- Romanian Order no. 1542/2022 regarding the amendment and completion of the Order of the President of the Romanian National Agency for Fiscal Administration no. 587/2016 for the approval of the model and content of the forms used for the declaration of taxes and fees with a regime of self-imposition or withholding, Published in the Official Gazette, Part I no. 829 of August 23, 2022, in force since August 23, 2022
- By Order of the President of the Romanian National Fiscal Administration Agency no. 587/2016, the model and content of the forms used for the declaration of taxes and fees with the self-imposition or withholding regime was approved.
- Decision no. 266/2022 regarding the rejection of the exception of unconstitutionality of the provisions of art. 83 para. (1) lit. c) and of art. 91 para. (1) lit. c) from the Romanian Criminal Code, as well as from art. 378 para. (3) of the Romanian Criminal Procedure Code, Published in the Official Gazette, Part I no. 833 of August 24, 2022, in force since August 24, 2022
- The resolution of the exception of unconstitutionality of the provisions of art. 83 para. (1) lit. c) and of art. 91 para. (1) lit. c) from the Romanian Criminal Code, as well as from art. 378 para. (3) of the Romanian Criminal Procedure Code, regarding the conditions for the postponement of the sentence, the conditions for suspending the execution of the sentence.
- In justifying the exception of unconstitutionality, its author claims, in essence, that the provisions of art. 83 para. (1) lit. c) and of art. 91 para. (1) lit. c) from the Romanian Criminal Code, as well as from art. 378 para. (3) of the Romanian Criminal Procedure Code violates the constitutional principles regarding equality before the law, the right to a fair trial, the presumption of innocence, the right to defense, the prohibition of forced labor, the restriction of the exercise of certain rights or freedoms and the uniqueness, impartiality and equality of justice . In this sense, it shows that among the conditions provided by the provisions of art. 83 and of art. 91 of the Romanian Criminal Code, in order for the Romanian court to order the postponement of the punishment and, respectively, the suspension of the execution of the punishment under supervision, the offender’s agreement to perform unpaid work for the benefit of the community is also counted. Considers that this agreement is equivalent to a total or partial recognition of the criminal acts for which the defendant is being tried and, in this way, the presumption of innocence is violated, because the court, before ruling on the defendant’s guilt or innocence, asks him to consent to perform unpaid work for the benefit of the community. He also claims that the use of the term “offender” before the final resolution of the criminal case constitutes a violation of the presumption of innocence. Moreover, by the provisions of art. 32 para. (2) and of art. 33 para. (1) of the Romanian Criminal Procedure Code, the legislator defines as parties in the criminal process – the defendant, the civil party and the civilly responsible party, and as the main procedural subjects – the suspect and the injured person. At the same time, it shows that the Romanian legislator did not foresee a biological threshold, related to the age of the suspect/defendant, as it is known that work for the benefit of the community cannot be provided over the age of 65.
- The representative of the Romanian Public Ministry concluded that requesting the defendant’s consent to perform unpaid work for the benefit of the community not only does not violate the invoked constitutional principles, but, moreover, constitutes a guarantee of compliance with the prohibition of forced labor. Considers that the postponement of the application of the punishment and the suspension of the execution of the punishment do not represent absolute rights, but ways of individualizing the punishment, respectively its execution, which become incidents only after the analysis of the legal provisions and the existing evidence in the file, so that it is not possible to arrive at the conclusion that the presumption of innocence would be violated.