Constitutional Court of Romania: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Tudor.raneti (talk | contribs) Undid revision 888402749 by Yilloslime (talk) - Yilloslime committed vandalism by deleting a significant article update without any possible justification. Yilloslime is in cahoots with the previous marked vandals such as the previous vandal user "Biruitorul". This user must also be banned |
Reverted 1 edit by Tudor.raneti (talk): Rv essay/argumentative writing, without secondary sourcing. edit warring to be assessed also (TW) |
||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
It consists of nine members serving nine-year terms which cannot be extended, with three members each appointed by the [[President of Romania|President]], the [[Senate of Romania|Senate]] and the [[Chamber of Deputies of Romania|Chamber of Deputies]]. Three members are renewed every three years, with the latest renewal occurring in 2016. |
It consists of nine members serving nine-year terms which cannot be extended, with three members each appointed by the [[President of Romania|President]], the [[Senate of Romania|Senate]] and the [[Chamber of Deputies of Romania|Chamber of Deputies]]. Three members are renewed every three years, with the latest renewal occurring in 2016. |
||
==Complicity and instigation to Crimes against humanity== |
|||
The [[Constitutional Court of Romania]] (ro. "[https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtea_Constitu%C8%9Bional%C4%83_a_Rom%C3%A2niei Curtea Constititionala Romana]", ro. abbr. "CCR") generally imposed - according to article 147 paragraph 4 from the [[Romanian Constitution]]<ref name="Romanian Constitution">{{cite web | url=https://www.constitutiaromaniei.ro | title=Romanian Constitution}}</ref>, through Decision no 25 from 19 January 2017 <ref name="Decision no 25 from 19 January 2017">{{cite web | url=http://www.monitoruljuridic.ro/act/decizia-nr-25-din-19-ianuarie-2017-referitoare-la-excep-ia-de-neconstitu-ionalitate-a-dispozi-iilor-art-245-nbsp-i-art-246-din-codul-de-procedur-penal-188564.html | title=Constitutional Court of Romania Decision no 25 from 19 January 2017}}</ref>, the illogical inference that the presumption of innocence principle doesn't need to be lifted through a public legal trial before a [[#so-called_medical_penal_measure | so-called medical penal measure]] of security can be forcefully applied, because <b>The Constitutional Court of Romania, the [[Romanian Government]] and the [[Romanian Ombudsman|Romanian People's Advocate]] lie</b> a so-called medical penal measure of security doesn't require that a deed is proven to exist before [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_syllogism syllogistically inferring] any juridical act related to the deed, in other words doesn't require deducing from a particular factual premise logically correlated with the universal law premise that a juridical act must be taken such as the demonstration that the deed constitutes a felony, and doesn't require the demonstration that the accused person committed it, and thus implicitly doesn't require the demonstration that the deed constituting a felony together with the demonstration the accused will or has repeated the crime legally makes it obligatory that a penal security measure must be taken, as objectivized at large in section I.B.11 of [https://www.scribd.com/document/383381894/Raneti-vs-Romania-at-ICC-for-Crimes-Against-Humanity Raneti vs Romania at ICC penal dossier]<ref name="Raneti vs Romania at ICC">{{cite web | url=https://www.scribd.com/document/383381894/Raneti-vs-Romania-at-ICC-for-Crimes-Against-Humanity | title=Raneti vs Romania at ICC penal dossier}} </ref>, and as punctually demonstrated below in summary |
|||
'''The Constitutional Court of Romania, the Romanian Government and the Romanian Ombudsman lies''' are in contradiction with both article 4 from the [[Penal Procedure Code of Romania]]<ref name="Romanian Penal Procedure Code">{{cite web | url=http://www.dreptonline.ro/legislatie/codul_de_procedura_penala_legea_135_2010.php | title=Romanian Penal Procedure Code}}</ref>, and article 23 paragraph 11 from Romanian Constitution<ref name="Romanian Constitution" />, and articles 11 and 20 from Romanian Constitution<ref name="Romanian Constitution" /> who makes the international treaties Romania ratified internal right meaning article 11 from the [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]] and article 6 paragraph 2 from the [[European Convention on Human Rights]], all regarding the presumption of innocence which states any person is innocent unless proven guilty in a legal public trial, which starts with demonstrating first of all a deed exists because obviously if it doesn't the rest of the trial cannot take place, mention which is all the more relevant to the article because 4 self-contradictory penal dossiers have been falsified by the Romanian "state" organized crime against [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tudor.raneti Mr Tudor-Andrei Raneti], which is relevant to demonstrating both the motive and the intent of Decision no 25 from 19 January 2017 falsifiers. In other words the exception of unconstitutionality raised by Mr Tudor-Andrei Raneti demonstrates that articles 245 and 246 from the Penal Procedure Code of Romania<ref name="Romanian Penal Procedure Code" /> infringe on the presumption of innocence, as do other similar articles invoked against Mr Tudor-Andrei Raneti which he also raised as unconstitutional exceptions and illegally blocked in court from reaching the Constitutional Court of Romania, the relevance of the mention being that the Constitutional Court of Romania issues [https://www.dictionary.com/browse/ex-officio ''ex officio''] general decisions also regarding similar articles of the law meaning the Decision no 25 from 19 January 2017 unconstitutional and illegal logic seem generally obligatory in Romanian judicial system - in reality the only duty of the magistrates being obeying the law according to article 124 from the Romanian Constitution, law which is now contradicted by the Constitutional Court of Romania which would have no authority over judges according to the judge's legal independence leaving the only possible reality that the Romanian judges chose to break the law meaning are in cahoots with the members of the Constitutional Court of Romania, the Romanian Government, the Romanian Parliament and the so-called People's Advocate who as this article demonstrate form a part of the Romanian "state" organized crime, as punctually demonstrated below in summary |
|||
