The High Court of Cassation and Justice (ÎCCJ) in Romania has ruled that facilitating access to public events on the basis of a green certificate was illegal
WHILE G20 POLITICIANS AND BUSINESSMEN CONTINUE TO PUSH THESE USELESS AND ILLEGAL "VACCINES" "CERTIFICATES"
FINAL DECISION of the ICCJ: The state of alert was illegally extended. Green certificate, useless (realitatea.net)
Final decision of the ICCJ: The state of alert was illegally extended. Green certificate unnecessary
The High Court of Cassation and Justice has ruled that the state of alert in Romania was illegally extended, and as such, conditioning access to various public events on the basis of the green certificate was also illegal.
FRIDAY 18 NOVEMBER 2022, 14:08
SOURCE: realitatea.net
AUTOR: REALITATEA.NET
The decision is final, after a similar decision in first instance was challenged by the government institution in several cabinet mandates.
Details of the solution: rejects the appeal filed by the appellant-defendant Government of Romania against the judgment no. 1796 of 3 December 2021 delivered by the Bucharest Court of Appeal - Ninth Administrative and Fiscal Litigation Section, as untimely filed. Dismisses, as unfounded, the appeal brought by the Ministry of the Interior through the General Legal Directorate against the same judgment Dismisses the appeal brought by the appellant-defendant National Committee for Emergency Situations represented by the DSU against judgment No 1796 of 3 December 2021 delivered by the Bucharest Court of Appeal - Ninth Administrative and Fiscal Jurisdiction Section, as unfounded. Definitive. Delivered in public sitting today, 16 November 2022, the judges of the ÎCCJ decided.
After the publication of the decision of the ÎCCJ in the Official Gazette, individuals and legal entities that have suffered damages as a result of this decision may file lawsuits in court for material and moral damages, according to luju.ro.
The High Court found that Romania's alert state was illegally extended, and the green certificate was completely useless - Capital
The High Court of Cassation and Justice (ÎCCJ) has ruled that the alert state in Romania was illegally extended, and that facilitating access to various public events on the basis of a green certificate was also illegal. The decision is final and came after a similar decision issued in the first instance was appealed. The decision was challenged by the Government and several non-governmental institutions.
A lawsuit has been launched against the Government, CNSU and MAI
The lawsuit initiated against the Romanian government, the National Committee for Emergency Situations (CNSU) and the Ministry of Interior (MAI) was filed by lawyers Elena Corina Ciuchi and Dan Laurentiu Puiu. In this sense, the appeal of the DSU and MAI was rejected.
"Rejects the appeal filed by the complainant-defendant Government of Romania against Judgment No. 1796 of December 3, 2021, announced by the Bucharest Court of Appeals - Section IX of Administrative and Tax Disputes, as untimely filed. Rejects, as unfounded, the appeal filed by the Ministry of the Interior through the General Directorate of Legal Affairs against the same judgment. Rejects the appeal declared by the applicant-respondent National Committee for Emergency Situations represented by the DSU against Judgment No. 1796 of December 3, 2021 issued by the Bucharest Court of Appeals - Section IX of Administrative and Tax Disputes, as unfounded. Final. Announced at a public meeting, today, November 16, 2022, the ÎCCJ judges decided," - reads the institution's document.
ÎCCJ: no-interest exception will be rejected as unfounded
Regarding the plaintiff's lack of interest, the ÎCCJ noted the following:
"Moreover, given the very broad spectrum of rights and freedoms affected by GD No. 1183/2021, it is almost IMPOSSIBLE to claim that unvaccinated, disease-free and untested persons would not be harmed, the act at issue practically targeting the daily life of citizens, in its most common manifestations."
Compared to the above, the no-interest exception will be rejected as unfounded." - the Court stated.
Regarding the invalidation of HG 1242, a judge of the Bucharest Court of Appeals said that the restrictions are not only excessive and discriminatory against unvaccinated Romanian citizens, but also affect the very existence of fundamental rights and freedoms. (Example: freedom of movement or the right to health).
