Use this url to cite publication: https://cris.mruni.eu/cris/handle/007/13389
Options
Decentralization in Romania: a constant failed reform under scrutiny from the constitutional limits perspective
Type of publication
Straipsnis mokslo, meno, kultūros, profesiniame leidinyje / Article in science, art, culture, professional publication (S7)
Type of publication (old)
S5
Author(s)
Carp, Radu |
Sienerth, Andra Karla |
Title
Decentralization in Romania: a constant failed reform under scrutiny from the constitutional limits perspective
Other Title
Decentralizacija Rumunijoje: nepavykusi reforma konstitucinių ribų aspektu
Date Issued
2014
Is part of
Jurisprudencija, 2014, 21(4)
Field of Science
Abstract
Decentralization is mentioned in the Romanian Constitution of 1991
as a principle of public administration, without being defined. A framework-law was
adopted only in 2004, after the revision of the Constitution, and it was entirely abrogated
in 2006 by another framework-law. None of these laws have been fully applied, because
they were made of general principles and of public policy statements. The article
discusses the draft law on decentralization of 2013 that was declared unconstitutional
by the Constitutional Court in January 2014. The Constitutional Court has developed
in the Decision No. 1/2014 the argument that it has jurisdiction to decide not only
on the unconstitutionality of the law, but also on the inconsistency between it and
the legal framework. The Court relied on its previous jurisprudence and also on that
of the ECHR and the CJEU and concluded that the draft law on decentralization
“does not meet the constitutional requirements regarding the quality of the law”.
Consequently, the account of decentralization, since the introduction of this concept in
the Constitution of 1991 up to now, is extremely unsatisfactory. The transfer of powers
from central to local levels, the essence of decentralization, was limited and was done
mainly in a descriptive form of the competences of local authorities by the successive
laws concerning the local administration. A gradual approach was preferred, extremely
cautious regarding the implementation of decentralization. The European Charter on
Local Autonomy, albeit transposed in Romanian law since 1997, had no influence on
the drafting of two framework laws from 2004 and 2006, a rule that even the law from
2013 makes no exception to. The article describes how the principle of subsidiarity has
been incomplete or faulty defined by these frameworks-laws and, consequently, it was
impossible to apply it. Other principles, such as proportionality or consultation of local
authorities on decisions that directly affect them, were not introduced in the Romanian
legislation. Until the failed attempt to conduct the transfer of competences in 2013, an
approach merely describing the principles and stages of decentralization was the option.
There is also the option to specify from the very beginning which are the institutions
which competences are to be transferred to a lower level due to decentralization. This
alternative was avoided, probably due to the finding of a weak administrative capacity
that causes decentralization to result in institutions that cannot exercise their powers invested with.
as a principle of public administration, without being defined. A framework-law was
adopted only in 2004, after the revision of the Constitution, and it was entirely abrogated
in 2006 by another framework-law. None of these laws have been fully applied, because
they were made of general principles and of public policy statements. The article
discusses the draft law on decentralization of 2013 that was declared unconstitutional
by the Constitutional Court in January 2014. The Constitutional Court has developed
in the Decision No. 1/2014 the argument that it has jurisdiction to decide not only
on the unconstitutionality of the law, but also on the inconsistency between it and
the legal framework. The Court relied on its previous jurisprudence and also on that
of the ECHR and the CJEU and concluded that the draft law on decentralization
“does not meet the constitutional requirements regarding the quality of the law”.
Consequently, the account of decentralization, since the introduction of this concept in
the Constitution of 1991 up to now, is extremely unsatisfactory. The transfer of powers
from central to local levels, the essence of decentralization, was limited and was done
mainly in a descriptive form of the competences of local authorities by the successive
laws concerning the local administration. A gradual approach was preferred, extremely
cautious regarding the implementation of decentralization. The European Charter on
Local Autonomy, albeit transposed in Romanian law since 1997, had no influence on
the drafting of two framework laws from 2004 and 2006, a rule that even the law from
2013 makes no exception to. The article describes how the principle of subsidiarity has
been incomplete or faulty defined by these frameworks-laws and, consequently, it was
impossible to apply it. Other principles, such as proportionality or consultation of local
authorities on decisions that directly affect them, were not introduced in the Romanian
legislation. Until the failed attempt to conduct the transfer of competences in 2013, an
approach merely describing the principles and stages of decentralization was the option.
There is also the option to specify from the very beginning which are the institutions
which competences are to be transferred to a lower level due to decentralization. This
alternative was avoided, probably due to the finding of a weak administrative capacity
that causes decentralization to result in institutions that cannot exercise their powers invested with.
Straipsnyje lyginamuoju aspektu analizuojamas decentralizacijos
procesas Rumunijoje bei aprašoma, kaip subsidiarumo principas buvo neišsamiai ar net
neteisingai apibrėžtas teisėkūroje, t. y. įstatymuose priimtuose nuo 2004 iki 2006 metų,
kas suponavo šių teisės aktų įgyvendinimo sunkumus. Straipsnyje analizuojamas 2013
metų decentralizacijos įstatymo projektas, kuris 2014 m. sausį Konstitucinio Teismo
buvo pripažintas prieštaraujančiu Konstitucijai. Visi minimi teisės normų aktai yra
nagrinėjami iš Europos vietos savivaldos chartijos perspektyvos. Straipsnyje prieinama
prie išvados, kad decentralizacijos procesas, kuris vyksta nuo Rumunijos Konstitucijos
priėmimo 1991 metais iki šių dienų, yra ypač ydingas dėl savo laipsninio pobūdžio ir
Europos vietos savivaldos chartijoje įtvirtintų principų ignoravimo.
procesas Rumunijoje bei aprašoma, kaip subsidiarumo principas buvo neišsamiai ar net
neteisingai apibrėžtas teisėkūroje, t. y. įstatymuose priimtuose nuo 2004 iki 2006 metų,
kas suponavo šių teisės aktų įgyvendinimo sunkumus. Straipsnyje analizuojamas 2013
metų decentralizacijos įstatymo projektas, kuris 2014 m. sausį Konstitucinio Teismo
buvo pripažintas prieštaraujančiu Konstitucijai. Visi minimi teisės normų aktai yra
nagrinėjami iš Europos vietos savivaldos chartijos perspektyvos. Straipsnyje prieinama
prie išvados, kad decentralizacijos procesas, kuris vyksta nuo Rumunijos Konstitucijos
priėmimo 1991 metais iki šių dienų, yra ypač ydingas dėl savo laipsninio pobūdžio ir
Europos vietos savivaldos chartijoje įtvirtintų principų ignoravimo.
Type of document
type::text::journal::journal article::research article
Other Identifier(s)
-
Language
Anglų / English (en)
Access Rights
Atviroji prieiga / Open Access