Motherfucking thieves. Of course it was going to be about corruption charges.
It’s what you’d expect.
For a sovereign country (well, one with a constitutional system), their constitution is the highest authority in their legal system. Has to be, or it’s not sovereign.
In EU law, EU law is the highest authority. Has to be, or the treaties wouldn’t work — countries could just ignore EU law without consequence in the EU by overruling it with constitutional amendments.
As long as a country is sovereign, it will follow its constitution, even if that means violating a treaty.
Having a split between the two prior to federalization is not weird. It just comes off as weird because usually we don’t have two non-harmonized bodies of rules called “law”.
There they go again, copying from Poland 😛
EU has to either accept it will forever be an economic union or it has to publicly admit it wants to be a federal state and, in that case, ask for referendums. It would 100% lose on those referendums of course which is why it will never publicly admit it wants absolute power.
Romania will face the same consequences as Poland and Hungary if they keep enacting anti-democratic policies.
Good for them.
Are they part of the Visegrad group? It sounds like they should be.
That’s why Europe never be a country 😂
Ohhhhh, damn
Okey
I would say based but that’s just normality, its like celebrating breathing so anyways the only good decision
Is that such an incompatible ruling with the functioning of the EU? I thought most treaties either never collided with local law in the first place, or local law was changed so that there would be no conflict. So you can have technically primacy of local law, and never have a problem, or I’m interpreting something wrong? Because to be fair what I really see as incompatible is EU law having primacy and states being sovereign.
“This imbroglio relates to a case brought by Romania’s highest court, which had condemned many former ministers and parliamentarians for VAT fraud and corruption in the management of European funds”
So they decide to reject EU supremacy the moment the (old) elite in the country is going to need to be judged according to the standards of the EU AND ITS ABOUT CORRUPTION WITH EU FUNDS!? Serious bastards.
We should not accept this from Romania (Or Poland)
Go Romania! Don’t let Germany tell you what to do.
Say good bye to that sweet EU money that’s pouring into Romania. As a Romanian I’d be fucking furious and make dead certain that the corrupt fuckers were aware of it.
You did it once not long ago.
Based Romania
Communists and thieves from Constitutional Court can’t read Article 148 paragraph 2 from Constitution:
2) Ca urmare a aderării, prevederile tratatelor constitutive ale Uniunii Europene, precum şi celelalte reglementări comunitare cu caracter obligatoriu, au prioritate faţă de dispoziţiile contrare din legile interne, cu respectarea prevederilor actului de aderare.
This is not a official decision from the Constitutional Court(CCR) but rather an opinion published as a press release. It does not have a juridical value.
The author says that what will be important is how the Superior Council of Magistracy (CSM) will act when judges will listen to the recent European Court of Justice regarding the situation in Romanian. Their decision will have a huge impact and it may, if it will be contrary to the European ruling, put us on a path to a Poland-like situation.
I am not a legal scholar, but I can not understand why and how the CCR and CSM can rule against the primacy of EU laws when article 148 of our Constitution says this “Following accession, the provisions of the Treaties establishing the European Union, as well as other binding Community regulations, have priority over the contrary provisions of national law, in compliance with the provisions of the Act of Accession”.
Rich fucks try to steal as much money as they can and nationalists on /r/europe celebrate it. Classic
ok but how accurate is this info? it doesn t seem reliable, since i cannot find it on any other website.
As things should be in every EU country
So basically “The EU has no authority to prosecute the Romanian leaders who misused EU funding given to them by the EU.”
Sounds like classic corruption.
« Primacy of European law » makes no sense from the point of view of virtually every constitution in Europe. It’s at best a philosophical point, and a contested one.
If an EU country breaks EU laws, won’t that be a breach of contract at minimum?
Honestly, reading that article it sounds like the ECJ massively overstepped its powers. They ruled that rulings of Romania’s constitutional court should be outright ignored by Romania if their rulings allow for systematic impunity of corrupt politicians or other crimes that hurt EU financial interests. This sounds good on the surface, but it’s an extremely broad statement. You can’t just ignore f.e. procedural rules in criminal proceedings because otherwise you hurt EU financial interests. Imagine the government breaking rules when it comes to spying on suspects and then in court this being called out as a reason for why the case is defunct, but because of “EU financial interests” this ruling is just ignored. What does ‘ignoring’ mean in this regard? Locking up the suspect anyway, without a judgement? It sounds like a poorly thought out judgement by the ECJ tbh. What it means to ignore the constitutional court is vague and what kind of judgements ought to be ignored is vague as well.
25 comments
It’s spreading!
Motherfucking thieves. Of course it was going to be about corruption charges.
It’s what you’d expect.
