The faulty interpretations of the normative system as a hierarchical system are due to analysing the matters of validity and of withdrawal of legality on the basis of the same methods of interpretation as when the matter of conformity is examined. If we clearly operate this distinction, using the pre-war case law, then the ordinary courts have competences in the matter of contentious of validity of rules and even some competences in the matter of contentious of conformity, despite the Constitutional Court’s claim to monopolize the constitutional contentious of rules. Likewise, they have competences in the matter of contentious of conformity of the infraconstitutional rules with the Constitution, which is questioned only due to the understanding of the normative hierarchy according to the French model, which is not applicable pursuant to the Constitution of Romania. Finally, I will prove that the ordinary courts have the competence to verify the agreement of the rules declared unconstitutional with the C.C.R decision.
COMPETENȚA INSTANȚELOR ORDINARE ÎN DOMENIUL JUSTIȚIEI CONSTITUȚIONALE (II) – CONTENCIOSUL NORMELOR. AR AVEA INSTANȚELE ORDINARE COMPETENȚĂ ÎN DOMENIUL JUSTIȚIEI CONSTITUȚIONALE? (II) – CONTENCIOSUL NORMELOR
15.00lei