The Constitutional Court of Romania (CCR) ruled on Wednesday that the temporary ban on access to Parliament does not prevent the effective exercise of the parliamentary mandate, in the context of the new digital technology conditions that elected representatives have at their disposal. However, such a measure must be accompanied by guarantees and objective criteria.
According to a press release from the CCR sent to AGERPRES on Wednesday, the constitutional judges, unanimously, admitted the objection of unconstitutionality regarding the legislative solution provided for in art. 12 ind. 4 of the criticized law, which establishes the prohibition of access to the premises of the Palace of Parliament. The Court found that this provision is unconstitutional to the extent that it is not accompanied by guarantees and objective criteria of assessment, necessary for its fair and proportional application.
According to a press release from the CCR sent to AGERPRES on Wednesday, the constitutional judges, unanimously, admitted the objection of unconstitutionality regarding the legislative solution provided for in art. 12 ind. 4 of the criticized law, which establishes the prohibition of access to the premises of the Palace of Parliament. The Court found that this provision is unconstitutional to the extent that it is not accompanied by guarantees and objective criteria of assessment, necessary for its fair and proportional application.
Regarding the criticisms of extrinsic unconstitutionality, which essentially concerned the observance of the conditions for legislation imposed by art. 1 paragraph (5) of the Constitution, the Court found that the law does not contravene the principle of regulatory unity, the legislator having his own margin of appreciation regarding the insertion of the provisions of this law within the content of Law no. 267/2008, given the territoriality element specific to both normative acts….
At the same time, the CCR held that the law has a special character and a legitimate purpose, and its scope of application is circumscribed by this purpose and distinct from that of common law, criminal or contravention law, as well as from disciplinary parliamentary legislation, without there being a risk of creating legislative parallelism.
As regards the criticisms of intrinsic unconstitutionality, the Constitutional Court found that the provisions of art. 12 ind. 4 of the criticized law, which regulates the temporary ban on access to the premises of the Palace of Parliament, must include, in order to respect the right of free access to justice and the right to a fair trial, guaranteed by art. 21 para. (1) and (3) of the Constitution, objective criteria of individualization. These must allow the proportionate application of the measure, as well as provide for possible remedies and specific procedural deadlines.
The Court also emphasized that the legal regime of parliamentary immunity and the representativeness of the parliamentary mandate, provided for in art. 69 and art. 72 of the Constitution, cannot grant the beneficiary absolute immunity from the rules of social coexistence. At the same time, the temporary ban on access to Parliament does not prevent the effective exercise of the mandate, under the conditions of using the digital technology available to parliamentarians.
Last but not least, the CCR found that the measure established by the criticized law is not lacking in transparency, as it is immediately communicated to its recipient.AGERPRES