For a sovereign country (well, one with a constitutional system), their constitution is the highest authority in their legal system. Has to be, or it’s not sovereign.
In EU law, EU law is the highest authority. Has to be, or the treaties wouldn’t work — countries could just ignore EU law without consequence in the EU by overruling it with constitutional amendments.
As long as a country is sovereign, it will follow its constitution, even if that means violating a treaty.
Having a split between the two prior to federalization is not weird. It just comes off as weird because usually we don’t have two non-harmonized bodies of rules called “law”.
There they go again, copying from Poland 😛
EU has to either accept it will forever be an economic union or it has to publicly admit it wants to be a federal state and, in that case, ask for referendums. It would 100% lose on those referendums of course which is why it will never publicly admit it wants absolute power.
Romania will face the same consequences as Poland and Hungary if they keep enacting anti-democratic policies.
Good for them.
Are they part of the Visegrad group? It sounds like they should be.
That’s why Europe never be a country 😂
Ohhhhh, damn
Okey
I would say based but that’s just normality, its like celebrating breathing so anyways the only good decision
Is that such an incompatible ruling with the functioning of the EU? I thought most treaties either never collided with local law in the first place, or local law was changed so that there would be no conflict. So you can have technically primacy of local law, and never have a problem, or I’m interpreting something wrong? Because to be fair what I really see as incompatible is EU law having primacy and states being sovereign.
“This imbroglio relates to a case brought by Romania’s highest court, which had condemned many former ministers and parliamentarians for VAT fraud and corruption in the management of European funds”
So they decide to reject EU supremacy the moment the (old) elite in the country is going to need to be judged according to the standards of the EU AND ITS ABOUT CORRUPTION WITH EU FUNDS!? Serious bastards.
We should not accept this from Romania (Or Poland)
Go Romania! Don’t let Germany tell you what to do.
Say good bye to that sweet EU money that’s pouring into Romania. As a Romanian I’d be fucking furious and make dead certain that the corrupt fuckers were aware of it.
You did it once not long ago.
Based Romania
Communists and thieves from Constitutional Court can’t read Article 148 paragraph 2 from Constitution:
2) Ca urmare a aderării, prevederile tratatelor constitutive ale Uniunii Europene, precum şi celelalte reglementări comunitare cu caracter obligatoriu, au prioritate faţă de dispoziţiile contrare din legile interne, cu respectarea prevederilor actului de aderare.
A little bit about this as I read from a Romanian news [article](https://adevarul.ro/news/politica/ccr-umfla-pene-nu-accepta-suprematiadreptului-european-romania-riscam-pierdem-banii-pnrr–1_61c565595163ec4271ec9f12/index.html)(in Romanian).
This is not a official decision from the Constitutional Court(CCR) but rather an opinion published as a press release. It does not have a juridical value.
The author says that what will be important is how the Superior Council of Magistracy (CSM) will act when judges will listen to the recent European Court of Justice regarding the situation in Romanian. Their decision will have a huge impact and it may, if it will be contrary to the European ruling, put us on a path to a Poland-like situation.
I am not a legal scholar, but I can not understand why and how the CCR and CSM can rule against the primacy of EU laws when article 148 of our Constitution says this “Following accession, the provisions of the Treaties establishing the European Union, as well as other binding Community regulations, have priority over the contrary provisions of national law, in compliance with the provisions of the Act of Accession”.
Rich fucks try to steal as much money as they can and nationalists on /r/europe celebrate it. Classic
ok but how accurate is this info? it doesn t seem reliable, since i cannot find it on any other website.
As things should be in every EU country
So basically “The EU has no authority to prosecute the Romanian leaders who misused EU funding given to them by the EU.”
Sounds like classic corruption.
« Primacy of European law » makes no sense from the point of view of virtually every constitution in Europe. It’s at best a philosophical point, and a contested one.
If an EU country breaks EU laws, won’t that be a breach of contract at minimum?
Honestly, reading that article it sounds like the ECJ massively overstepped its powers. They ruled that rulings of Romania’s constitutional court should be outright ignored by Romania if their rulings allow for systematic impunity of corrupt politicians or other crimes that hurt EU financial interests. This sounds good on the surface, but it’s an extremely broad statement. You can’t just ignore f.e. procedural rules in criminal proceedings because otherwise you hurt EU financial interests. Imagine the government breaking rules when it comes to spying on suspects and then in court this being called out as a reason for why the case is defunct, but because of “EU financial interests” this ruling is just ignored. What does ‘ignoring’ mean in this regard? Locking up the suspect anyway, without a judgement? It sounds like a poorly thought out judgement by the ECJ tbh. What it means to ignore the constitutional court is vague and what kind of judgements ought to be ignored is vague as well.