The constitutional court bulletin

The constitutional principle of bicameralism
Adjudicating on the reference concerning the objection of unconstitutionality of the Law for the amendment and supplementation of Law no. 818/1999 on the statute of public servants, the Constitutional Court held that the impugned provisions infringe the constitutional principle of bicameralism of the Parliament of Romania enshrined by Article 61 paragraph (2) of the Constitution.

As from the comparative analysis of the documents concerning the initiation and holding of this legislative process, namely of the legislative proposal submitted by the initiators, the wording adopted by the Senate, as first chamber referred, and that adopted by the Chamber of Deputies, as decisional chamber, the Court finds that there are major differences of legal content, the amendments and supplementations adopted by the Chamber of Deputies giving a special configuration, considerably different to the bill adopted by the Senate.

According to Article 61 of the Constitution of Romania, the Parliament is the supreme representative body of the Romanian people and the sole legislative authority of the country, and its structure is bicameral, being composed of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate. But the principle of bicameralism, thus enshrined, is reflected not only in the institutional dualism within the Parliament, but also in the functional one, because Article 75 of the Basic Law establishes powers of legislation according to which each of the two Chambers has, in the cases strictly provided by law, either the quality of first chamber referred or that of decisional chamber. Likewise, taking into account the indivisibility of Parliament as supreme representative body of the Romanian people and its uniqueness as legislative authority of the country, the Constitution does not allow the adoption of a law by a single chamber, without the bill be debated also by the other chamber. Article 75 of the Basic Law introduced, after the revision and republication thereof in October 2003, the solution concerning the compulsoriness of reference, in certain matters, as first chamber referred, of reflection, of the Senate or, as the case may be, of the Chamber of Deputies and, therefore, the regulation of the role of decisional chamber, for certain matters of the Senate and for other matters of the Chamber of Deputies, with a view not to exclude a chamber or the other from the law making mechanism. Likewise, paragraphs (4) and (5) under Article 75 of the Constitution provide the manner of settlement of any “conflicts of jurisprudence” between the first chamber referred and the decisional chamber, but there isn’t a text of the Constitution which would allow the decisional chamber to deviate from the “limits of reference” rendered by the solution adopted by the first Chamber referred.

In its jurisprudence¹⁶⁰, taking into account the basic rules and principles abovementioned, the Constitutional Court stated that “parliamentary debate of a bill or legislative proposal cannot overlook the assessment thereof in the plenary of the two Chambers of our bicameral Parliament”. It is true that in the debate of a legislative initiative, the Chambers have their own right of decision thereto, but the principle of bicameralism cannot be observed unless both Chambers of Parliament debate and express their opinion on the same contents and the same wording of the legislative initiative.

The discrepancies between the bill adopted by the Senate, as first chamber referred, and the law passed by the Chamber of Deputies, as decisional chamber, infringe the principle of bicameralism, in the meaning that the final form of the law, in the wording passed by the decisional chamber, substantially deviates from the wording adopted by the first chamber, which is basically equivalent to the exclusion of the latter from the law making process. Or, the law must express the concordant will of both Chambers of Parliament.
Decision no. 710 of May 6^th 2009, published in the Official

Gazette of Romania, Part, no. 358 of May 28^th 2009




III. Press releases