Constitutional Court Rejects Nicușor Dan's Challenge on Public Enterprise Governance

Romania's Constitutional Court has unanimously rejected a challenge filed by Nicușor Dan, the president, concerning the corporate governance of public enterprises. The court ruled that the relevant legislation is constitutional, dismissing Dan's objections. The decision specifically addresses provisions that allow for the reimbursement of representation, travel, daily allowance, and accommodation expenses incurred by administrators and directors.

The court's ruling clarifies that these reimbursements, when made in accordance with the law and not considered benefits or advantages under specific government emergency ordinances, do not contravene constitutional principles. These principles include legality, the role of Parliament, and the state's obligation to protect national economic interests. The court found that the distinct regulation of these expenses is directly related to the law's initial purpose.

“

The Constitutional Court established that the distinct regulation of the possibility of reimbursement, under the law, of certain representation, travel, daily allowance, and accommodation expenses incurred for the purpose of exercising mandates by administrators and directors... does not contravene the constitutional provisions...

Furthermore, the Constitutional Court addressed claims of extrinsic unconstitutionality, particularly regarding significant differences in the legal content and configuration between the forms of the legislation adopted by the two chambers of Parliament. The court determined that introducing additional types of reimbursable expenses, distinct from those regulated by Government Emergency Ordinance no. 109/2011, did not constitute a diversion from the law's original intent. Instead, these were seen as a natural part of the legislative process and aligned with the law's overall objective.

In its reasoning, the court emphasized that these expenses are incurred for the purpose of fulfilling mandates and are essentially reimbursements provided for by law. As such, they fall under public information categories as defined by the relevant ordinances. The court concluded that the decision-making chamber acted within its competence, and the modifications made were consistent with the legislative proposal's goals, upholding the principle of bicameralism.

“

these expenses are, in fact, reimbursements of expenses provided for by law, which are part of the category of public information provided for in art.51 lit.l) from Government Emergency Ordinance no.109/2011.