The Constitutional Court unanimously rejected as unfounded the two appeals submitted by the UDR to the laws on education, it is stated in the press release of the Tskr.

The decision comes after USR and Forza Dreptei challenged the new education laws in the Constitutional Court last month on the grounds that they contain several unconstitutional provisions, as they limit children’s right to education and violate the principle of equal rights. Among the provisions challenged in the Constitutional Court was the provision on admission to secondary school.

According to the press release of the UDR, the most “serious” provisions of the project are those aimed at “restricting” children’s right to education and violating the principle of equality. At the same time, USR and Forza Dreptei referred to the violation of the principle of legal certainty, predictability and clarity of norms, as the laws allegedly contain legislative “omissions”.

However, the judges of the CRS rejected the appeals regarding the Law on Higher Education and the appeals regarding the Law on Pre-University Education.

Deca League’s reaction to CCR’s decision

Education Minister Ligia Deka welcomed the decision, writing on Facebook that it was “another victory for Romanian education! The Romania Educată legislative package also passed the constitutionality test.”

“The law on pre-university education and the law on higher education have tens of thousands of hours of development, hundreds of discussions with important partners in this field, thousands of analyzed comments and weeks of parliamentary debates behind them. A joint effort was made for such a necessary project for Romania.

I believe that the laws on education will transform the education system in Romania and bring it to the desired result. For my part, as a minister, I will do everything in my power to ensure that the goals are met and that our children learn in a quality environment based on fairness, respect and professionalism. Every student will have equal chances for development,” she added.

What the Constitutional Court says about the appeal of the Law on Pre-University Education:

“As for the criticism of external unconstitutionality, it was established that the legislative decisions entered into the body of law by the Senate, as the legislative chamber, were directly related to the object of the regulation of the law, so that the Senate retained its quality as a decision-making chamber. Therefore, there was no need to return the law to the Chamber of Deputies to make a final decision on the text of the law.

As for the criticism of internal unconstitutionality, it was found that they considered, in principle, legal provisions regarding the conduct of the educational process, responsibility and sanctions applied to students, awards granted to them, access to records made. through the system of audio-video surveillance of educational units, as well as the adoption, financing, management and ownership of educational units.

The court analyzed the constitutionality of these legislative decisions through the prism of constitutional provisions relating to the requirements of the quality of the law, the principle of equality, the right to intimate, family and private life, the right to education and the legal regime. public and private property and, taking into account the normative content of the law, established that the criticism of unconstitutionality formulated in this way is unfounded.

At the same time, he also emphasized in the content of the decision that aspects of legislative expediency, which are equally criticized, cannot be the subject of constitutionality control, as they are within the discretion of the legislator.”

The Central Committee’s response to the notification regarding the Law on University Education

“In essence, regarding the criticism of the alleged external unconstitutionality of the law, the Court established that it was adopted in compliance with the requirements of the parliamentary procedure regarding the institution of the return of the law, provided for in Article 75. clauses (1), (4) and (5) with reference to Article 73 paragraph (3) letter n) of the Constitution.

At the same time, the Court ruled that the quality criteria of the law are also met, the criticized provisions cannot affect the principle of legal security, predictability and clarity of norms, being, therefore, the provisions of Art. 1 paragraph (3) and (5) of the Constitution.

With regard to the criticism of an internal nature, specifically formulated in relation to the mentioned legislative provisions, the Court ruled that the principle of equality of rights is not violated, nor is the right to education affected through the prism of the provisions contained in the criticized law, which regulates the reduction of tariffs for various means of transport provided students, those that allow higher education institutions to establish various types of organizations that contribute to their productivity, or provisions that allow higher education institutions to redistribute certain amounts to achieve investment goals and/or to provide scholarships to students.

At the same time, the Court could not refrain from criticism, referring to the provisions of Article 148 of the Constitution, recognizing the provision of state aid as going beyond its competence.”