Ieşirea din „semi-constituţionalism”
Exiting „Semi-constitutionalism”

Summary/Abstract: n this paper, the author seeks to disprove some allegations made by Romanian lawyers that the Constitutional Court of Romania (‘the Court’) does not have any power to review the decisions regarding referrals in the interest of the law made by the High Court of Cassation and Justice. According to these lawyers, the text of the Constitution is strict and exhaustive in respect to the Court’s powers. The author argues against the myths that haunt the Romanian legal world which state that the Court should not enrich the text of the Constitution and the text of the law. Drawing on the theory of a famous American professor of constitutional law and the practice of Western European courts, the author asserts that constitutional judges are not and cannot be just “the mouth that states the words of the law”. The paper's conclusion is that the Romanian Court's judicial activism is a normal practice among other European courts and that in a united Europe it is difficult to sustain the application of some solutions to a single system.

• Details
• Contents