2

Apparently there was a big power struggle in Romania in 2010 involving article 114 of their constitution, which allows the government to "engage responsibility" for a law, thus pass it without an explicit vote in parliament (although at the risk of the government being the subject of a motion of no confidence, which would both topple the government and stop the draft law from being adopted.)

During that crisis, apparently the Constitutional Court of Romania decided that only in emergency conditions can article 114 be used, thus substantially limiting future uses of article 114, but I'm not sure if I got that right. Can someone summarize the constitutional implications of the 2010 events on Romania's constitution (or at least its interpretation)?

Apparently that didn't solve much because there was another crisis related to article 114 in 2012 (or maybe the latter source is conflating the 2012 protests with earlier crisis, I'm not sure.)

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .