eliminarea a 859 de ur\u0219i la nivel de preven\u021bie<\/a> \u0219i 110 ur\u0219i la nivel de interven\u021bie, cifre semnificativ mai mari dec\u00e2t cele stabilite \u00een 2024. Legea mai prevede modul de repartizare a cotelor pe jude\u021be \u0219i fonduri cinegetice, precum \u0219i regimul de proprietate asupra bl\u0103nurilor \u0219i craniilor exemplarelor extrase.<\/p>\n\u201eApreciem c\u0103 eliminarea ur\u0219ilor prin aplicarea unor cote fixe de preven\u021bie \u00eencalc\u0103 Directiva 92\/43\/CEE a Consiliului din 21 mai 1992 privind conservarea habitatelor naturale \u0219i a speciilor de faun\u0103 \u0219i flor\u0103 s\u0103lbatic\u0103 (Directiva Habitate). \u00cen lipsa unor justific\u0103ri \u0219tiin\u021bifice detaliate \u0219i evalu\u0103ri periodice ale popula\u021biei de ur\u0219i \u00een arealul de referin\u021b\u0103 se \u00eencalc\u0103 norma european\u0103 \u00een ceea ce prive\u0219te situa\u021biile de excep\u021bie \u00een care exemplarele dintr-o specie de faun\u0103 s\u0103lbatic\u0103 protejat\u0103, de interes european, pot fi extrase. Nivelul de preven\u021bie concretizat \u00een v\u00e2n\u0103toare anual\u0103 planificat\u0103, ar putea fi considerat o m\u0103sur\u0103 dispropor\u021bionat\u0103, dac\u0103 nu se demonstreaz\u0103 \u0219tiin\u021bific c\u0103 popula\u021bia de urs brun este excesiv de numeroas\u0103 \u0219i c\u0103 alte solu\u021bii de p\u0103strare a echilibrului ecologic \u0219i siguran\u021bei popula\u021biei nu sunt suficiente,\u00a0se arat\u0103 \u00een sesizarea de neconstitu\u021bionalitate.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
publicitate”); background-position: center center; background-repeat: no-repeat;”><\/p>\n
Documentul subliniaz\u0103 c\u0103 derog\u0103rile privind extragerea speciilor protejate trebuie s\u0103 fie excep\u021bionale, individualizate \u0219i justificate punctual, nu transformate \u00eentr-un mecanism anual automat.<\/p>\n
\u201eDirectiva Habitate impune o verificare a faptului c\u0103 nu exist\u0103 alternative satisf\u0103c\u0103toare \u00eenainte de a trece la eliminarea ur\u0219ilor, iar obliga\u021bia respect\u0103rii acestei condi\u021bii nu apare explicit \u00een legea criticat\u0103\u201d,\u00a0se mai arat\u0103 \u00een sesizare<\/p>\n
Pre\u0219edintele invoc\u0103 trei teste obligatorii impuse de dreptul european:<\/p>\n
– Testul motivului specific \u2013 extragerea trebuie justificat\u0103 punctual, nu prin cote generale.<\/p>\n
– Testul alternativei satisf\u0103c\u0103toare \u2013 statul trebuie s\u0103 demonstreze c\u0103 m\u0103surile non-letale (garduri electrice, relocare, gestionarea de\u0219eurilor etc.) au fost aplicate \u0219i s-au dovedit insuficiente.<\/p>\n
– Testul st\u0103rii de conservare favorabile \u2013 extragerea nu poate afecta popula\u021bia speciei pe termen lung.<\/p>\n
\u00cen lipsa acestor analize, Rom\u00e2nia risc\u0103 o procedur\u0103 de infringement, se arat\u0103 \u00een sesizare:<\/p>\n
\u201eCurtea de Justi\u021bie a UE a stabilit \u00een Cauza C-674\/17 c\u0103 derog\u0103rile trebuie s\u0103 treac\u0103 testul lipsei unei alternative satisf\u0103c\u0103toare \u0219i cel al men\u021binerii st\u0103rii de conservare favorabile. Or, prin stabilirea unor \u201ecote de preven\u021bie\u201d automate, prin legea dedus\u0103 controlului de constitu\u021bionalitate, se elimin\u0103 analiza obligatorie \u201ecaz cu caz\u201d \u0219i se ignor\u0103 aplicarea prioritar\u0103 a metodelor non-letale pentru eliminarea conflictelor om-urs, expun\u00e2nd Rom\u00e2nia unei proceduri de infringement iminente\u201d.<\/p>\n
\t\t\tParlamentul, acuzat c\u0103 a preluat atribu\u021bii ale Executivului<\/p>\n
Pre\u0219edintele sus\u021bine c\u0103 legea \u00eencalc\u0103 \u0219i principiul separa\u021biei puterilor, deoarece stabile\u0219te direct cote de interven\u021bie \u0219i preven\u021bie, o competen\u021b\u0103 care, potrivit legisla\u021biei \u0219i jurispruden\u021bei europene, apar\u021bine Ministerului Mediului, nu Parlamentului.<\/p>\n
Actul normativ ar transforma o decizie tehnic\u0103 \u2013 acordarea derog\u0103rilor pentru o specie protejat\u0103 \u2013 \u00eentr-o decizie politic\u0103, lipsit\u0103 de analiza \u0219tiin\u021bific\u0103 obligatorie.<\/p>\n
\t\t\tPre\u0219edintele critic\u0103 lipsa clarit\u0103\u021bii \u0219i previzibilit\u0103\u021bii legii<\/p>\n
Sesizarea invoc\u0103 \u0219i \u00eenc\u0103lcarea art. 1 alin. (5) din Constitu\u021bie, ar\u0103t\u00e2nd c\u0103 legea nu stabile\u0219te criterii clare pentru evaluarea popula\u021biei de urs, nu men\u021bioneaz\u0103 metodele alternative analizate \u0219i nu justific\u0103 impactul asupra conserv\u0103rii speciei.<\/p>\n
publicitate”); background-position: center center; background-repeat: no-repeat;”><\/p>\n
Practic, pre\u0219edintele solicit\u0103 Cur\u021bii Constitu\u021bionale s\u0103 declare legea neconstitu\u021bional\u0103, argument\u00e2nd c\u0103: \u00eencalc\u0103 obliga\u021biile Rom\u00e2niei ca stat membru UE, afecteaz\u0103 dreptul la un mediu s\u0103n\u0103tos, \u00eencalc\u0103 principiul separa\u021biei puterilor \u0219i transform\u0103 o derogare excep\u021bional\u0103 \u00eentr-un mecanism permanent de v\u00e2n\u0103toare.<\/p>\n
\u201eLegea criticat\u0103 inverseaz\u0103 logica art. 16 alin. (1) din Directiva Habitate \u00een sensul \u00een care m\u0103sura letal\u0103 este tratat\u0103 ca instrument principal de management al speciei, iar nu ca ultim\u0103 solu\u021bie\u201d, se mai arat\u0103 \u00een sesizare.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Pre\u0219edintele Nicu\u0219or Dan cere Cur\u021bii Constitu\u021bionale s\u0103 blocheze legea care permite v\u00e2n\u0103toarea a aproape 1.000 de ur\u0219i \u00een…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":185722,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_share_on_mastodon":"0"},"categories":[10],"tags":[52971,32,33,341,31,52973,36,37,27,34,35,25,358,52970,41,40,38,39,26,28,29,30,52972],"class_list":["post-185721","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-romania","tag-atac-urs","tag-breaking-news","tag-breakingnews","tag-ccr","tag-cele-mai-populare-subiecte","tag-cota-de-recoltare","tag-featured-news","tag-featurednews","tag-headlines","tag-latest-news","tag-latestnews","tag-news","tag-nicusor-dan","tag-recoltare-ursi","tag-ro","tag-romana","tag-romania","tag-romanian","tag-stiri","tag-titluri","tag-top-stories","tag-topstories","tag-ucis-de-urs"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@ro\/116613761877342588","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ro\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/185721","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ro\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ro\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ro\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ro\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=185721"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ro\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/185721\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ro\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/185722"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ro\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=185721"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ro\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=185721"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ro\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=185721"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
![\"Ur\u0219i](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ro\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/1779384668_660_index.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n