Romanian Constitutional Court Motivates Justice Ministry Nomination Decision

"Therefore, the Court will acknowledge the application of article 85, section 2, of the Constitution, as the president, without veto rights in the matter, can ask the prime minister, on one occasion and with reason, to make a new proposition for the appointment of a different person as minister," states the Constitutional Court decision of February 7, published Friday on the website of the institution.

In the solution for the legal conflict between the president and the prime minister, the Court indicates that it is obligated to offer adequate interpretation for the texts contained in the fundamental law, to deduce the spirit governing this issue.

At the same time, the Court underlines it does not have attributions in the solving of conflicts political in nature. The solution of political conflicts is an attribute of political parties, public authorities, including the president, who needs to make sure that the Constitution is observed, that public authorities function well and to act as mediator between the powers of the state, as well as between state and society.

According to the Court, article 85, section 2 of the Constitution states that the head of state dismisses and appoints, at the proposition of the prime minister, some of the members of the Government, the ad-litteram interpretation here being "in this case, the president does not carry out a parliament decision, but he is in the situation of deciding himself, at the proposition of the prime minister."

"Since the act of decision, at this stage, is an act of will, it is obvious that the president has the liberty to receive the proposition of the prime minister or to ask him to make a new proposition," the Court said.

The Court notices that this interpretation of article 85, section 2 "contains the premises for institutional deadlock," thus the president is allowed to refuse the prime minister’s nominee for a minister position and to request a new nomination.

In these conditions, there are two matters that need addressing: the number of times the president is allowed to proceed in this manner, and the question of whether the prime minister has just cause to repeat the initial nomination, according to the Court decision motivation.

The fundamental law does not explicitly address these matters, the Court noted.

If the president and the prime minister fail to agree, such as the case is in the current matter, inadmissible institutional deadlock is instated, which can prevent the government from functioning adequately.