The articles 245 and 246 from the Penal Procedure Code of Romania<ref name="Romanian Penal Procedure Code" /> mention in their text that suspects and the accused can be forcefully chemically lobotomized, which is the only correct term for being poisoned with "psychiatric" charlatanry fluorine and chlorine based deadly neurotoxins as objectivized in section I.A.II.1.2.1 of this <ref name="Raneti vs Romania at ICC" /> ICC penal dossier where it is demonstrated or is inferred from logically correlated more than sufficient scientific research premises, according to juridical logic and the rules of a criminal investigation regarding valid evidence types, that the "psychiatric" charlatanry never cured anyone of anything in its entire existence and is neither science nor medicine, nor are its falsely called treatments with mercury, opium, heroine, fluorine and chlorine or electric shocks medicine anything else but evidently Torture, Bodily harm and Qualified murder, all of which are felonies in the [[Penal Code of Romania]]<ref name="Romanian Penal Code">{{cite web | url=http://www.euroavocatura.ro/legislatie/1178/Codul_Penal_actualizat_2015 | title=Romanian Penal Code}}</ref>, scientifically proven fact already paralleled in many other research results not referenced because they are notorious to have reached the inference that "psychiatry" is charlatanry as even admitted by some of the "psychiatrist" charlatans themselves officially which is evidence in itself - a demonstration of unavoidable and wide-spread incoherence also clearly indicating the "psychiatry" charlatanry is not a consistent and established scientific discipline because reality or truth about what is can not be falsified by man. Psychologic counceling, the only potentially useful pseudoscience intertwined with the "psychiatric" charlatanry is also known not to be medicine, while ethymologically the "psychiatric" charlatanry [https://www.etymonline.com/word/psychiatry literally means "a healing of the soul"] is evidently in league with religion which at least does not claim it can heal the soul using deadly neurotoxin poisons which is preposterous as nothing can be created by destroying. The brain is notoriously known to not be able to heal after being destroyed, let alone the psyche or mind it supports, which explains why the "psychiatry" charlatanry aims at the destruction of the brain - for the only possible motivation of impeding the "psychiatric" charlatanry victim of fighting back the charlatan, which follows the same motivation pattern of chemical lobotomization of nazi concentration camp or soviet gulag prisoners using fluorine as demonstrated in section I.A.II.1.2.4 of this<ref name="Raneti vs Romania at ICC"/> ICC penal dossier, a substance with no biological function, severely neurotoxic and poisonous to all life as notoriously proven by the fact it's the active principle in rat poison as demonstrated in section I.A.II.1.2.8 of this<ref name="Raneti vs Romania at ICC"/> ICC penal dossier. Chemical lobotomization raises a whole range of other legal problems starting by gravity with the infringement of the right to life, body and psychic integrity regardless whether it's forced or not, because of the notorious fact instigation to suicide is a crime, while the "psychiatric" charlatanry drugs are proven to induce suicidal and homicidal ideation as proven in section I.A.II.1.2.8^1 of this<ref name="Raneti vs Romania at ICC"/> ICC penal dossier, which is also relevant to this article for demonstrating the motivation of the Romanian "state" organized crime behind the falsification of the Decision no 25 from 19 January 2017 <ref name="Decision no 25 from 19 January 2017" /> corroborated particularly with Romanian "state" organized crime proven beyond all reasonable doubt criminal intent of falsifying 4 fictive, self-contradicting and devoid of any evidence penal dossiers against Mr Tudor-Andrei Raneti as proven in this <ref name="Raneti vs Romania at ICC" /> ICC penal dossier, concocted to also act as a cover-up story and pretext to commit Crimes against humanity against Mr Tudor-Andrei Raneti who as short proof wasn't even falsely convicted in any of the falsified penal dossiers against him as proven in short by annex 17 of this [https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Interim_measures_ENG.pdf Rule 39]<ref name="ECHR Rule 39 guide">{{cite web | url=https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Interim_measures_ENG.pdf | title=ECHR Rule 39 guide }} </ref> [[ECtHR]] urgent request for interim measures published at address: [https://www.scribd.com/document/352597506/Raneti-vs-Romania-at-ECHR Raneti vs Romania at ECHR]<ref name="Raneti vs Romania at ECHR">{{cite web | url=https://www.scribd.com/document/352597506/Raneti-vs-Romania-at-ECHR | title=Raneti vs Romania at ECHR Rule 39 urgent request for interim measures }} </ref> representing Mr Tudor-Andrei Raneti's empty judicial history |
|||
This particular exception of unconstitutionality raised before the Constitutional Court of Romania and illegally rejected through the falsified Decision no 25 from 19 January 2017 as proven below in summary punctually, regards only the fact that the suspect and accused are innocent until proven guilty through a definitive sentence in a public legal trial as legally declared by the articles enumerated above regarding the [[presumption of innocence]], being otherwise logically obvious nobody can be convicted for not committing any deed, which then can not constitute a felony and therefore cannot begin to constitute grounds for presuming the accused represents a public danger to be sentenced to a penal measure of security, the only legal prerogative of demonstrating that a deed exists, constitutes a felony, that the accused committed it, that the convict represents a public danger since only a proven felon can represent a public danger as nobody else can be proven to be a criminal unless declaring everyone guilty until proven innocent which is the aberrant reverse of the presumption of innocence, and that the convict must be obligated to a measure of security, belongs exclusively to the judges in Romania, according to the text of the law of articles 23 paragraph 11 and 126 of the Romanian Constitution, and articles 11 and 20 of the Romanian Constitution which makes international conventions ratified by Romania internal right leading to the applicability of article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 6 paragraph 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights as well. Evidently according to the same juridical or [[legal syllogism]], there can not exist a "psychiatry" charlatanry diagnosis with no universal legal and particular factual premises, or in other words without the subject of diagnosis doing anything at all which can only mean such a diagnosis is logically invalid or without premises being proven falsified from the start, this being the logic that the Constitutional Court of Romania, the Romanian Government and the Romanian People's Advocate are trying to contradict in Decision no 25 from 19 January 2017, the fact that not only inexistant deeds cannot be evaluated to constitute felonies and lead to the conviction of the accused, but nonexistent deeds inherently nonexistent felonies cannot lead to the inference that the convict represents a public danger, nor can it lead to a "psychiatric" charlatanry diagnosis which is also the judge's duty to inventory and administrate meaning evaluate its logical validity at least as the "psychiatric" charlatanry diagnosis is one of the legal conditions for emitting a so-called medical penal security measure, therefore the Romanian "state" organized crime being unable to justify breaking the law being impossible, simply contradicted the law ironically demonstrating one of the traits of sociopathy meaning consistent and counter-productive belief of being right even when faced with overwhelming evidence of being morally wrong by its victim, morality being the keyword which is why sociopathy is also called antisocial personality disorder. This is in short the full significance of the Decision no 25 from 19 January 2017 <ref name="Decision no 25 from 19 January 2017" /> - the Romanian "state" organized crime defending it's [[pseudolegal]] cover-up of its many Crimes against humanity committed by arresting innocent people from the street or their home and forcefully chemically lobotomizing them, as proven by |
|||
