The effects of the decisions issued by the Constitutional Court of România
The effects of the decisions issued by the Constitutional Court of România

Summary/Abstract: The principle of erga omnes mandatory character of the decisions pronounced by the Constitutional Court is enshrined even through the constitutional text. There were interpretations of the current constitutional text that highlighted the questionable nature of the binding character of the decisions of the Constitutional Court in the hypothesis where the Constitutional Court rejects the exception of unconstitutionality which has as its object the provisions of a normative act. The Constitutional Court confirmed that both the reasoning and the court ruling that are the common body of the Court's decisions produce legal effects erga omnes, consequences that derive from the uniqueness and independence of the constitutional jurisdiction authority. We consider that the rule is therefore represented by the binding effect of constitutional decisions, as a characteristic of the stability of the Constitution, since these acts have the role of de-tensioning situations by indicating the normative text on the basis of which a civil, criminal or other case of to the common law courts. Regarding res judicata authority, with strict reference to the characteristic of opposability, we show that it has the meaning that if the unconstitutionality of certain provisions has been established, these provisions cannot be subjected to constitutionality control again. The principle of proportionality originates in German law and is reflected in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, the Court of Justice of the European Union and the Constitutional Courts of Europe. The Romanian Constitution, however, expressly enshrines within the provisions of art. 53 paragraph 2 the principle of proportionality, also determining the mandatory conditions to order such a measure. On the one hand, decisions establishing unconstitutionality are directly applied in cases pending before the courts. On the other hand, the Court's jurisprudence confirms the aspect that a provision that has been declared unconstitutional cannot be consacrated again by the legislator, by resuming it in another normative act.

• Details
• Contents