[ad_1]
Valer Dorneanu’s “specification” refers to the position CCR Judge Simina Tanasescu held in this case. Specifically, the judges of the CCR decided to reject the complaint as unfounded. On the other hand, Simina Tanasescu considers that it is necessary to reject the notification as inadmissible, either – in the event that the inadmissibility filter is passed – to admit the notification on the merits.
More details about this case– Why the CCR decided that Florin Iordache can be the president of the Legislative Council: “The Court cannot be the controller of the decision of Parliament”
According to the head of the RCC, the rejection decision in this case was pronounced unanimously by votes and with the opposite opinion of Simina Tanasescu. The problems would have been motivated.
“Opinion ccompetition drafted does not agree with the statements made during the judge’s deliberations exclusively on the solution of inadmissibility and, in addition, it includes – paradoxically – arguments in favor of the opposite solution adopted unanimously by votes, which transforms the opinion of the same name competition in a truly separate opinion, “writes Valer Dorneanu.
According to him, in this concurring opinion solutions and arguments different from those presented in the deliberation meeting are recorded.
“Clarifications” written by Valer Dorneanu, at the end of the article. CCR decision, in document.
Legal experts explained to Ziare.com that “clarifications” drawn up in a motivational framework are not set out in any official act. “It is not written about such a thing in the Constitution, nor in the Law of organization and operation of the Constitutional Court, nor in the CCR Regulation. It has no legal basis and it is not clear what it specifies.”
“Practically the same person signs in double hypostasis, both as author of the majority opinion, as author of the specifications. Or a judge cannot sign a decision on various qualities. Last but not least, according to the RCC jurisprudence, the motivation for a decision is also binding. So the logical question arises, what is mandatory or optional? CLARIFICATION”Explained the sources cited.
Furthermore, Dorneanu gives details on how the deliberation was carried out in this case.
“The question can be raised as to whether the secret of deliberation was violated. It is possible that he exceeded the investment limits, not being empowered by the status of judge to criticize in the decision, but by an illegal instrument, the conduct (note the good behavior) to a magistrate during the deliberations, “explains the cited source.
clarifications
SPECIFICATIONS on the minutes of the Constitutional Court Sentence No. 847/2020 and concurrent opinion prepared,
According to the minutes of Decision No. 847/2020, the solution to reject the notification of unconstitutionality as unfounded was ruled unanimously by voting and with the concurring opinion of Judge Tanasescu. During the deliberations, the judge ruled to dismiss the notification of unconstitutionality as inadmissible because the decisions of each individual Parliament cannot be subject to constitutional review in accordance with article 146 letter l) of the Constitution in conjunction with article 27 of Law no 47/1992.
The “contradictory” opinion prepared does not agree with the statements presented during the deliberative session by the judge exclusively on the solution of inadmissibility and, in addition, it includes – paradoxically – arguments in favor of the opposite solution adopted unanimously by votes, which transforms the eponymous opinion “competition” in a separate true opinion.
Certainly, the author of the concurring opinion did not vote in the sense of admitting the notification of unconstitutionality motivated by the breach of the conditions established by Law 73/1993 for the occupation of the position of president of the Legislative Council. In accordance with article 59 subsection 3 of Law No. 47/1992, “The judge who voted against may issue a separate opinion. Regarding the reasons for the decision, a concurrent opinion may be formulated. The separate opinion will be published. and, where appropriate, the contradictory in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, together with the decision “
Thus, in principle, the constitutional judge in the concurring opinion presents and develops his arguments invoked during the deliberation session in the sense of the solution voted, without distorting the expressed vote and the arguments that were its basis.
The nuance of the vote expressed in the deliberation session of the Constitutional Court for the arguments contained in a concurring opinion is inadmissible, because through such opinion the constitutional judge is not allowed to change his opinion on the solution voted or present totally unrelated arguments in the report. with those held in the deliberation session, when the decision was delivered.
Or, the written “competence” opinion neglects precisely these aspects, stating solutions and arguments other than those presented in the judge’s deliberation session, which is contrary to article 59, paragraph 3 of Law No. 47/1992 and to art. .426 subsection (2) of the Civil Procedure Code, corroborated with article 14 of Law No. 47/1992.
The President of the Constitutional Court, Prof. Univ. Dr. Valer DORNEANU
[ad_2]