Final ruling by the Court of Cassation and Justice of the European Communities: the state of alert in Romania was illegally extended / The green certificate was useless
Posted on: 18.11.2022 | Written by: ZIUA NEWS
Final decision of the Court of Cassation and Justice: the state of alert in Romania was illegally extended/Green certificate was useless
The High Court of Cassation and Justice has ruled that the state of alert in Romania was illegally extended, and that the ability to enter various public events under a green certificate was also illegal. The decision is final and follows a challenge to a similar first-instance decision by the government and several other governments.
The lawsuit against the Romanian government, CNSU and MAI was filed by lawyers Elena Corina Ciuchi and Dan Laurențiu Puiu. The appeal by DSU and MAI was dismissed.
Details of the decision: the appeal filed by the complainant-defendant Romanian government against Judgment No. 1796 of December 3, 2021, issued by the Bucharest Court of Appeals - Ninth Section of Administrative and Tax Procedures, is dismissed as untimely. 2) The appeal against the same judgment filed by the Ministry of the Interior through the General Directorate of Legal Affairs is dismissed as unfounded. 3) The appeal against Judgment No. 1796, dated December 3, 2021, issued by the Bucharest Court of Appeals - Ninth Section of Administrative and Tax Jurisdiction, filed by the appellant-respondent National Committee for Emergency Situations represented by the DSU, is dismissed as unfounded. Definitive. Issued in open session today, November 16, 2022, the ÎCCJ judges decided.
Reasons for judgment No. 1796/2021 dated 03/12/2021. (final from ÎCCJ):
Referring to the claim of lack of interest of the applicants, the Court stated the following:
"Moreover, given the very broad spectrum of rights and freedoms affected by GD No. 1183/2021, it is almost IMPOSSIBLE to claim that unvaccinated, unvaccinated by disease and untested persons would not be harmed, since the challenged act practically affects the daily life of citizens, in its most ordinary manifestations.
In light of the above, the allegation of lack of interest will be dismissed as unfounded."
Regarding the motion to suspend the operation of the contested acts, the Court ruled as follows:
"The prohibition of access to the judicial procedure in order to suspend the harmful effects of an administrative act obviously constitutes an interference with the RIGHT TO ACCESS TO JUSTICE (recognized in Article 21 of the Romanian Constitution, Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Articles 8 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
Since this is an interference with the exercise of a fundamental right, it must meet the conditions set forth in Article 53 of the Romanian Constitution and in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.
If, in the case of administrative acts that have a long duration (exceeding the usual period for the final resolution of a complaint for annulment in administrative proceedings), it could be assumed (not necessarily without qualification, but these go beyond the present complaint) that such interference would be an interference provided for by law (Article 5(3) of Law no. 554/2004), that it would pursue a legitimate objective (effective termination of measures to remove the effects of the epidemic), and that it would be proportional (due to the possibility that the harmful effects will cease in the future as a result of the final allowance of the action for annulment, coupled with the possibility of claiming compensation for the retroactive period during which the harmful act was in force), while in the case of administrative acts of short duration (which exhaust their effects before a final judgment annulling the act is issued), at least the condition of proportionality of interference is not met.
In this regard, Decision No. 392/2021 is relevant, from the content of which it follows that, in the opinion of the Constitutional Court, the right of access to a court (Article 21 of the Constitution) of a person aggrieved by a public authority (Article 52 of the Constitution) by an administrative act (Article 126(6) of the Constitution) is effective only insofar as the aggrieved person has the opportunity to remove, in a concrete and effective manner, the effects of the challenged administrative acts, during their period of validity.
Accordingly, when examining in a specific case whether the complainant had an effective and efficient right of access to justice, it is necessary to examine all the legal procedural means made available to him by the state, and more specifically, whether this set of means was able to achieve the above result, that is, to actually and effectively remove the effects of the challenged administrative acts, while they were in effect. Accordingly, the analysis of the effectiveness of the right of access to justice is not made solely by reference to the provisions of Article 5.5.3 of Law No. 554/2004 (which, it may be thought, have not been declared unconstitutional to date), but with reference to both this text and the other possible remedies provided by Law No. 554/2004 (the action for annulment and the action for damages), examining their cumulative effect.
