By means of Decision no. 348 dated on the 17th of June 2014, published in the Official Gazette no. 529 dated on the 16th of July 2014, the Romanian Constitutional Court has decided that the provisions of art. 650, paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure are unconstitutional since they provide a subjective criterion according to which the creditor can freely choose the competent enforcement court.
The Constitutional Court has analyzed the criticized provisions and found that they do not meet the requirements of clarity, precision and predictability, being thus inconsistent with the fundamental principle of the observance of the Constitution, its supremacy and of the laws, provided by art. 1, paragraph 5 of the Constitution. The motivation of this decision shows that, although the law is the one that establishes the competent court, the generality of the art.650, paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure leaves a wide margin of appreciation to the creditor who indirectly sets the enforcement court by choosing the courts’ bailiff. Therefore he supersedes the legislator, which is contrary to the constitutional principle stipulated by art. 126, paragraph 2 of the Constitution.
The Court also held that the deficiencies in the regulation of art. 650, paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure are likely to also violate the provisions of art. 21, paragraph 3 and art. 126, paragraph 2 of the Constitution, as well as those of art. 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.