[ad_1]
The Romanian Constitutional Court accepted, on Thursday, the notification of President Klaus Iohannis about the unconstitutionality of the normative act that modifies and completes Law 9/1991 on the creation of the Romanian Institute of Human Rights.
The head of state shows in the notification sent to the RCC that the law is unclear and unpredictable.
“Analyzing the amendments to Law No. 9/1991, when referring to the attribution of the status of autonomous administrative authority, the absence of provisions on the acts of this authority and, implicitly, the exercise of the prerogatives of power is noted that should have been seen by the legislator in intrinsic relationship with the normative provision of establishment, leads to the violation of article 1 paragraph (5) of the Constitution by reference to the provisions of article 117 paragraph (3) together with those of the Article 147 Considering that, in Article I, point 1 of the criticized law, IRDO is classified as a public institution of national interest, although it is autonomous, but without the prerogatives of the public power, we consider that the law should have been adopted as ordinary law , but in this case it should have been debated and adopted, as a resolution Chamber, by the Chamber of Deputies ”, is explained in the notification of unconstitutionality nality.
According to the Head of State, the IRDO is a public institution of national interest, with a scientific profile and information in the field of human rights, given its status, its object of activity, the purpose for which it was created and the entities with which it was created. who collaborates.
“Although the field represented by conducting research on various aspects of the promotion and observance of human rights in Romania and internationally may be limited to a certain public interest, the legislator did not grant the status of public utility and did not authorize the institute to provide a public service, “says Iohannis.
In his opinion, the task of IRDO to “maintain and operate a documentation and consultation center, containing texts of international conventions, laws, documents, studies and publications on human rights, in addition to providing specialized advice on the matter, is not clear.” .
In addition to the lack of regulation, which does not explicitly specify what forms this consultancy takes, respectively what specific activities IRDO involves, we appreciate that the provision of specialized consultancy in the field of human rights is a form of legal advice that contradicts both Law No. 51/1995 as well as the aforementioned jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court ”, is mentioned in the notification.
The head of state asks the ICR to determine that the law is unconstitutional as a whole.
[ad_2]