The Court concludes that under such circumstances, the plaintiffs' right to access to justice is rendered ineffective (a condition inherent in any right, given that the purpose of any regulation is to establish and protect concrete, real, and not theoretical, virtual rights), citizens are practically never able to evade an injurious act, and the only possible remedy is a claim for damages post factum.
In conclusion, it must be said that with regard to the government's decision to extend the state of emergency, citizens do not have effective access to justice, as they cannot obtain the benefit of a future cessation of harmful actions, and the interference with this right is not proportional, and is therefore contrary to Article 53 of the Constitution."
With regard to the annulment complaint, the Court ruled:
"As for the fact that these measures infringe on rights and freedoms, indeed, from the perspective of the unvaccinated/officially sick/survivors, it is stated that the above regulations do not constitute a limitation of rights and freedoms, but REFUSE, ANIHILIATE them, with the persons concerned absolutely REFUSING to exercise these rights/freedoms.
On the other hand, a right that cannot be exercised DOES NOT EXIST, given that, as pointed out with regard to the right of access to justice, all regulation is aimed at recognizing real, concrete, effective rights, i.e., those that can be exercised, not theoretical, abstract, virtual, unenforceable rights."
Thus Good Change judge Amer Jabre dismissed the Romanian government in his 40-page justification. The magistrate shows how the authorities are taking advantage of current loopholes to extend the state of alert for another 30 days, so that discriminated citizens have less and less chance to challenge them in court.
At the same time, this well-intentioned judge is taking the opportunity to throw the Green Certificate in the trash. But it's not the cancellation that's spectacular, but the suspension of the Digital Certificate, despite the roadblock in Law 554/2004.
Regarding the cancellation of HG 1242, a Bucharest Court of Appeals judge points out that the restrictions are not only excessive and discriminatory against unvaccinated Romanians, but also affect the very existence of certain rights and freedoms (such as freedom of movement or the right to health).
Final ruling by the Court of Cassation and Justice of the European Communities: the state of alert in Romania was illegally extended / The green certificate was useless
By Loredana Codruț
Published: 18/11/2022 13:46
Last updated: 18/11/2022 15:07
Photo source: Twitter
green certificate
The High Court of Cassation and Justice has ruled that the state of emergency in Romania was illegally extended, and that the ability to enter various public events under a green certificate was also illegal. The decision is final and follows a challenge to a similar first-instance decision by the government and several other governments.
The lawsuit against the Romanian government, CNSU and MAI was filed by lawyers Elena Corina Ciuchi and Dan Laurențiu Puiu. The appeal by DSU and MAI was dismissed.
Read also: OPINION - Green certificate "TEA" has German roots
Detail of the decision: dismisses the appeal filed by the appellant-defendant Romanian government against Judgment No. 1796 of December 3, 2021, issued by the Bucharest Court of Appeals - Ninth Section of Administrative and Tax Procedures, as untimely. 2) The appeal against the same judgment filed by the Ministry of the Interior through the General Directorate of Legal Affairs is dismissed as unfounded. 3) The appeal against Judgment No. 1796, dated December 3, 2021, issued by the Bucharest Court of Appeals - Ninth Section of Administrative and Tax Jurisdiction, filed by the appellant - respondent National Committee for Emergency Situations represented by the DSU, is dismissed as unfounded. Definitive. Issued in open session today, November 16, 2022, the ÎCCJ judges decided.
Reasons for judgment No. 1796/2021 dated 03/12/2021. (final from ÎCCJ):
Referring to the claim of lack of interest of the applicants, the Court stated the following:
"Moreover, given the very broad spectrum of rights and freedoms affected by GD No. 1183/2021, it is almost IMPOSSIBLE to claim that unvaccinated, unvaccinated by disease and unvaccinated by testing would not be harmed, since the challenged act practically affects the daily life of citizens, in its most ordinary manifestations.
In light of the above, the allegation of lack of interest will be dismissed as unfounded."
