The Constitutional Court of Romania (CCR) postponed for Wednesday, October 26, the debates on President Klaus Iohannis’ notification on the Aquaculture Law, according to Agerpres.

The normative act, which was sent to the head of state by the Parliament, on July 4, with a view to promulgation, regulates the legal framework regarding the activity of aquaculture and the sale of products obtained from aquaculture, when these activities are carried out on the territory of Romania, including in marine waters under national jurisdiction.

The law was tacitly adopted by the Senate, as a result of exceeding the adoption deadline, on October 11, 2021, and later, with amendments and additions, by the Chamber of Deputies – on June 29.

The head of state shows that among the changes brought by the Chamber are the elimination of the contravention of possessing, transporting or trading without legal documents the fish and other aquatic creatures obtained from aquaculture, the content of the crime of fish theft, as well as the change in the concept regarding the confiscation of goods that have were used to commit crimes and misdemeanors. President Iohannis says that the criticized law disregards the constitutional principle of bi-cameralism.

The head of state also says that the law violates the principle of the separation of powers in the state, but also the constitutional role of the Government provided by the Constitution through the provision according to which, within one year from the date of entry into force of the normative act, both the areas in the public domain of the state on where the fishing facilities are located, as well as the areas related to them, will pass into the private domain of the state by decision of the E xecutive.

He states that the law also violates art. 1 paragraph (5), art. 44 para. (1) and (2) and of art. 136 of the Constitution.

President Iohannis mentions that, by the content of its provisions and by the lack of correlation of the norms with all the regulations in force, the law contains a series of inconsistencies, overlaps and contradictions that are contrary to art. 1 paragraph (5) from the Constitution.

The head of state requests the CCR to admit the notification of unconstitutionality and to declare the law unconstitutional, in its entirety.

Agerpres