The regulation of a special legal liability for dignitaries and magistrates is in a conditional relationship with the existence of a real separation of powers, being one in consideration of the ...mandate. Thus, while the President of the Republic enjoys absolute and perpetual irresponsibility, similar to that recognized by the Romanian deputies and senators for the votes and political opinions expressed in the exercise of their mandate, members of the Government, the exception of those who are at the same time members of Parliament, do not enjoy irresponsibility for their actions. As for the magistrates, they are covered by such protection, in the case where they have not acted in bad faith or with serious negligence.
The Romanian Constitutional Court has the competence to control the laws, both by means of an a priori control and also by those of an a posteriori control. The latter is exercised by means of a ...prejudicial question, raised during a trial, the action popularis being excluded. The free access to justice (article 21 of the Romanian Constitution), represents one of the fundamental rights upon which the Court is generally called to conclude. By several decisions, the Constitutional Court has reaffirmed its role of guardian of the fundamental law, giving the adequate interpretation of article 21, many times referring to the ECHR case law, regarding the notion of reasonable, the court costs, the trial length, the right to sue and to appeal the judicial decisions or to take a matter to an administrative jurisdiction.
The jurisdictional review, a control carried out by an organ independent in relation to the
legislative, seems definitively won for the constitutionalist world. In the absence of expresses
...dispositions that regulate the control of constitutionality, the judiciary decided that this right belong to
him in a very naturally way, as an issue of the separation of power and of the function that he fills.
Because he was controlling the acts of the Parliament, the judge won a strong position in relation to the
legislative power. This situation could not be accepted by a powerful legislative. While presenting itself
as mandatory of the sovereignty of the people, it claims for him the right to control his own acts.
However, in the case of Romania such a manifestation demonstration intervened only in Communist
period. After a presentation of the conditions in which the constitutional review is passed to the
political, the second part of the article will present how this control is exert by an organ dependent to
the Parliament.
The Romanian Constitutional Court has the competence to control the laws as well on the way of a control a priori, as on the way of a control a posteriori. This last one is exercise on the way of a ...prejudicial question, raised in occasion of a common litigation and to the exclusion of a popular action. The free access to the justice (article 21 of the Romanian Constitution), represents one of the fundamental rights about which the Court is generally called to conclude. By several decisions, the Constitutional Court has reaffirmed its role of guardian of the fundamental law, giving the adequate interpretation of article 21, many times referring to the ECHR case law, for that it regards the notion of reasonable, the judgment fees, the trial deadlines, the right to the action and to the appeal or the administrative jurisdictions.
The paper aims to give a comprehensive analysis of the Romanian legislative and its nomothetic action. Considerable attention has been paid to the development of a society, which, according to the ...author’s opinion, is not possible without the more or less extensive and more or less conscious participation of the people in its leadership. On the other hand, the realities of contemporary society require the existence of a representative assembly.The Romanian Constitution defines the Parliament as the supreme representative body of the Romanian people and the sole legislative authority. However, the latter quality has been questioned by scholarship, due to constitutional provisions conferring the right of legislative initiative to other legal entities as well. Moreover, the author turned his attention to some existent limitations in the exercise of the legislative prerogatives by the Parliament.
L’évolution du contrôle de constitutionnalité se situe sous le signe d’un activisme plus (modèle américain) ou moins fort (modèle européen) du juge ordinaire. Sur ce sujet, étant donné qu’elle a ...essayé tous les modèles de contrôle, l’exemple de la Roumanie mérite une analyse.
Affirmée comme une compétence naturelle du judiciaire, le contrôle de lois est passé dans un deuxième temps dans les mains du juge constitutionnel, qui n’est pas toujours et partout considéré comme faisant partie du pouvoir judiciaire. Apparemment dépossédé du pouvoir de censurer les lois, le juge ordinaire revient en force et s ‘affirme comme un concurrent du juge constitutionnel dans ce domaine.
L’arme qu’il utilise à cette fin fait justement l’objet de notre étude, le contrôle de conventionalité, qui n’est qu’une variante de contrôle de constitutionnalité.
Les droits fondamentaux, nommés aussi la religion du 20ème siècle, connaissent une nouvelle évolution avec le début du 21ème siècle, sous la menace du terrorisme mondial. La question qui se pose ...c’est de choisir entre la sauvegarde de la démocratie et de la sécurité nationale en renonçant à un certain degré de notre liberté ou de garder la liberté telle qu’elle fut gagnée après de très longs efforts, même s’il faut mettre en question notre propre sécurité.Dans notre étude nous abordons ce dilemme en analysant la jurisprudence de la Cour constitutionnelle roumaine, ainsi que des autres instances européennes, y compris la Cour de Justice de l’Union Européenne.
A moins d’une décennie apres sa révision, la jeune Constitution roumaine est a nouveau dans la situation d’une redoute assaillie par des politiciens qui veulent la réécrire profondément. De la ...réforme des institutions fondamentales et jusqu’au réaménagement des rapports de force entre autorités, toutes se retrouvent dans le projet de révision et refletent une nouvelle conception constitutionnaliste. La Roumanie de 2011 rappelle étonnamment la France de 1958, l’évolution des évenements ayant le caractere d’une campagne militaire dans laquelle la tonalité est donnée par un tambour major. Meme si nous doutons que cette approche aura une finalité, les propositions du projet de révision méritent une analyse, aussi breve qu’elle soit, a fin de comprendre ce qui dérange dans le contenu actuel de la Constitution roumaine et de quels changements doit-elle etre protégé.
The jurisdictional review, a control carried out by an organ independent in relation to the legislative, seems definitively won for the constitutionalist world. In the absence of ...expressesdispositions that regulate the control of constitutionality, the judiciary decided that this right belong to him in a very naturally way, as an issue of the separation of power and of the function that he fills. Because he was controlling the acts of the Parliament, the judge won a strong position in relation to the legislative power. This situation could not be accepted by a powerful legislative. While presenting itself as mandatory of the sovereignty of the people, it claims for him the right to control his own acts. However, in the case of Romania such a manifestation demonstration intervened only in Communist period. After we have presented in a first part the conditions in which the constitutional review ispassed to the political, the second part of the article will present how this control is exert by an organ dependent to the Parliament.
PDF
