[ad_1]
In the foreground of the RCC decision appear notifications on the unconstitutionality of the regulatory act that modifies and completes Law 94/1992 on the organization and operation of the Court of Accounts.
This issue was so sensitive for our country that in March 2020, the mayors of the European Commission asked the Romanian Parliament to renounce the reform of the Law on the Court of Accounts.
Brussels officials believed that the PSD’s amendment to the law endangered the independence of the Audit Authority.
It was decided unanimously by vote.
Here is what the magistrates of the Romanian Constitutional Court (CCR) pointed out in the minutes of the decision:
“With unanimous votes, it admitted the exception of unconstitutionality (after linking the two notifications with the same object, formulated by the President of Romania and, respectively, by the Government of Romania) and found that the Law that modifies and completes Law No. 94/1992 on the organization and operation of the Court of Accounts is unconstitutional, related to art.
Violation of the Constitution, denounced by Iohannis
In the initiative initiated in the RCC, the President of Romania, Klaus Iohannis, stressed that the law violates article 140 of the Constitution by the provision that assigns the president of the Court of Accounts the same powers as its plenary session.
“Art. Point 8 violates art. 140 para. (4) of the Constitution. According to this point of the law subject to constitutional review, (…)
«(1) The management of the Court of Auditors will be exercised by the Plenary of the Court of Auditors and by the president.
The executive management is exercised by the president, who coordinates, guides and directs, where appropriate, all its activity, in accordance with the powers conferred by this law.
The President will be assisted by two Vice-Presidents who will be account advisers. “
The new legislative solution contained in thesis I of par. (1) in art. 9 therefore attributes the same powers to the President of the Court of Auditors as to its plenary session.
In the current form of the law, art. 9 par. (1) establishes: “The management of the Court of Accounts will be exercised by the Plenary of the Court of Auditors.”
The current legislative solution is consistent with the condition of president of the Court of Accounts, respectively that of counselor and member of the plenary session of the Court of Accounts. At the same time, according to the second thesis of par. (1) in art. 9 in the manner proposed by the criticized law, the president of the Court of Accounts will coordinate, guide and direct, where appropriate, all its activity.
The corroboration of the two theses shows that the principle of independence of the members of the Court of Auditors in the exercise of their mandate, established by art. 140 par. (4) of the Constitution, it is no longer respected “, transmitted the head of state in the notification sent to the RCC.
There were other irregularities
The Cotroceni Palace leader also criticized the provision according to which “the representatives of the audited entities, who acted on the points of view, documents issued or approved by the bodies with regulatory and approval powers, are not responsible for the consequences of the administrative measures taken. following the recommendations or provisions, as the case may be, contained therein ”.
In the opinion expressed by Iohannis in the document recently judged in the RCC, it is shown that this norm “lacks clarity and predictability” due to the fact that it is not clear to whom responsibility for the activities carried out in the exercise of functions by the representatives. audited entities that, however, have caused damage.
Basically, an “aspect that contradicts art. 1 par. (5) of the Constitution, according to which ‘In Romania, the observance of the Constitution, its supremacy and the laws is mandatory’ ”.
“Likewise, the exemption from responsibility of the representatives of the audited public entities for the consequences of errors / deviations from legality found by the Court of Accounts contradicts even the constitutional role of this authority, enshrined in art. 140 par. (1) of the Constitution, according to which “the Court of Accounts exercises control over the form of training, administration and use of the financial resources of the State and the public sector.
Under the conditions of the organic law, disputes arising from the activity of the Court of Accounts are resolved by specialized courts, “” he also noted in the notification.
source: Agerpres