* ECtHR case 60113/12 of Ulise Grosu vs Romania which is about Mr Ulise Grosu arrest from the street by the Romanian "state" organized crime soldiers who tried to forcefully commit him to the local "psychiatric" charlatanry [[prison-camp]] for Torture, Bodily Harm and Qualified Murder - since the "psychiatry" charlatanry is proven neither science nor medicine there are no such things as "psychiatry" charlatanry hospitals, but, at least in Romania they are buildings with bars to prevent the inmate's escape, and torturer guards who enforce the orders of the torturer "psychiatrist" charlatans, as demonstrated in this<ref name="Raneti vs Romania at ICC"/> ICC penal dossier |
|||
or |
|||
* ECtHR case 41719/12 Ivascu vs Romania which is about Mr Ivascu filing a penal complaint against persons with relations within the local Romanian "state" organized crime who committed Mr Ivascu to the local "psychiatric" charlatanry prison-camp for a long time and chemically lobotomized him, according to [https://www.juridice.ro/346691/romania-la-cedo-cauza-pendinte-ivascu-internarea-medicala-nevoluntara-la-ordinul-procurorului-dreptul-la-viata-privata-si-raspunderea-statului.html this article]. The superior legal medicine institutions “IML Cluj” and “’Mina Minovici’ Bucharest” sustained the “psychiatrist” charlatans falsified documents against the Rroma minority member named Ivascu that he is mentally alienated for exercising his legal rights, then the courthouse “Judecatoria Sighetu Marmatiei” in dossier 907/307/2010 declared nobody can be subjected in penal matters to the security measure of “psychiatric treatment”, proving this judge made a difference between medical treatment and “psychiatric” charlatanry chemical lobotomization, until it has been established that the accused has committed a felony and that there is a danger of committing further felonies according to article 109 from the Romanian Penal Code and article 23 paragraph 11 from the Romanian Contitution, which proves that the entire legal medicine hierarchy is controlled by the mafia who used the “psychiatry” charlatanry as a weapon of state terrorism and political repression against the Rroma minority member named Ivascu. There is a correlation with Raneti vs Romania at ECHR case, the fact that both Mr Ivascu and Mr Raneti's cases have been canonically and aberrantly downplayed from the infringement of the most important right to life to the infringement of the least important to private life, and also in fact Mr Tudor-Andrei Raneti checked upon the author of [https://www.juridice.ro/346691/romania-la-cedo-cauza-pendinte-ivascu-internarea-medicala-nevoluntara-la-ordinul-procurorului-dreptul-la-viata-privata-si-raspunderea-statului.html this article] meaning Ms Mihaela Mazilu-Babel, who claims is not a doctorand from the College of Law and Social Sciences from Craiova county as it claims she is in the article, which can only mean that she didn't write the article out of kindness but at the order of the Romanian "state" organized crime using a "fight fire with fire" tactic attempting to extinguish the case by missrepresenting Mr Ivascu and downplaying his tragedy before someone else picks up his case, such as a human rights defender as Mr Tudor-Andrei Raneti |
|||
It's note worthy to mention the evident fact Mr Ulise Grosu wasn't chemically lobotomized because he has family ties with the local "psychiatrist" charlatans, as observed by Mr Tudor-Andrei Raneti being from the same county as Mr Ulise Grosu, while Mr Ivascu is a member of the Rroma minority on which the Romanian "state" organized crime performs nation-wide illegal human experiments on a regular basis, just as it does on institutionalized children who it drugged on purpose with adult so-called anti-psychotic fluorine based poisons, just as it does on other persons with no defense, or put outside the protection of the law of undesirables, dissidents and human rights defenders such as Mr Tudor-Andrei Raneti, which in the [https://www.yourdictionary.com/totalitarian totalitarian] Romanian "state" it obviously means the attainment of authority by fear by the ruling organized crime mob, and physical elimination of its adversaries |
|||
The punctual demonstration of the falsification and illegality of the Decision no 25 from 19 January 2017 is as follows: |
|||
According to paragraph 10 from The Constitutional Court of Romania Decision no 25 from 19 January 2017 <ref name="Decision no 25 from 19 January 2017" />, <b>the Romanian Government lied</b> that article 107 from the Penal Code of Romania<ref name="Romanian Penal Code" /> as translated mot-a-mot "<i>does not contain norms who would permit the establishment of guilt of a person accused of committing a felony</i>" which is in contradiction with the same article 107 paragraph 2 as translated mot-a-mot "<i>Security measures are taken against the person who committed a felony foreseen by penal law, unjustified</i>", which for clarification for the judiciary layman means that a penal security measure can only be taken against a person convicted definitively according to the [[presumption of innocence]] according to article 4 from Penal Procedure Code of Romania<ref name="Romanian Penal Procedure Code" />, which extracts its juridical force from article 23 paragraph 11 from Romanian Constitution<ref name="Romanian Constitution" />, and articles 11 and 20 from Romanian Constitution who makes international treaties ratified by Romania internal right meaning article 11 from the [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]]<ref name="UDHR">{{ cite web | url=http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights | title=Universal Declaration of Human Rights }}</ref> and article 6 paragraph 2 from the [[European Convention on Human Rights]] also regarding the [[presumption of innocence]]. Depending on the date of the Romanian Government communique's date to the The Constitutional Court of Romania, according to [https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_prim-mini%C8%99trilor_Rom%C3%A2niei#Lista_prim-mini%C8%99trilor this Wikipedia Romanian prime-minister timeline] it was either prime-minister [[Sorin Grindeanu]] (4 January 2017 - 29 June 2017) or [[Dacian Ciolos]] (17 November 2015 - 4 January 2017) administration who lied and is thus accomplice and instigating to Crimes against humanity, noting that at the time of the Decision no 25 from 19 January 2017<ref name="Decision no 25 from 19 January 2017" /> the prime-minister [[Sorin Grindeanu]] administration was aware anyway thus accomplice for not denouncing as legally obligated according to articles 61 and 291 from the Romanian Penal Procedure Code, just like prime-minister [[Dacian Ciolos]]'s administration given that the exception of unconstitutionality was raised in the penal derived dossier number 14427/3/2015 in 1st instance prior to it's rejection as inadmissible in favor of Mr Tudor-Andrei Raneti in February 2016 as short proof of [[state terrorism]] and [[political repression]], representing the 5th Crimes against humanity attempt as objectivized in section II.1.3.1^5 from this <ref name="Raneti vs Romania at ICC" /> ICC penal dossier |
|||
