Curtea Constituţională a României și procedura întrebărilor preliminare: De ce nu? (The Constitutional Court of Romania and the Preliminary Rulings Procedure: Why Not?)

Romanian Abstract: Curtea Constituţionala a României (CCR) s-a pronunţat recent cu privire la posibilitatea sa de a adresa intrebari preliminare Curţii de Justiţie a Uniunii Europene (CJUE), conform procedurii articolului 267 al Tratatului privind Funcţionarea Uniunii Europene (TFUE). Mai exact, in Decizia 668/2011 CCR face o adevarata provocare logicii, admiţând posibilitatea teoretica de a trimite intrebari preliminare catre CJUE, dar continuând in acelasi timp sa isi nege competenţa de „a stabili daca exista o contrarietate intre legea naţionala si Tratat”. Curtea a gasit acest compromis lipsit de efecte concrete si de-a dreptul nelamuritor pentru a raspunde unei controverse doctrinare, dar si pleiadei de excepţii de neconstituţionalitate prilejuite de interpretarea art. 110 al TFUE de catre Curtea de Justiţie a Uniunii Europene ca opunându-se unei taxe precum cea instituita de OUG nr. 50/2008. Lucrarea analizeaza jurisprudenţa recenta a CCR, raportând-o la decizia istorica a Curţii Constituţionale din Italia – Decizia nr. 103/2008, prin care aceasta admite sa isi schimbe jurisprudenţa si sa adreseze o intrebare preliminara CJUE, dar si la obligaţiile instituţionale asumate de România prin art. 148, alin. (2) din Constituţie, concluzionând ca atitudinea CCR de autoizolare in raport cu sistemul judiciar european nu face decât sa domoleasca si asa lentul proces de coordonare a sistemului român cu cel al Uniunii Europene. Ca si consecinţa, ar fi de preferat existenţa unui dialog real intre CCR si CJUE.English Abstract: The Romanian Constitutional Court (RCC) has recently given an opinion regarding its possibility to send questions for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union, according to the procedure in art. 267 TFEU. In the Decision No. 668/2011, RCC challenges the principles of logic by admitting the theoretical possibility of it sending a question for a preliminary ruling, while at the same time deciding that it does not have the competence „to decide whether the national law and the Treaty are compatible”. The Court found this ineffective and hard to understand compromise in order to respond to a doctrinal controversy and to the numerous actions before it regarding the constitutionality of Governmental Ordinance No. 50/2008, after the CJEU found that article 110 TFEU precludes the implementation in an EU member state of a tax such as the one encompassed in this ordinance.This paper analyzes the recent RCC case-law, making substantial references to the recent turning point in the case-law of the Italian Constitutional Court, which decided in Decision No. 103/2008 to make a question for a preliminary ruling under art. 267 TFEU, but also to the constitutional obligations Romania encompassed in art. 148, paragraph (2) of the Romanian Constitution, reaching the conclusion that the self isolation of the RCC in regard with the European judicial system only slows down an already slow process of coordination of the Romanian and European judicial systems. As a consequence, a real dialogue between the RCC and the CJEU would be preferred.