiations and inequalities in the application of the law for the Romanian
citizens, which would infringe the provisions of the art. 16 para (2) of the
Constitution regarding the equal treatment of the citizens in front of the law. This
is because, based on the art.108 (currently the art. 122) of the Law no.302/2004, the
Romania citizens benefit from a differentiated legal treatment for a random
situation, namely the entry into force of certain provisions of the Law no. 302/2004.
Moreover, the impugned legal provisions are considered to be applied
retroactively, generating effects on facts that occurred before the provisions came
into force. The art. 19 para (2) of the Fundamental law is invoked as well, whereby,
"By derogation from the provisions of the para (1), the Romanian citizens may be extradited
based on the international conventions that Romania is part of, according to the law and
based on mutuality". In support of the exception, it was also shown the infringement
of the provisions of the art.15 para (2) of the Constitution, whereby "The law
provides for the future only, except for the more favourable criminal or contravention law".
The examination by the Constitutional Court of the exception for
non-compliance with the Constitution revealed that is was not justified for several
reasons. First, the provisions of the art.108 (art. 122 now) para (1) of the Law
no. 302/2004 include the transitional norms establishing that the Title III of this law
is applicable to the said procedural documents (European arrest and surrender
warrants) issued after it became effective, although they refer to facts occurred
40 BOGDAN MICU
before this date. Consequently, the impugned piece of law does not refer to the
past, but only to documents issued after the norms applicable in this matter
became effective, in full compliance with the provisions of the art. 15 of the
Constitution. The aspect regarding the fact that the facts for which the European
arrest warrants are issued may have occurred prior to the new regulation do not
make the respective norm applicable retroactively, as it refers to procedural
documents and facts, a field in which the new law is immediately applicable.
Moreover, the Court emphasized that contrary to the allegations of the author
of the exception, the art. 108 (now art. 122) para (1) of the Law no. 302/2004 does
not grate any privilege or discrimination, by establishing the same judicial regime
for the persons in identical situations (for whom European arrest and surrender
warrants were issued after the Title III of the Law no. 302/2004 became effective),
in line with the constitutional provisions regarding the equality of the citizens in
front of the law, and those stating that "Justice is unique, impartial and equal for all".
Based on these considerations, the Constitutional Court, by the Decision no. 445 of
May 10, 20077, confirmed that the Title III on the European arrest warrant from the
Law no. 302/2004 is applicable for the European arrest and surrender warrants
issued after it became effective (January 1, 2007), although they refer to facts
occurred prior to this date.
In the Decision no. 400/20078, the Constitutional Court of Romania shows
explicitly that the “Romanian judge decides on the arrest of the requested person
by virtue of the law,, only after having checked the compliance with the required
conditions regarding the issuing of the warrant and does not decide on the
justification of the prosecution or sanction established by the foreign authority nor
on the opportunity of the arrest. Otherwise this would infringe the principle of
mutual recognition of criminal judgments.” In the same case it is very clearly
emphasized that “the deprivation of liberty as a result of the issuing of a European
arrest warrant does not equal the issuing of a custody order by the Romanian
judge according to the Code of Criminal Procedure.”9
In another situation, the domestic legal provisions regarding the European
arrest warrant have been challenged on ground of contradiction with the
Romanian Constitution, the author of the exception showing that the art. 79 (art. 86
after re-publication) para (1) letter c) of the law “does not allow us to know the
grounds considered by the issuer for deciding on the custody order and does not
stipulate that the arrest warrant be issued by a judge. The person concerned by
such a warrant is not heard, is not considered as a defendant and does not know
7 Published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 318 of May 11, 2007.
8 The Decision of the Constitutional Court of Romania no. 400/2007, published in the Official
Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 296 of May 4, 2007.
9 The same considerations were reiterated in the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Romania
no. 424/2008, published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 363 of May 12, 2008.
The european arrest warrant reflected in the jurisprudence … 41
the justification for the arrest request. 10 ” After examining the exception of
unconstitutionality, the Constitutional Court of Romania shows that the author of
the exception starts from a wrong premise, i.e. the fact that the enforcement court
needs to decide whether the measure ordered by the foreign judicial authority is
justified or not. The court for constitutional litigations shows that “the European
arrest warrant is a correct measure that implements the principle of mutual
recognition of criminal judgments. In the logic of the Council’s
Framework-Decision no. 2002/584/JHA of June 13, 2002 on the European arrest
warrant and the surrender procedures applicable between Member States,
implemented at national level through the Law no. 302/2004, the judiciary
authority of the Member State where the person was arrested may decide to
surrender the person and not to decide whether the custody measure or the
judgment pronounced in the demanding state is justified or not11.” It is obvious
that the justification of this measure and thus of the judgement pronounced in a
Member State of the European Union will be challenged in the state where the
respective decision was issued, where the requested person will enjoy all the
existing procedural guarantees.