According to paragraph 12 from the Constitutional Court of Romania Decision no 25 from 19 January 2017 <ref name="Decision no 25 from 19 January 2017" />, <b>the People's Advocate [[Victor Ciorbea]] lied</b> as objectively translated by google translate that "<i>the criticism of the author of the exception that one of the premises of the obligation to medical treatment is the existence of a conviction, has no legal support</i>", contradicting himself in the same way as the Romanian Government did as demonstrated in the previous paragraph. The logical proofs in the Romanian Penal Procedure Code<ref name="Romanian Penal Procedure Code" /> alone are more than the ones exposed above, such as for instance article 331 which states that the penal court of law can only be proposed with the obligation to a so-called medical penal medical security measure by the prosecutor through an indictment, which is the document that inventories, administrates and objectivizes all the evidence for and against the accused, and thus demonstrates the accused possible guilt and innocence simultaneously, document which preceeds obligatory condemnation or acquittal of the accused according to article 329 from the Romanian Penal Procedure Code<ref name="Romanian Penal Procedure Code" /> by the judge not the prosecutor evidently according to article 126 from the Romanian Constitution <ref name="Romanian Constitution" />, condemnation which is logically and legally mandatory prior to the court emitting any obligatory penal medical measures of security, according to the legally corroborated logical aforementioned demonstration from the first paragraphs of this section, and according to the demonstration from this and the prior paragraphs based on article 107 paragraph 2 from the Romanian Penal Code<ref name="Romanian Penal Code" />, article that extracts its juridical force from the Romanian Constitution namely article 23 paragraph 11, and the international conventions ratified by Romania such as to uphold the European Convention on Human Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights according to articles 11 and 20 from the Romanian Constitution, in the context of the [[presumption of innocence]] meaning according to article 11 from the UDHR and article 6 paragraph 2 from the ECHR |
|||
According to paragraph 4 from the Constitutional Court of Romania Decision no 25 from 19 January 2017 <ref name="Decision no 25 from 19 January 2017" />, <b>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustin_Laz%C4%83r Augustin Lazar] the General Prosecutor of Romania since 28 April 2016 lied</b> as objectively translated by google translate that "<i>the criticized texts do not affect ... the presumption of innocence</i>" just as the Romanian Government lied, which is in contradiction with article 107 paragraph 2 and 109 from the Romanian Penal Code<ref name="Romanian Penal Code" /> who refer clearly to convicts not the accused or the suspects who are innocent until proven guilty as demonstrated two paragraphs before, according to article 4 from the Romanian Penal Procedure Code<ref name="Romanian Penal Procedure Code" /> which extracts its juridical force from articles 11, 23 paragraph 11 and 20 of the Romanian Constitution <ref name="Romanian Constitution" /> and article 11 from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 6 paragraph 2 from the European Convention on Human Rights and many such other articles aforementioned according to which an accused is a suspect against which there is strong evidence to have committed a crime which doesn't mean a crime exists and someone committed it until the end of a legal public trial where the accused is either condemned or acquitted after being legally demonstrated guilty or innocent - mention especially made because the Romanian "state" organized crime is notorious of also falsifying decisions of conviction such as the one against journalist [[Dan Diaconescu]] for example for extortion where the person extorted was filmed admitting he wasn't extorted and doesn't even know Dan Diaconescu as short proof, being logically obvious innocents are not a public danger which is why so-called medical penal measures of security or of any other kind can not be taken against the innocent, being thus proven beyond all reasonable doubt that <b>Augustin Lazar the General Prosecutor of Romania lied</b>, dismissing the hypothesis that even though the Public Ministry was represented by the so-called prosecutor Marinela Minca, she hierarchically answers directly to Augustin Lazar who is all the more aware since he personally illegally dismissed Mr Tudor-Andrei Raneti's request that the 4 falsified penal dossiers against him be moved to another jurisdiction than the one where they were falsified based on stringent proof of partiality - e.g. law breaking which purely demonstrates partiality, while Augustin Lazar being at the same time inculpated in a penal dossier for complicity and intrinsic instigation to the falsification of those falsified penal dossiers which made Augustin Lazar and the entire Romanian Public Ministry incompatible to address Mr Tudor-Andrei Raneti with any juridical acts, according to article 11 from the Romanian Ordnance of Urgency no 27 from 2002, mention proven intrinsically by the very fact Augustin Lazar the General Prosecutor of Romania can not have a personal motive to break the law against Mr Tudor-Andrei Raneti or in general, being illogical that Augustin Lazar seeks to get convicted and go to jail for the felony of Abuse of function according to article 297 from the Romanian Penal Code<ref name="Romanian Penal Code" />, and being perfectly logical inherently that Augustin Lazar lied through his subordinate who although isn't even tied with Mr Tudor-Andrei Raneti in any way, lied and instigated the falsification of the Constitutional Court of Romania Decision no 25 from 19 January 2017 in the interest of the organized crime group Marinela Minca and Augustin Lazar are part of, organized crime which is comprised as proven by this article of the Romanian Government, inclusively by the minister of justice who is the General Prosecutor's of Romania superior according to article 132 from the Romanian Constitution <ref name="Romanian Constitution" />, the members of the Constitutional Court of Romania, the Romanian People's Advocate, as well as the president of the supreme court and chief of Judiciary Inspection who according to article 44 from the Romanian Law 303/2004 are obligated to initiate disciplinary action against judges and prosecutors who break the law, and who of course didn't, and the list goes on as indicated in chapter V.3 from annex 23 from this <ref name="Raneti vs Romania at ECHR" /> Rule 39<ref name="ECHR Rule 39 guide" /> ECHR urgent request for interim measures. The previous General Prosecutors of Romania, [[Tiberiu Nitu]] (until 2 February 2016), and interim Dimitrie Bogdan Licu, are also aware of the evident collapse of the Romanian judiciary system, being inculpated for it in penal dossiers by Mr Tudor-Andrei Raneti |
|||
The other actors in taking the Constitutional Court of Romania Decision no 25 from 19 January 2017<ref name="Decision no 25 from 19 January 2017" /> concur to the Romanian Government and Romanian Ombudsman's lie, |
|||
* such as the presidents of the two chambers of the Romanian Parliament by not communicating their plead as proven by paragraph 15 from The Constitutional Court of Romania Decision no 25 from 19 January 2017 |
|||
