On October 26, the Official Gazette published the rationale for the decision to reject the notification of the unconstitutionality of the Government’s responsibility for the package of fiscal and budgetary measures.

Two aspects are interesting regarding the justification of the involvement of responsibility:

1. the way in which the Constitutional Court violated its own judicial practice;
2. the fact that after the reasons for the decision are made public, an opportunity opens up for the Government to resort to the mechanism of prosecution for any draft law.
   
   

   How the Constitutional Court reviewed its own judicial practice

   In fact, unlike similar situations (for example, in 2020), when the Government involved its responsibility regarding fiscal and budgetary measures, the Constitutional Court confirmed that the mechanism of involvement of responsibility is constitutional.

   The decision was made through a 4-stage argumentation:

   Regarding the analysis of the political structure of the parliament, namely the presence of a stable parliamentary majority, it was established that this does not exclude the adoption of a law by bringing the Government to account;
   In the past, the same Constitutional Court (through Decision No. 1557/2009 and No. 61/2020) established that this simplified method of legislation should be achieved in extreme cases, when the adoption of a draft law in ordinary procedure or in emergency procedure is also possible, when the political structure does not allow the parliament to adopt a draft law in an ordinary or emergency procedure. The KKR further showed that the situation is not the same when there is a parliamentary majority, which arises as a result of the relevant parties forming the Government, for which acceptance in the form of assuming responsibility is not appropriate.

   Regarding the need for a state of emergency, the Court established the fact that the law, which provides for a deadline until the date of entry into force, does not lead to the opinion that the law should not be adopted as quickly as possible, but it would be more appropriate to use the ordinary parliamentary procedure or the emergency procedure. It is interesting how in Decision no. 1431/2020, an emergency condition that would have determined the extent of the Government’s responsibility was not met if the measures provided for in the draft law actually came into force from the following year.

   With regard to prompt action, the CCR established that it is the Government’s exclusive right to intervene when necessary as part of its labor market policies.

   Previously, the KKR argued that adoption in the form of assuming responsibility is not appropriate, especially since the law does not enter into force immediately, and discussion in the ordinary procedure in the parliament would allow for some amendments and implicit involvement of civil society.

   In 2020, the DRC instead declared unconstitutional amendments to 20 normative acts.

   Extremely interesting, how not

   In view of the fact that the involvement of responsibility had to relate to a single goal, the Court ruled that the involvement of responsibility of the Government may relate to a complex normative act, which may also change/supplement/repeal the provisions of 25 current normative acts that regulate several spheres of public life.

   The government will be able to use the accountability mechanism for any bill

   The conclusion is simple, and the Constitutional Court clearly stated it: “This is the exclusive right of the Government intervene when necessary. The government chose a legislative procedure that it considered appropriate to the situationtake time.”

   Thus, it is impossible to say what conditions the Government must meet in order to be held liable, as they have just been abolished by the Constitutional Court itself, although they have been established in its case law.

   It should be noted that previously the Constitutional Court changed its judicial practice on other issues, but did so by (even formally) justifying the need for changes. However, the Constitutional Court should represent a fundamental pillar of the rule of law, playing a decisive role in guaranteeing respect for the Constitution and the fundamental rights of citizens. – read the entire article and comment on contributors.ro