On Thursday, the Constitutional Court rejected the appeal of parliamentarians from USR and Forţa Dreptei regarding the appointment of Monika Gubernat as the president of the National Audiovisual Council, respectively, of Kamelia Prikopi as the vice-president of the Auditing Body of the Chamber of Accounts. .

According to a CCR press release sent on Thursday and quoted by Agerpres, the constitutional judges unanimously rejected as unfounded the notice of unconstitutionality formulated by the parliamentary group of the Union of Saving Romania in the Chamber of Deputies and non-affiliated deputies. and found that Parliament’s decision 3/2023 on the appointment of the President of the National Audiovisual Council is constitutional with regard to the formulated criticism.

Also, the KKR rejected as unfounded a notification about the unconstitutionality of the appointment of the accountant, deputy head of the Audit Inspection.

In essence, the Court noted that the authors of the appeal consider the two decisions of the parliament unconstitutional, as they were adopted in the absence of a quorum, given the fact that, although a request was made to re-check the quorum, the chairperson of the meeting does not adopt the given course by roll-call vote

Regarding this aspect, the Court, analyzing the transcript of the joint meeting of the two chambers on March 7, shows that it established that the statements of the leader of the deputy group regarding the lack of a quorum were made in the context of the proposal to discuss the last two issues of the meeting in parallel and to express a vote, namely: a secret ballot vote for appointment of the chairman of the National Audiovisual Council; secret voting by ballots for the appointment of accountant advisor, deputy head of the control and audit service.

“These claims were not embodied in the appeal of the head of the group regarding the re-verification of the quorum, but related to the issue related to the procedure of the parliament’s work. However, such a problem concerns the application of the regulation of the parliament and cannot be the subject of constitutional review of the contested decision. At the same time, the Court ruled that the result of the vote confirmed the fact that the final vote on the two decisions took place in the presence of the majority of deputies and senators,” the Constitutional Court states.