Constitutional Court takes on Supreme Court's referral on changes to execution of sentences

The Constitutional Court of Romania (CCR) on Wednesday took on a referral from the Supreme Court of Justice related to amendments to the Law on the execution of sentences and deprivation of liberty measures.

On June 8, the Supreme Court decided to refer the matter to the court over unconstitutionality aspects of the piece of legislation amending and supplementing Law 254/2013 on the execution of sentences and deprivation of liberty measures ordered by judicial bodies during criminal proceedings.

In the decision for the referral, it is shown that several provisions do not meet the three quality requirements resulting from Article (1)(5) of the Constitution, namely clarity, precision and predictability.

"Paragraph 5, which introduces Article 381, refers to 'house arrest.' Contrary to the name (house arrest) and contrary to the constitutional requirements for predictability of the law, Article 381 does not contain a proper regulation of the house arrest and the way of surveilling the convicts serving a house arrest sentence," reads the document.

The only provision regarding the house arrest, the Constitutional Court argues, is included in Article 38 (3), which establishes that the provisions of Article 221 in the Code of Criminal Procedure shall apply accordingly, but the provisions of Article 221 are incompatible with the field execution of sentences.

The court notes that persons convicted of acts of "violence" are exempt from the execution of house arrest, and the provision that does not allow the exact scope of the deeds exempted from the execution of house arrest to be accurately identified.

"Thus, for example, the crime of disorderly conduct provided for in Article 371 of the Code of Criminal may be defined as committed by violence against persons or property or by threats or serious injuries to the dignity of persons, but the wording 'acts of violence' does not allow for a clear conclusion to be drawn on the inclusion or exclusion of the misdeed mentioned in Article 371 in the Code of Criminal Procedure from the scope of the exemptions.'

Another remark regards section 10 of Article 97 that amends the procedure of granting conditional release that runs contrary to the provisions of Article 587 in the Code of Criminal Procedure.

"Thus, by the provisions of Article 97, as amended, the power to order conditional release is vested with the custodian judge, and by the provisions of Article 587 in the code, not amended, conditional release is maintained in the province of the court under which jurisdiction the detention place is located. The amendment to Article 97 of Law 254/2013 and the maintenance of the provisions of Article 587 in the code create a legal overlapping in violation of Article 1 (5) of the Constitution." AGERPRES (RO - author: Daniel Alexandru Florea, editor: Cristina Tatu; EN - author: Corneliu-Aurelian Colceriu, editor: Adina Panaitescu)