The Constitutional Court (CCR) is debating on Wednesday, June 24, three notifications of unconstitutionality filed by President Nicușor Dan. These concern the law on immediate intervention methods to prevent and combat bear attacks, the law on the protection and promotion of children’s rights and the normative act on the use of Black Sea beaches.
Regarding the Law on brown bears, the head of state notes in the report that the level of prevention embodied in the planned annual hunt could be considered a disproportionate measure, if it is not scientifically proven that the brown bear population is excessively numerous and that other solutions to preserve the ecological balance and the safety of the population are not sufficient.
In this case, European norms may be violated, he mentioned, according to Agerpres.
Nicușor Dan claims that the law on intervention against bears does not comply with the requirements imposed by European legislation, because it does not explicitly provide for the verification of alternatives before the elimination of the animals.
The President also states that the normative act transforms an exceptional derogation into a permanent mechanism and assigns administrative powers to the Parliament that should rest with the Executive.
“A norm that prohibits a behavior (killing females with cubs), but does not provide a sanction for violating the prohibition, ceases to be a mandatory legal norm, becoming a simple moral recommendation.
Without qualifying the violation of the prohibition as a contraventional or criminal act and establishing a sanction, the norm is devoid of coercive force, violating the requirement of the quality of the law, which presupposes, among other things, that the addressees can foresee the consequences of non-compliance“, Nicuşor Dan transmitted.
According to him, the approval of 859 brown bear specimens as a prevention level at the national level without a digital/real-time monitoring system, such as a database accessible to managers of hunting funds and the authorities simultaneously, makes compliance with the established ceiling impossible.
The contested law approves for the year 2026 the harvesting of 969 brown bears at the national level – 859 for preventive purposes and 110 for intervention purposes -, practically doubling the quotas established for 2024. The normative act also establishes the harvesting conditions, as well as the regime of furs and skulls from the extracted specimens, which in certain situations remain the property of the state.
The Law on the Protection and Promotion of Children’s Rights
The CCR is also debating the referral of Nicușor Dan in relation to the normative act for the amendment and completion of the Law on the protection and promotion of children’s rights.
CCR after the notification of the AUR related to the appointments at TVR and Radio Romania: New Boards of Directors will be appointed taking into account the weight of the parties in the Parliament
The head of state contests the amendments to the Child Protection Law, which make psychological counseling of minors mandatory without parental consent and introduce criminal sanctions for non-compliance with legal obligations.
The President claims that the provisions are unclear and may lead to the overlapping of contraventional and criminal procedures for the same act, also raising issues of compatibility with European law.
The European Court of Human Rights ruled in its constant jurisprudence that the principle “ne bis in idem” operates whenever a person is sanctioned twice for the same deed, regardless of the formal classification (criminal or misdemeanor) of the sanctions applied.
The president also points out that the law also extends criminal liability to the child’s legal representatives, although the respective obligations are provided only for parents.
In addition, he considers that some provisions are inconsistent because they target minors who, by definition, are not criminally liable, which raises issues of constitutionality and protection of the best interests of the child.
Nicușor Dan claims that removing the parents’ consent for the child’s psychological counseling contradicts the principle of the child’s best interest, which includes the right to family life.
In his opinion, the measure transforms child protection into a coercive state intervention, without family involvement.
The president also criticizes the expansion of the possibility of placement in residential centers for minors who have committed acts of violence, showing that this category can also include less serious acts, such as threats or assaults. He believes that separating the child from the family in such cases can be a disproportionate measure.
“The difference in treatment compared to the previous regime (which imposed a high degree of social danger) is flagrant and lacking in rational justification, violating the principle of proportionality enshrined in Article 53 of the Constitution and the principle of the child’s best interests enshrined in Article 49 paragraph (1) of the Constitution and Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child”points out the president.
Concretely, argues Nicuşor Dan, the extension of the measure of residential placement to any act with violence, regardless of its concrete seriousness and without distinguishing by the nature and intensity of the violence, far exceeds the legitimate purpose of the law and cannot be considered a necessary and proportionate measure, especially since it concerns children who are not criminally liable and for whom the legislator is constitutionally obliged to regulate protection measures, not sanctions.
The law on the use of the Black Sea beach
Last but not least, the CCR could pronounce, on Wednesday, a decision in the case of the referral to the president on the Law on the use of the Black Sea beach.
In November of last year, the head of state sent the Constitutional Court a notice of unconstitutionality on the Law for the amendment and completion of the Emergency Government Ordinance 19/2006 regarding the use of the Black Sea beach and the control of the activities carried out on the beach.
Nicușor Dan contests the provision that allows the state to give up to 20% of the area of tourist beaches to municipalities on the coast free of charge for the development of public beaches.
The president claims that the beaches are part of the public domain of the state, and local authorities cannot receive free use of such lands, which is why the measure would violate the Constitution.