* such as so-called judge Badiu Mandica from the courthouse "Judecatoria Focsani" who lies as proven by paragraph 7 from The Constitutional Court of Romania Decision no 25 from 19 January 2017 that a so-called medical penal security measure has nothing to do with the presumption of innocence, in other words the so-called judge Badiu Mandica lying as demonstrated before that a deed is not legally obligatory to be proven to exist in court, and constitute a felony, and that a person committed it which is then convicted unless the evidence is insuficient case in which the trial results in an acquittal making it juridically and logically aberrant to chemically lobotomize an innocent person, for a crime that is not even proven to exist in the first place before a legal public trial invalidating even the suspect's quality as meaningful in any way, and lying that an indictment in which the evidence is inventoried, administered and objectivized simultaneously for the accused's guilt and innocence needn't be written by the prosecution and sent in court because a conviction is necessary prior to a sentence to so-called medical penal security measures according to article 331 from the Romanian Penal Procedure Code<ref name="Romanian Penal Procedure Code" />, and lying that a deed which obligatorily must be proven in court to exist, to constitute a felony, that a person committed it beyong all reasonable doubt, does not constitute a particular factual premise corelated with an universal law premise from which a sentence to a so-called medical penal security measure can be inferred, and therefore a deed is not legally obligatory to be constitute in the same way the valid [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_syllogism syllogistic inference] to a diagnosis which is a condition for a so-called medical penal security measure sentence to exist also, in short the so-called judge Badiu Mandica lying that anyone can be locked up in one of the Romanian "psychiatric" charlatanry prison-camps and be chemically lobotomized because as proven in section I.A.II.1.3.1^7 of this <ref name="Raneti vs Romania at ICC" /> ICC penal dossier, in Romania being sufficient to be locked up in a "psychiatric" charlatanry prison-camp and automatically become subject to chemical lobotomization without a diagnosis, under the logic that anyone who becomes a "psychiatric" charlatanry prison-camp inmate is there for a reason and that reason is a legal even if it doesn't exist at all. Furthermore the so-called judge Badiu Mandica is aberrating that Crimes against humanity - which is the so-called "psychiatric" charlatanry chemical lobotomization using fluorine and chlorine desguised under the innocent denomination of so-called medical penal security measures in Romania, aren't a penal sanction, proposition which is technically true since Crimes against humanity aren't penal sanctions but the gravest of crimes, except in reality the so-called judge Badiu Mandica having to obey the law and not the policy of the Romanian "state" organized crime is is being wrong. The motive behind this particularized lie is in actuality a chorused rhetoric of the executing members of the Romanian "state" organized crime who simultaneously with the 8 Crimes against humanity attempts and committals against Mr Tudor-Andrei Raneti since 2014 to the present started uttering that it's for Mr Tudor-Andrei Raneti's good that he is subjected to Crimes against humanity, making evident the existence of a central instigator entity who concertized the 8 Crimes against humanity, and who also instigated this side note as a nuance of cover-up to which the executing members of the Romanian "state" organized crime did not know how to naturally react and adapt but just spouted the stringent non-sense as is, as it wasn't their idea to commit state terrorism and political repression abusing the "psychiatric" charlatanry to discredit Mr Tudor-Andrei Raneti human rights defender's work and eliminate him simultaneously, as corroborated with the reason behind the fact Mr Tudor-Andrei Raneti annulled 4 "psychiatric" charlatanry actions against him, that not all the members of the Romanian "state" organized crime were disposed to get involved in Crimes against humanity, again as objectivized in this<ref name="Raneti vs Romania at ICC" /> penal dossier and this <ref name="Raneti vs Romania at ECHR" /> Rule 39<ref name="ECHR Rule 39 guide" /> ECtHR urgent request for interim measures |
|||
* so-called judge Badiu Mandica from courthouse "Judecatoria Focsani" also lies according to paragraph 8 from The Constitutional Court of Romania Decision no 25 from 19 January 2017<ref name="Decision no 25 from 19 January 2017" /> that, as objectively translated by google translate: <i>"the civil court will be notified of the involuntary admission of the person concerned"</i>, which is a multiple fallacy: |
|||
** first, the Romanian "state" organized crime never intended to involuntarily incarcerate Mr Tudor-Andrei Raneti in a "psychiatric" charlatanry prison-camp, but chemically lobotomize him as proven by both instances of Crimes against humanity committals, clandestinely in the night between 5th and 6th December 2014, and illegally between 27th May 2017 and 8th June 2017, as proven in sections I.A.II.1.3.1^2 and I.A.II.1.3.1^7 from this<ref name="Raneti vs Romania at ICC"/> ICC penal dossier. As objectivized incarceration in a Romanian "psychiatric" charlatanry prison-camp means chemical lobotomization as a result of a nation-wide illegal human experimentation [[racket (crime)]] the Romanian "state" organized crime is running, certified officially by the Romanian "secret services" who wrote a report to the General Prosecutor of Romania about it to [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/disculpate disculpate] themselves of the responsibility, after which the Public Ministry run by the General Prosecutor of Romania covered-up the case and did nothing, the illegal human experimentation goes on in the present, constituting Crimes against humanity as demonstrated section I.A.II.1.2^1.2.2 and others from this<ref name="Raneti vs Romania at ICC"/> ICC penal dossier |
|||
** second, penal derived dossier 14277/231/2015 has nothing to do with involuntary "psychiatric" charlatanry incarceration, but with obligatory "psychiatric" charlatanry chemical lobotomization as proven by annex 5 of this<ref name="Raneti vs Romania at ECHR" /> Rule 39<ref name="ECHR Rule 39 guide" /> ECtHR urgent request for interim measures, and the so-called judge Badiu Mandica is trying to hide this |
|||
** third, there is no such thing as civil obligatory "psychiatric" charlatanry chemical lobotomization or civil obligatory "psychiatric" charlatanry so-called medical treatment, as certified by the Public Ministry declaration in paragraph 4 from Constitutional Court of Romania Decision no 25 from 19 January 2017<ref name="Decision no 25 from 19 January 2017" />, as I quote as objectively translated by google translate: <i>"Provisional treatment is a safety measure of a medical nature that can only be taken during the criminal proceedings"</i>, evidently because penal security measures or crime prevention is a penal matter, not a civil matter. As proof however of the murderous intent behind this lie in corroboration with the murderous intent behind the falsification of the Constitutional Court of Romania Decision no 25 from 19 January 2017<ref name="Decision no 25 from 19 January 2017" />, the Romanian "state" organized crime also attempted the 3rd Crimes against humanity against Mr Tudor-Andrei Raneti through a civil action of "psychiatric" charlatanry placement under interdiction, which although legally doesn't imply "psychiatric" charlatanry incarceration and chemical lobotomization, it was the Romanian "state" organized crime intent as proven in section I.A.II.1.3.1^3 of this<ref name="Raneti vs Romania at ICC"/> ICC penal dossier, as the Romanian "state" organized crime doesn't care about the actual law but only counterfeits the appearance of legality, leveraging on the ignorance of the population in legal matters as there's no such thing as legal education in Romania besides superior studies |
|||
