818/07.12.2010, once more in a paradoxical manner, ruled that there was another conflict between the Parliament and the Government on the same matter, only that this time, the public authority causing it was the Parliament--namely the Senate--which refused to debate the motion of censorship that followed after the Government had assumed its responsibility, claiming that, in the light of the previously presented decision of the Constitutional Court, the Prime-Minister Emil Boc had to take back that respective act.
On the whole, the clarifications which were made by the Romanian Constitutional Court in the five decisions on which it had accepted the existence of a juridical conflict of a constitutional nature between public authorities serve as instruments in preserving the principle of balance and powers, because they offer clarifications and binding interpretations that are independent from the political powers involved to certain constitutional provisions.
The Impact of the Rulings of the Romanian Constitutional Court
According to article 147, paragraph 4) of the Fundamental Law, "the decisions of the Romanian Constitutional Court shall be published in the Official Gazette of Romania.
On the other hand though, it cannot be denied that the primordial nature of these juridical conflicts of a constitutional nature is, most of the times, a political one.
Secondly, the rulings of the Romanian Constitutional Court are "effective only for the future" (60), which means that irregardless of the gravity and the impact of the conflict they solve, these decisions do not have retroactive effects and by consequence, cannot undo any acts, actions or inactions that occurred prior to its publication in the Official Gazette.
Furthermore, as I have previously mentioned, the decisions of the Romanian Constitutional Court serve as instruments which clarify those disputed constitutional provisions which enabled one of the public authorities to attempt to attain more political power at the expense of another authority.
Finally, through its decisions, the Romanian Constitutional Court also appears as a safe guardian of the principle of checks and balances, as an independent, unique authority which rules only in the spirit of the Constitution, and as a readily-available juridico-political instrument which can be effectively employed by either one of the public authorities.
To conclude, it appears that the Romanian Constitutional Court is more and more frequently called to rule upon cases of juridical conflicts of a constitutional nature between public authorities, especially when those holding the head offices are of opposing political affiliations and when the constitutional provisions allow interpretation.
This paper in itself was constructed in a juridico-political manner, as the primary sources used in my research were legal documents such as the Constitutions and the Decisions taken by the Court in solving the constitutional conflicts between public authorities and at the same time, in analyzing these sources, I have also looked at the political factors and contexts which strongly influenced them--naturally, since these conflicts are, to a great extent, political.
Consequently it is obvious that the political affiliations of the heads of public authorities do matter and the more contrasting they are, the more will increase the number of conflict they engage and hence, the role of the Constitutional Court in safe guarding the principle of checks and balances shall also increase.
An example in point is also specific to the post-2008 political landscape, with the Parliament taking a divided stance in these juridical conflicts--if the Social Democrat President of the Senate would notify the Court on constitutional conflicts with the Government or with the President, the Liberal-Democrat President of the Chamber of Deputies would claim that there is no such conflict, thus siding with the executive branch of the same political affiliation, rather than with its own legislative complement.
From this perspective, the role of the Romanian Constitutional Court in safe guarding the principle of checks and balances seems evident.
Moreover, another important role of the Romanian Constitutional Court in safeguarding the principle of checks and balances refers to the clarifications it makes on various constitutional provisions, in the rulings it gives.
Hence, the Constitutional Court re-enforces the constitutional provisions by the clarifications and interpretation it makes, and at the same time, given the mandatory, erga omnes effect of its decisions, the principle of checks and balances is enforced in such a manner that ensures the already settled conflicts will not be re-disputed by different holders of functions of public authority.