At the end of January 2017, Romanian Government
adopted an emergency ordinance late Tuesday to decriminalize official misconduct, dealing a blow to a yearslong drive to curb corruption in the eastern European country.
Some changes were rejected using another ordinance, but others became effective immediately.
The trick is that some of these changes affected the Criminal Laws where "the more favorable criminal law" applies. According to this source:
(1) Whenever, between the time of the final judgment in a criminal case and the time the sentence is fully served, a law is enacted that stipulates a lighter penalty, the original sentencing shall be reduced to the special maximum of the new sentencing if the previous one exceeded that special maximum.
This means that any favorable criminal laws changes cannot be reversed, even if the Parliament rejects the ordinance (of course, this applies to those having trials or serving time between the ordinance being issued and its rejection in the Parliament).
Question: Isn't this a case of breaking the separation of powers principle (or a conflict between the powers)? (since the Government changed a law without the Parliament being able to revert its effects)