The significance of the Constitutional Court of Romania Decision no 25 from 19 January 2017<ref name="Decision no 25 from 19 January 2017" /> is that the entire Romanian "state" or the leaders or the ruling [[elite]] of the 3 so-called separate powers in the obviously fake Romanian democracy or Romanian [https://www.yourdictionary.com/totalitarian totalitarian] regime are in cahoots for breaking the law and human rights as proven above, meaning the prime-minister administration or the Romanian Government, the presidents of the two chambers of the Romanian Parliament, and the leaders of the judiciary system as proven not just by the members of the Constitutional Court of Romania blatantly breaking the law and human rights, but also the minister of justice, the president of the supreme court and the chief of judiciary inspection, all obligated to initiate disciplinary action against the members of the Constitutional Court of Romania for breaking the law, according to article 44 from Romanian Law 317/2004 and article 99 from Romanian Law 303/2004, who of course didn't being part of the same organized crime group which encompasses all the functions of the Romanian "state". Since Mr Tudor-Andrei Raneti human rights defending consists of denouncing the omnipresent institutional corruption from bottom up, it is clearly the reason the Romanian "state" mafia perpetrated 2 Crimes against humanity committals and 6 Crimes against humanity attempts to stop Mr Tudor-Andrei Raneti denouncing its criminal activity in a classic totalitarian display of [[state terrorism]] and [[political repression]] |
|||
Because of the significance of the Constitutional Court of Romania Decision no 25 from 19 January 2017, and because its of scientific principle that observes what occurred once is guaranteed to occur again, meaning law and human rights breaking, especially in an anthropic (man-made) medium where there is no randomness involved but intent, it is worthy of noting that the Constitutional Court of Romania members are: [[Valer Dorneanu]], [https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_Enache Marian Enache], [https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petre_L%C4%83z%C4%83roiu Petre Lazaroiu], [https://www.ccr.ro/Judector-Mircea-tefan-Minea Mircea Stefan Minea], [[Daniel Morar]], [https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Pivniceru Mona Pivniceru], [https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livia_Stanciu Livia Doina Stanciu], [https://www.ccr.ro/Judector-Simona-Maya-Teodoroiu Simona-Maya Teodoroiu], [https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attila_Varga Varga Attila] and [[Afrodita Laura Tutunaru]], because where this persons appear the Romanian "state" organized crime activity exists. Furthermore the extent in time of the Romanian "state" organized crime activity is easily traced back according to paragraph 13 from the Constitutional Court of Romania Decision no 25 from 19 January 2017, to the Decision no 16 from 20 January 2005 because it's compared with Decision no 25 from 19 January 2017 which is proven falsified, although the history of the Romanian "state" organized crime is beyond the scope of this section which regards rather the present and predictible future under the Romanian "state" organized crime |
|||
The consequence of the illegal and unconstitutional Decision no 25 from 19 January 2017 logic as proven above, is that it does not regard just the so-called medical penal security measures, but all security measures because it negates the presumption of innocence principle through an aberration which was in fact invoked in practice before as proven notoriously by the many trials lost by Romania at ECtHR for infringing on the presumption of innocence, and reveals the totalitarian policy of the Romanian "state" organized crime of incarcerating and chemically lobotomizing any innocent for any reason as Mr Tudor-Andrei Raneti demonstrated logically and scientifically in this<ref name="Raneti vs Romania at ICC"/> ICC penal dossier by leveraging the press and institutional evidence further exposing the fact that the Romanian "state" organized crime performs illegal human experiments of institutionalized children, members of Rroma minority and other defenseless persons nation-wide, or eliminates undesirables such as dissidents and human rights defenders which it chemically lobotomizes through forceful poisoning with fluorine and chlorine based substances. The Constitutional Court of Romania Decision no 25 from 19 January 2017 represents thus the Romanian "state" organized crime's intent to consecrate publicly its totalitarian regime and authority through [[state terrorism]] and [[political repression]], or in other words authority by fear, immediately following the exposure by Mr Tudor-Andrei Raneti of the national-wide Romanian practice of forcefully chemically lobotomizing innocents though the abuse of the judiciary system which constitute Crimes against humanity for which cover-up the Romanian "state" organized crime emitted a joint Romanian Ministry of justice and Romanian Superior Magistrate Council order that all the illegal judiciary sentences to chemical lobotomization, disguised under the umbrella terms of "provisory obligation to medical treatment" and other such approximate denominations under which covertly the Romanian "state" organized crime abuses the "psychiatry" charlatanry either for profit through illegal human experimentation, or as [[state terrorism]] and [[political repression]] against dissidents and human rights defenders, are hidden in the public evidence of dossiers ECRIS, with the exception of those concocted against Mr Tudor-Andrei Raneti who the Romanian "state" organized crime deemed they would slander and discredit Mr Tudor-Andrei Raneti to the public which the Romanian "state" organized crime feared would be outraged, as the so-called judge Craciun Constantin in falsifying the 4th Crimes against humanity attempt in the form of the sentence in penal derived dossier 11224/231/2015, aberrated that Mr Tudor-Andrei Raneti must be "psychiatrically" incarcerated so that others don't take his example, which is an actual admittal of the Romania "state" organized crime motive for the Crimes against humanity particularly perpetrated against Mr Tudor-Andrei Raneti |
|||
<div id="so-called_medical_penal_measure"></div>The pleonastic mention "so-called medical penal measure" is used on purpose to mark the fact by definition there can be no penal or punitive medical measures, because medicine is a discipline sworn to at least do no harm according to the [[Oath of Hippocrates]] which in Romania is part of the law, while incarceration and degradation of physical and psychical integrity is against the law according to article 22 from the Romanian Constitution, and according to articles 11 and 20 from the Romanian Constitution regarding that the international treaties that Romania ratified are internal right, respectively articles 2 and 3 from ECHR and articles 3 and 5 from UDHR regarding the right to life and prohibition of Torture and Bodily Harm. As demonstrated in section I.A.II.1.2.1 of this<ref name="Raneti vs Romania at ICC"/> ICC penal dossier regarding a criminal investigation of the "psychiatric" charlatanry itself, it's demonstrated that the "psychiatric" charlatanry never actually cured anyone using it's so-called medicines consisting of the deadly neurotoxic substances mercury, opium, heroine, fluorine and chlorine as proven by the fact there isn't even one valid proof that it did ever cured anyone, as there can be no proof as all proofs exist to the contrary - that it didn't and couldn't have possibly cured anyone by destroying the nervous system, nor is the "psychiatric" charlatanry a science and again inherently can not be medicine, for both reasons that it doesn't adhere to the scientific method and because it contradicts the medical oath of Hippocrates to at least do no harm while only doing harm and counterfeiting evidence it does not such as using false declarations since it cannot actually counterfeit reality, and furthermore is illogical or inconsistent which is one of the principal proofs it's not science but quackery, giving as example the "psychiatric" charlatanry deadly neurotoxic poison [[paliperidone]] which is claimed by the commercializer that it cures schizophrenia by causing schizophrenia, as objectivized in annex 21 of this<ref name="Raneti vs Romania at ECHR"/> Rule 39<ref name="ECHR Rule 39 guide" /> ECtHR urgent request for interim measures |
