The Romanian Constitutional Court could announce the deadline for debating the notification of Prime Minister Florin Cîţu regarding the existence of a legal conflict between the Parliament and the Government on the censorship motion of USR PLUS and AUR, after the parties involved received a deadline until Wednesday to conveys points of view.
The entire political class is waiting to see if the CCR judges rule on the notification before or after the PNL Congress, on September 25.
The Prime Minister filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court regarding the existence of a legal conflict of a constitutional nature between the Parliament and the Government, alleging “unconstitutional conduct, both unfair and abusive, towards the executive authority”, as the motion of censure was initiated, filed and communicated in “violation of the constitutional provisions of Article 113 (2) of the Constitution”.
“In our opinion, there is a conflict within the meaning of Article 146 letter e) of the Constitution, as the Romanian Parliament, through the President of the Chamber of Deputies, sent to the Romanian Government a motion of censure initiated, filed and communicated in violation of Article 113 (2). ) of the Constitution, which constitutes an unconstitutional conduct, both unfair and abusive, towards the executive authority and which generated a conflict situation whose origin results even from the constitutional text. to establish the existence of a legal conflict of a constitutional nature between the Romanian Parliament, on the one hand, and the Government of Romania, on the other hand, born from the violation of the constitutional provisions regarding the manner in which constitutional provisions on how to move a censorship initiated and filed contrary to the Constitution was subsequently communicated to the Government “, it is explained in the notification, informs Agerpres.
According to the document, “The Romanian Parliament, through the President of the Chamber of Deputies, violated the constitutional provisions regarding the obligation to communicate the motion of censure to the Government on the same day as its submission, in this case on September 3, 2021. Also, the Romanian Parliament, through the President The Chamber of Deputies, in violation of the Constitution and the regulations, communicated a motion of censure initiated and submitted in violation of the constitutional conditions on the minimum number of valid signatures reflecting the expression of will of a quarter of parliamentarians at the time of initiating the motion of censure. ” .
These aspects are likely to create a conflicting legal situation generated by the unconstitutional way in which the Parliament understood to trigger the parliamentary control by motion of censure with “serious” consequences on the good development of the Government’s activity in the internal and foreign policy of the country. the proper functioning of the public administration, says the Executive.
“In a state governed by the rule of law where the principle of separation of powers in the state is respected, parliamentary control by motion of censure commits a legal relationship between Parliament (legislative power) and Government (executive power), control which must be subsumed. With regard to the litigious situation submitted to the judgment of the Constitutional Court, it has a legal character, as it concerns the procedural aspects of constitutional rank regarding the initiation, submission and communication of the motion of censure. 113 of the Constitution, the Parliament adopted an unconstitutional conduct, which disregards the conditions of validity necessary to be met for the initiation, submission and communication of a motion of censure, which has the effect of affecting the vitiation of subsequent stages: presentation, debate and possibly adoption to that moth censorship “, it is also explained in the notification to the RCC.
It is also added in the document that the disputed legal situation is constitutional in nature given that the motion of censure belongs to the field of constitutional law and is a constitutional instrument for exercising parliamentary control over the activity of the Government. ) of the Constitution by reference to the acts and deeds performed by the Romanian Parliament, which, if found to be contrary to the constitutional norms, also generated a constitutional blockade from the perspective of the full and good development of the Government’s activity “.
“At the same time, by referring to the role of the Constitutional Court as guarantor of the supremacy of the Constitution and considering its constitutional attribution to resolve legal conflicts of a constitutional nature between state authorities, exclusively regarding the parliamentary control procedure by motion of censure, we see the constitutional court that the only constitutional solution for removing the legal consequences of a motion of censure initiated, filed and communicated in violation of the Constitution is the admission of the present request “, the Government transmits.