Regarding the request to suspend the operation of the contested acts, the Court ruled as follows:
"The prohibition of access to the judicial procedure to suspend the harmful effects of an administrative act obviously constitutes an interference with the RIGHT TO ACCESS TO JUSTICE (recognized in Article 21 of the Romanian Constitution, Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Articles 8 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
Since this is an interference with the exercise of a fundamental right, it must meet the conditions set forth in Article 53 of the Romanian Constitution and in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.
If, in the case of administrative acts that have a long duration (exceeding the usual period for the final resolution of a complaint for annulment in administrative proceedings), it could be assumed (not necessarily without qualification, but these go beyond the present complaint) that such interference would be an interference provided for by law (Article 5(3) of Law no. 554/2004), that it would pursue a legitimate objective (effective termination of measures to remove the effects of the epidemic), and that it would be proportional (due to the possibility that the harmful effects will cease in the future as a result of the final allowance of the action for annulment, coupled with the possibility of claiming compensation for the retroactive period during which the harmful act was in force), while in the case of administrative acts of short duration (which exhaust their effects before a final judgment annulling the act is issued), at least the condition of proportionality of interference is not met.
In this regard, Decision No. 392/2021 is relevant, from the content of which it follows that, in the opinion of the Constitutional Court, the right of access to a court (Article 21 of the Constitution) of a person aggrieved by a public authority (Article 52 of the Constitution) by an administrative act (Article 126(6) of the Constitution) is effective only insofar as the aggrieved person has the opportunity to remove, in a concrete and effective manner, the effects of the challenged administrative acts, during their period of validity.
Accordingly, when examining in a specific case whether the complainant had an effective and efficient right of access to justice, it is necessary to examine all the legal procedural means made available to him by the state, and more specifically, whether this set of means was able to achieve the above result, that is, to actually and effectively remove the effects of the challenged administrative acts, while they were in effect.
Accordingly, the analysis of the effectiveness of the right of access to justice is not made solely by reference to the provisions of Article 5.5.3 of Law No. 554/2004 (which, it may be thought, have not been declared unconstitutional to date), but with reference to both this text and the other possible remedies provided by Law No. 554/2004 (the action for annulment and the action for damages), examining their cumulative effect.
The Court concludes that under such circumstances, the plaintiffs' right to access to justice is rendered ineffective (a condition inherent in any law, given that the purpose of any regulation is to establish and protect concrete, real, and not theoretical, virtual rights), citizens are practically never able to evade an injurious act, and the only possible remedy is a claim for damages post factum.
In conclusion, it must be said that with regard to the government's decision to extend the state of emergency, citizens do not have effective access to justice, as they cannot obtain the benefit of a future cessation of harmful acts, and the interference with this right is not proportional, and is therefore contrary to Article 53 of the Constitution."
With regard to the annulment complaint, the Court ruled:
"As for the fact that these measures infringe on rights and freedoms, indeed, from the perspective of the unvaccinated/officially sick/survivors, it is stated that the above provisions do not constitute a restriction on rights and freedoms, but REFUSE, ANIHILIATE them, with the persons concerned absolutely REFUSED to exercise these rights/freedoms.
On the other hand, a right that cannot be exercised DOES NOT EXIST, given that, as pointed out with regard to the right of access to justice, all regulation is aimed at recognizing real, concrete, effective rights, i.e., those that can be exercised, not theoretical, abstract, virtual, unenforceable rights."
Thus Good Change judge Amer Jabre dismissed the Romanian government in his 40-page justification. The magistrate shows how the authorities are taking advantage of current legal loopholes to extend the state of alert for another 30 days, so that discriminated citizens have less and less chance to challenge them in court.
At the same time, this bona fide judge takes the opportunity to throw the Green Certificate in the trash. But it is not the cancellation that is spectacular, but the suspension of the Digital Certificate, despite the blockage in Law 554/2004.
Regarding the cancellation of HG 1242, the Bucharest Court of Appeals judge points out that the restrictions are not only excessive and discriminatory against unvaccinated Romanians, but also affect the very existence of certain rights and freedoms (such as freedom of movement or the right to health).
Excellent start.
Romania challenging the covid orthodoxy after Africa tells the WHO to piss off.
Maybe there is hope for the return of sanity after all
Thanks