|||
The purpose of the Constitutional Court of Romania members, Romanian Government members, People's Advocate and other judicial system members breaking all law and juridical logic is to create a document that acts both as a cover-up and pretext to perpetrate the 2 Crimes against humanity committals and 6 Crimes against humanity attempts against human rights defender Tudor-Andrei Raneti which are objectivized in sections I.A.II.1.3.1^1-8 from this<ref name="Raneti vs Romania at ICC"/> ICC penal dossier, unfolding of events which resulted in Mr Tudor-Andrei Raneti becoming a political refugee from 1st September 2017 registered with UNHCR according to the Refugee Convention from 1951 and 1976 protocol, fleeing in fear of indefinite to life incarceration, incidental Torture and Bodily Harm to the Romanian "state" organized crime's main purpose of committing Qualified Murder to stop Mr Tudor-Andrei Raneti's denunciation of its criminal activity, such as Crimes against humanity through illegal human experimentation at a national level on institutionalized children, against members of Rroma minority, ignorant youngsters and elders, and any person in general unable to defend itself and not defended by anyone else, as well as persons put outside the protection of the law by the murderous Romanian “state “mafia regime such as dissidents and human rights defenders, where the law in Romania as made evident by this demonstration of the falsification of the Decision no 25 from 19 January 2017<ref name="Decision no 25 from 19 January 2017" /> is the direct totalitarian manifestation of will of the Romanian "state" organized crime. This not only fits the pattern of classic [[state terrorism]] and [[political repression]], but there is no other possible explanation as clearly the Constitutional Court of Romania members have no interest to cover-up and instigate that Crimes against humanity be committed against anyone and be put in jail for it, unless they were assured there would be no negative consequence against them which still doesn't compell them to emmit an illegal decision making them accomplice and instigators to Crimes against humanity past and future, unless not emitting such an obvious and general infringement of the [[presumption of innocence]], motivation which is proven by default because The Constitutional Court of Romania members or the Romanian Government members were not even accused by the penal authorities let alone convicted or disciplinarily expelled from the body of public functionaries at least, while these actors having no personal interest in breaking the law for no possible reason leaves the only possible reality that they conveyed the illicit interest of the larger organized crime group they are part of and on which behalf they broke the law, which holds authority over them meaning of which these actors are afraid of. The proof that this general decision is evidently directed primarily at Mr Tudor-Andrei Raneti's, is that the exception was raised by Mr Tudor-Andrei Raneti, so the law was broken against Mr Tudor-Andrei Raneti, making no logical sense to assume anyone has an interest to destroy a central principle to the rule of law openly, nor against anyone else as nobody before or after acted as a human rights defender and was gravely abused against in the same manner as Mr Tudor-Andrei Raneti, corroborated with he fact that the 8 Crimes against humanity attempted or committed against Mr Tudor-Andrei Raneti have the same theme of clandestinely or covertly abusing the "psychiatry" charlatanry - see section I.A.II.1.3.1^2 of this<ref name="Raneti vs Romania at ICC"/> ICC penal dossier especially, and the judiciary system, as weapons of [[state terrorism]] and [[political repression]] against Mr Tudor-Andrei Raneti, which are proven such according to logic and evidence presented in the Rule 39<ref name="ECHR Rule 39 guide" /> ECtHR urgent request for interim measures that not all the Romanian "state" organized crime members were disposed to be involved in Crimes against humanity, at least not openly until 2017 and after the emittal of the Constitutional Court of Romania Decision no 25 from 19 January 2017 which marks the Stalinist paranoid rallying of the Romanian "state" organized crime to silence for all time Mr Tudor-Andrei Raneti, as proven by the events during Orthodox Easter 2017 followed by the 7th Crimes against humanity committal, followed by the Romanian organized crime's final solution - the continuous 8th Crimes against humanity attempt as proven by annex 18, annex 19, annex 20 and annex 21 of the Rule 39 ECHR urgent request for interim measures referenced, argument which is corroborated with the obvious fact it also makes no sense for the Romanian "state" organized crime to publicly concoct a cover-up and pretext for Crimes against humanity when it already was committing Crimes against humanity as a result of its internal policy, in other words the Romanian "state" organized crime has no interest of exposing its criminal policy, therefore the falsification of the Decision no 25 from 19 January 2017<ref name="Decision no 25 from 19 January 2017" /> is a result of Mr Tudor-Andrei Raneti human rights defending activity, the Romanian "state" organized crime members involved being confronted with a situation without exit - they would not admit the acts of [[state terrorism]] and [[political repression]] against Mr Tudor-Andrei Raneti which would result in loss of authority achieved by fear all the more the Romanian "state" organized crime's defeat would appear at the hand of a single person, and emitting a decision lacking any motivation is as obviously false as one completely falsified one which the Romanian "state" organized crime chose to do, showing its hubris and audacity to increase its authority gained by fear through [[state terrorism]], also leveraging on public ignorance and indiference as trained to obey authority without questioning it under 45 years of so-called communism, meaning the 1945-1989 Romanian political period. It is worthy of mention as further reference that Romanian organized crime agents posing as ECtHR's registrar illegally destroyed this<ref name="Raneti vs Romania at ECHR" /> Rule 39<ref name="ECHR Rule 39 guide" />ECtHR urgent request for interim measures 6 times for different reasons although being the same petition as further short proof of illegality as objectivized in [https://www.scribd.com/document/365438323/penal-complaint-against-D-Lupu-and-I-Banu-at-European-Court-of-Human-Rights this penal dossier against them lodged with the General Prosecutor of France], then after the 7th time or the 4th lodging of this petition, ECHR again changed strategy attempting to downplay the Romanian Crimes Against Humanity which it has been covering up since Spring 2017, from the gravest infringement of the right to life to the least grave infringement of the right to private life, which not only did not succeed as objectivized in [https://www.scribd.com/document/401884664/Raspuns-Pt-27-11-2018-Si-Probe Mr Tudor-Andrei Raneti's response], but the Romanian "state" organized crime refused to answer to it until the 8th January 2019 deadline, asked for the ECtHR trial to be [https://www.scribd.com/document/401885535/SKMBT-C22019011812070 delayed until 11th of February 2019], then refused to answer again indefinitely, because it's impossible to justify committing Crimes against humanity - being note worthy the tone of the Romanian Ministry of Exterior that is assessing "the real situation" as if any of the Romanian citizens who have ever petitioned ECtHR have a possible reason to lie about the Romanian "state" organized crime infringing on human rights, all the way through the Romanian collapsed judiciary system to ECtHR, and face condemnation for the felony of giving False declarations and Inducing the judiciary bodies into error, in short the Romanian Ministry of Exterior being indoctrinated with the generalized Romanian "state" organized crime state terrorism policy which only appears as a "guilty until innocent" policy which is illegal anyway, being in reality the Romanian "state" organized crime intent of repressing its victims from achieving justice |
