Post by account_disabled on Jan 2, 2024 7:06:25 GMT
A the Court notes that the examination of the constitutionality of a text of law takes into account the compatibility of this text with the allegedly violated constitutional provisions and not the comparison of the provisions of several laws with each other and the reporting of the conclusion that would result from this comparison to the provisions or principles of of the Constitution . Proceeding otherwise would inevitably lead to the conclusion that although each of the legal provisions is constitutional only their coexistence would call into question the constitutionality of one of them see in this sense for example Decision no. of.
July published in Part I no. of September Country Email List As such in relation to this criticism the Court observes that it is not in the presence of a question regarding the constitutionality of some legal norms in relation to provisions constitutional but of a simple alleged contradiction between legal norms in the same field in their sequence over time. . For the stated reasons pursuant to art. lit. d and of art. para. of the Constitution as well as of art. of art. paragraph lit. Ad and of art. of Law no. with unanimity of votes CONSTITUTIONAL COURT In the name of the law DECIDE Rejects as unfounded the exception of unconstitutionality raised by Societatea Bogart Est SRL from Pacani in File no. . of the Iai Court of Appeal Litigation Section administrative and fiscal and.
Notes that the provisions of art. para. and from Government Ordinance no. regarding the Fiscal Procedure Code are constitutional in relation to the criticisms formulated. Definitive and generally binding. The decision is communicated to the Iai Court of Appeal Administrative and Fiscal Litigation Section and is published in the Official Gazette of Romania Part I. Pronounced in the meeting of June . INTERIM.
July published in Part I no. of September Country Email List As such in relation to this criticism the Court observes that it is not in the presence of a question regarding the constitutionality of some legal norms in relation to provisions constitutional but of a simple alleged contradiction between legal norms in the same field in their sequence over time. . For the stated reasons pursuant to art. lit. d and of art. para. of the Constitution as well as of art. of art. paragraph lit. Ad and of art. of Law no. with unanimity of votes CONSTITUTIONAL COURT In the name of the law DECIDE Rejects as unfounded the exception of unconstitutionality raised by Societatea Bogart Est SRL from Pacani in File no. . of the Iai Court of Appeal Litigation Section administrative and fiscal and.
Notes that the provisions of art. para. and from Government Ordinance no. regarding the Fiscal Procedure Code are constitutional in relation to the criticisms formulated. Definitive and generally binding. The decision is communicated to the Iai Court of Appeal Administrative and Fiscal Litigation Section and is published in the Official Gazette of Romania Part I. Pronounced in the meeting of June . INTERIM.