The Constitutional Court of Romania also rejected an exception showing that
the domestic norms that transpose the cooperation instrument of the European
arrest warrant into the domestic legislation, “….also affect the independence of the
Romanian judge, as this decides, mechanically, on the arrest, without censoring the
first court’s decision.”12 The arguments invoked where the same referring to the
application of the principle of mutual recognition of criminal judgments. In the
same decision, the Court, acknowledges the constitutionality of the national
provisions whereby the European arrest warrant forwarded for execution to the
Romanian authorities needs to be translated into Romanian or in either English or
French (as stipulated by the provisions of the art. 8 point 20 of the
Framework-Decision of 200213.
In the Decision no. 583/2007, the Constitutional Court of Romania
acknowledges again the constitutionality of the national provisions regarding the
European arrest warrant and shows that „…the custody measure taken in order to
surrender a person to a member State of European Union represents measure of
temporary deprivation of according to the art. 23 para (2) of the Romanian
10 The Decision of the Constitutional Court of Romania no. 419/2007, published in the Official
Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 330 of May 16, 2007.
11 The same considerations we re reiterated in the Decision of the Constitutional Court of
Romania no. 1127/2007, published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 2 of January 3, 2008.
12 The Decision no. 443/2007, published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 318 of May
11, 2007.
13 The same considerations we re reiterated in the Decision of the Constitutional Court of
Romania, no. 61/2008, Published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 142 of February 25,
2008.
42 BOGDAN MICU
Constitution, which fully complies with the constitutional requirements of the
art. 21, the part having all the procedural guarantees specific for a fair trial, such
the possibility to invoke certain mandatory reasons for refusal of enforcement, the
hearing of the arrested person, the existence of the possibility of appeal against the
arrest decision etc”.
The domestic provisions have withstood claims for non-compliance with the
Constitution and infringement of the right to defence, because the court doesn’t
check the documents accompanying the European arrest warrant in public
meeting. The court showed once again that such criticism may not be admitted
because “all the documents checked by the Romanian judge are included in the
file, hence are available for examination by the person concerned by the European
arrest warrant”. Thus, the domestic law does not restrict at all the right to defence.
On the contrary, the Court shows that “these legal provisions do not include any
infringement of the invoked constitutional texts, allowing the concerned persons to
know the judgment based on which the European warrant was issued.”14
As regards the procedure of issuing the European arrest warrant, a Romanian
plaintiff showed before the Constitutional Court of Romania that the latter should
have indicated in terminis the Romanian judge’s obligation to issue the European
Arrest warrant in presence of a chosen or ex officio appointed defence lawyer and
should establish a special remedy against this procedure 15. The Constitutional
Court of Romania rejected the exception formulated as inadmissible and showed
that the aspects raised by the author were solved by means of a recourse in the
interest of the law, as an instrument for the unification of the national
jurisprudence, by the High Court of Cassation and Justice of Romania, the Joint
Section that stated that the European arrest warrant is intended to ensure that the
person suspected for having committed a crime or having been concerned by a
final sentence in Romania is brought into the country as soon as possible, it is not a
jurisdictional procedure, it does not require a decision. The Constitutional Court
considers that “… it would have been useless and inopportune to go through
another jurisdictional procedure in this respect, as long as the arrest order has been
itself through the stages that ensured the guarantees regarding the right to the
defence and the remedies”.
By validating once again the domestic regulation regarding the European
arrest warrant, the Constitutional Court of Romania shows in another situation
that based on these provisions, in order to prevent a potential deprivation of
liberty ordered by the Romanian judicial authorities for the enforcement of a
European arrest warrant, the interested party has full liberty to defend him/herself
and to appear in front of the authority that issued the warrant. Starting from the
14 The Decision of the Constitutional Court of Romania no. 36/2008, published in the Official
Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 103 of February 11, 2008.
15 The Decision no. 1330/2009, published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 803 of
November 25, 2009.
