07 December 2024
The Second Round that Wasn’t
On 6 December 2024, the final day of Romania’s most turbulent presidential election campaign in the last 25 years, the Constitutional Court issued a ruling that was unprecedented not only in recent Romanian, but also in European constitutional history: it annulled the first round of the elections, held on 24 November, and ordered the entire electoral process to restart. Only 4 days earlier, on 2 December 2024, the same Court had ruled not to annul the first round of the elections. What led to this dramatic shift between those two dates? Continue reading >>
1 
14 February 2022
From Romania with Love
The CJEU judgment "Euro Box Promotion" explicitly extended the Union’s requirement of judicial independence to constitutional courts for the first time. The ‘Romanian’ ruling carries an important message for the Polish government on how the EU legal order might react to the recent rulings of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal, which negate the primacy of European Union law. As a consequence, the CJEU confirms the right and the obligation of national courts to disregard constitutional court rulings that violate EU law. Continue reading >>
0
10 January 2022
Who’s Afraid of the „Big Bad Court”?
The end of 2021 brought a new chapter in the saga of how should the primacy of the EU law be applied by Romanian courts. A press release of the Romanian Constitutional Court, issued on 23 December 2021, raised concerns about the conformity with the principles set forth in the case law of the CJEU regarding the primacy. The press release, albeit a non-legal document, might have a dissuasive effect upon the judges who would be, otherwise, willing to disapply some norms of internal law, according to the latest judgment of the CJEU on the matter. In Romania, the disregard of the decisions of the Constitutional Court can be a ground for disciplinary action against judges. Continue reading >>
0
17 November 2021
A Tale of Primacy, part III
The third act, but not the end, of the ongoing „game of Courts” between the Romanian Constitutional Court and the European Court of Justice came on 9 November 2021, with a letter by the Romanian Constitutional Court to assist the acting minister of justice with a reply to the EU Commission's concern about primacy of EU law. I will not comment again on the arguments, already developed by the Constitutional Court in its decision, but I will try to emphasize, through relevant quotes, the disregard of the rule of law requirements stated in the CJEU judgment as well as the absence of the capacity of a true dialogue with the European Court. Continue reading >>
0
18 June 2021
A Tale of Primacy Part. II
On 18 May 2021, the CJEU issued a judgment on several requests for preliminary ruling by Romanian national courts regarding the impact of EU law on Romanian laws on the judiciary and the CVM. On 8 June, the Romanian Constitutional Court issued a decision pertaining to the subject. In a succession of legal nonsense, it shattered hope that the CJEU’s judgment could be a guide for national courts for applying the primacy of the EU law. Continue reading >>22 February 2019
New Challenges against the Judiciary in Romania
After a year 2018 dominated by conflicts between the President and the Government and marked by the adoption and entry into force of major changes of the judiciary legislation, the first part of 2019 brought new challenges to the rule of law in Romania, especially as regards the judiciary. All these changes aim at increasing the power of the executive over the prosecutorial part of the judiciary and at removing virtually all checks-and-balances in decision-making on the top prosecutorial offices. Continue reading >>
0
06 June 2018
The Taming of the Court – When Politics Overcome Law in the Romanian Constitutional Court
The Romanian Constitutional Court has backstabbed the Romanian President in his efforts to protect the independence of the chief anti-corruption prosecutor. On 30 May 2018, the Constitutional Court ordered the President to dismiss the chief anti-corruption prosecutor via presidential decree. Before, the President had refused the proposed dismissal by the Minister of Justice based on an Advisory Opinion of the Superior Council of Magistracy that stated that the reasons brought forward against the chief prosecutor were not substantiated enough to justify a dismissal. Continue reading >>
0
01 February 2017