|||
Above the scientific and logical evidence used to demonstrate this reality beyond all reasonable doubt, stands in corroboration that all actors involved tacitly admit Mr Tudor-Andrei Raneti investigative work by not accusing him of the felony of False declarations (see Romanian Penal Code article 326<ref name="Romanian Penal Code" />) to the Romanian Government, Parliament and the various judiciary institutions, as well as to [[European court of human rights]], [[International Criminal Court]], the various [[United Nations]] bodies and committees, [[INTERPOL]], France's general prosecutor's office and other institutions and organizations notified by Mr Tudor-Andrei Raneti withheld from being named for security reasons, and for brevity, nor did any institution or organization ever accuse even Mr Tudor-Andrei Raneti of the felony of Disseminating false information (see Romanian Penal Code article 404<ref name="Romanian Penal Code" />) for publishing his investigation results demonstrating the Romanian "state" organized crime criminal activity on the internet in the form of the penal dossiers concomitantly lodged with the penal authorities, and spreading this truth through internet media, which constitutes proof of verity according to the juridical logic principle of excluded third or [[law of the excluded middle]] |
|||
==Powers== |
==Powers== |
||
Revision as of 00:43, 19 March 2019
 | This article needs additional citations for verification. (December 2013) |
| Constitutional Court of Romania Curtea Constituţionalǎ a României | |
|---|---|
| Established | 1992 |
| Location | Palace of the Parliament, Bucharest |
| Composition method | -Senate selection (3 members) -Chamber of Deputies selection (3 members) -President selection (3 members) |
| Authorised by | Constitution |
| Appeals to | 1992 - 2003: Parliament 2003 - present: none |
| Judge term length | 9 years |
| Number of positions | 9 |
| Website | http://www.ccr.ro/ |
| President of the Constitutional Court of Romania | |
| Currently | Valer Dorneanu |
| Since | 2016 |
| Lead position ends | 2019 |
| Jurist term ends | 2022 |
The Constitutional Court of Romania (Template:Lang-ro) is the institution which rules on whether the laws, decrees or other bills enacted by Romanian authorities are in conformity with the Constitution.
It consists of nine members serving nine-year terms which cannot be extended, with three members each appointed by the President, the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies. Three members are renewed every three years, with the latest renewal occurring in 2016.
Powers
According to the Article 144 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court exercises the following powers:
- to adjudicate on the constitutionality of laws, before promulgation, upon notification by the President of Romania, by the President of either Chamber of Parliament, by the Government, the Supreme Court of Justice, by a number of at least 50 Deputies or at least 25 Senators, as well as, ex officio, on initiatives to revise the Constitution
- to adjudicate on the constitutionality of the Standing Orders of Parliament, upon notification by the President of either Chamber, by a parliamentary group or a number of at least 50 Deputies or at least 25 Senators
- to decide on exceptions brought to the Courts of law as to the unconstitutionality of laws and orders
- to guard the observance of the procedure for the election of the President of Romania and to confirm the ballot returns
- to ascertain the circumstances which justify the interim in the exercise of office of President of Romania, and to report its findings to Parliament and the Government
- to give advisory opinion on the proposal to suspend the President of Romania from office
- to guard the observance of the procedure for the organization and holding of a referendum, and to confirm its returns
- to check on compliance with the conditions for the exercise of the legislative initiative by citizens
- to decide on objections of unconstitutionality of a political party
| Part of a series on |
| Politics of Romania |
|---|
 |
Members
Current structure
| Appointer | Name (Office) |
Term start | Term end |
|---|---|---|---|
| Senate | Mona Pivniceru | 2013 | 2022 |
| Marian Enache | 2016 | 2025 | |
| Simona-Maya Teodoroiu |
2015 |
2019 | |
| Chamber of Deputies | Valer Dorneanu (President) |
2013 (2016) |
2022 (2019) |
| Attila Varga | 2016 | 2025 | |
| Ştefan Minea | 2010 | 2019 | |
| President | Daniel Morar | 2013 | 2022 |
| Livia Stanciu | 2016 | 2025 | |
| Petre Lăzăroiu | 2010 | 2019 |
History
Since it was created in 1992, the Constitutional Court had the following composition.[1][2][3]
Unable to compile EasyTimeline input:
EasyTimeline 1.90
Timeline generation failed: 10 errors found
Line 28: at:2024 color:TODAY width:0.1
- LineData attribute 'at' invalid.
Date '2024' not within range as specified by command Period.
Line 135: from:2016 till:2024
- Plotdata attribute 'till' invalid.
Date '2024' not within range as specified by command Period.
Line 138: from:2013 till:2024 shift:(-0,-5) textcolor:NAME text:Marian Enache
- Plotdata attribute 'till' invalid.
Date '2024' not within range as specified by command Period.
Line 141: from:2008 till:2024 shift:(-0,-5) textcolor:NAME text:Petre Lăzăroiu
- Plotdata attribute 'till' invalid.
Date '2024' not within range as specified by command Period.
Line 144: from:2010 till:2024 shift:(-0,-5) textcolor:NAME text:Stefan Minea
- Plotdata attribute 'till' invalid.
Date '2024' not within range as specified by command Period.
Line 147: from:2013 till:2024 shift:(-0,-5) textcolor:NAME text:Daniel Morar
- Plotdata attribute 'till' invalid.
Date '2024' not within range as specified by command Period.
Line 150: from:2013 till:2024 shift:(-0,-5) textcolor:NAME text:Mona Pivniceru
- Plotdata attribute 'till' invalid.
Date '2024' not within range as specified by command Period.
Line 153: from:2016 till:2024 shift:(-0,-5) textcolor:NAME text:Livia Stanciu
- Plotdata attribute 'till' invalid.
Date '2024' not within range as specified by command Period.
Line 156: from:2015 till:2024 shift:(-0,-5) textcolor:NAME text:Simona Maya Teodoroiu
- Plotdata attribute 'till' invalid.
Date '2024' not within range as specified by command Period.
Line 159: from:2016 till:2024 shift:(-0,-5) textcolor:NAME text:Attila Varga
- Plotdata attribute 'till' invalid.
Date '2024' not within range as specified by command Period.
See also
References
- ^ Current composition of the Constitutional Court Archived 2010-06-18 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Former judjes Archived 2010-06-29 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Adevărul