Răspunderea penală a Preşedintelui României, în lumina dispozițiilor Noului Cod penal şi a Deciziei Curții Constituționale nr. 678 din 13 noiembrie 2014
Criminal Liability of the Romanian President according to the Provisions of the New Criminal Code and the Constitutional Court`s Decision no. 678/2014

Summary/Abstract: The constitutional and legal regime regulating the President`s criminal liability is a controversial issue as long as the relevant provisions are subject to different interpretations. Article 84 of the Romanian Constitution proclaims the criminal immunity rule for the Romanian President. However, the same article makes a reference to the constitutional rules providing for the absence of any liability in the case of the members of the Parliament concerning their political statements and expressed votes. As a result, a scholarly debate regarding the extent of the presidential criminal immunity started since the adoption of the Constitution in 1991. The legal scholars identified two major elements of the concept of President`s criminal immunity: the legal irresponsibility and the legal inviolability. Considering that article 96 of the Constitution regulates only one hypothesis for which the president is criminally liable, meaning the high treason, the specialized literature tried for a long time to clarify the content of the above mentioned concept. However, the ordinary legislator tardily responded to the problem, and finally regulated the high treason as criminal offence in the New Criminal Code, which entered in force on 1st of February 2014. The article aims to offer a distinctive and personal legal interpretation concerning the significance of the concept of President`s criminal liability and the analysis of the constitutional and legal provisions regulating the topic, taking into consideration not only the scholars` opinions, but also the provisions of the New Criminal Code. In addition, this article will debate about the recently published Constitutional Court`s Decision no 678/2014, which solved some of the dilemmas concerning the relevant issue of President`s criminal liability under the constitutional and legal provisions in force.

• Details
• Contents