The european arrest warrant reflected in the jurisprudence … 43
premise of the infringement of the fundamental rights and freedoms by a state that
Romania signed agreements of international mutual cooperation with represents
an abuse of rights. The mere fact that the Romanian state signed such an
agreement guarantees and ensures the protection of its citizens’ rights and
freedoms when they enter into the jurisdiction of the contracting authority, the
Law no.302/2004 on the forms of international judicial cooperation in criminal
matters within the limits indicated in the art. 3, under the conditions of
international mutual courtesy, confidentiality and based on the non bis in idem
principle.”16
In another situation, the Constitutional Court of Romania, examining an
exception of unconstitutionality 17 showed that “the provisions regarding the
conversion of the sentence refer explicitly and exclusively to the incompatibility of
the duration of the resulting punishment with the Romanian legislation and not
the incompatibility between the systems which results in the enforcement of a
punishment resulting from a series of offences, or the system of arithmetic
plurality or judicial plurality. Consequently, if the resulting punishment was
applied through arithmetic plurality, according to the legislation of the sentencing
state, the court may not replace the arithmetic plurality with the rules of the
judicial plurality established by the Romanian Criminal Code. Otherwise, this
would be an infringement of the principle of mutual recognition of criminal
judgments”.
4. Conclusions
Therefore, until the date of this material, the domestic provisions regarding
the implementation of the instrument of cooperation of the European arrest
warrant have passed the test of conformity with the Fundamental Law of
Romania18 whenever exceptions for non-compliance with the Constitution have
been raised.
The Constitutional Court of Romania does not hesitate to make direct
reference to the provisions of the Framework-Decision on the European arrest
warrant and to assess the national provisions from the point of view of their
conformity with the European provisions.
The Constitutional Court of Romania has constantly pointed out that the
arrest made in order to surrender the person based on a European arrest warrant
16 The Consti tutional Court of Romania, The Decision no. 733/2010, published in the Official
Gazette of Romania, Part I no. 749/2010.
17 The Consti tutional Court of Romania, The Decision no. 285/2012, published in the Official
Gazette of Romania, Part I no. 366 of May 30, 2012.
18 The Constitutional Court of Romania is not handling another exception of
non-constitutionality regarding the European arrest warrant, which is covered by the file
no. 9D/2015, registered on January 16, 2015, but no decision was issued yet in this respect
https://www.ccr.ro/ccrSearch/MainSearch/SearchForm.aspx. By May 11th, 2015, date of presenting
this paper.
44 BOGDAN MICU
does not abide by the laws of the custody from the national legislation, as it is a
measure intended to ensure the execution of the judicial cooperation within the
European Union.
The Constitutional Court of Romania has constantly compared the domestic
legislation and the principle of mutual recognition of the criminal judgments
between the Member States of the European Union. In many of its interventions,
the Court has shown that a certain interpretation or potentially a certain
modification of the domestic legislation would lead to infringements of the
principle that are inadmissible in the context of the relations promoted in the
Union.
References
[1] The Constitutional Court of Romania, Decision no. 148 of April 16, 2003, published
in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 317 of May 12, 2003;
[2] The Constitutional Court of Romania, Decision no. 445 of May 10, 2007, published
in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 190 of March 20, 2007;
[3] The Constitutional Court of Romania, Decision no. 1193/2009, published in the
Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 731 of October 28, 2009
[4] The Constitutional Court of Romania no. 1.290/2010, published in the Official
Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 749 of November 10, 2010;
[5] The Decision of the Constitutional Court of Romania no. 400/2007, published in
the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 296 of May 4, 2007.
[6] The Constitutional Court of Romania, Decision no. 424/2008, published in the
Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 363 of May 12, 2008;
[7] The Constitutional Court of Romania, Decision no. 419/2007, published in the
Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 330 of May 16, 2007;
[8] The Constitutional Court of Romania, Decision no. 1127/2007, published in the
Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 2 of January 3, 2008;
[9] The Constitutional Court of Romania, Decision no. 443/2007, published in the
Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 318 of May 11, 2007;
[10] The Constitutional Court of Romania, Decision no. 61/2008, Published in the
Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 142 of February 25, 2008;
[11] The Constitutional Court of Romania, Decision no. 36/2008, published in the
Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 103 of February 11, 2008;
[12] The Constitutional Court of Romania, Decision no. 1330/2009, published in the
Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 803 of November 25, 2009;
[13] The Constitutional Court of Romania, Decision no. 733/2010, published in the
Official Gazette of Romania, Part I no. 749/2010;
[14] The Constitutional Court of Romania, Decision no. 285/2012, published in the
Official Gazette of Romania, Part I no. 366 of May 30, 2012.