Wednesday, 18 September 2013

12 Lawyers. Open Letter to the President

Original source of this article is here.

A group of 12 barristers and a notary public and President Traian Basescu addressed an open letter calls - based and will decide CCR - not to promulgate the law on the management of stray dogs and to send back to Parliament for review . The 12 lawyers come with arguments relevant legislative and legal, but also arguments related to Romania's image and humanitarian principles. It can be seen from reading the document that, once again, the majority of MPs voted "notes" without judgment and without following the principles of minimal legislative procedures. Not for the first time in Parliament to comply with procedures and legislative technique, which is why in many cases denied CCR law exclusively extrinsic unconstitutionality. We present the full letter to President Traian Basescu, document retrieved from site.

His Excellency, Mr. President of Romania Traian Basescu


Dan Caraman undersigned, Doriana Cimpan, Ivona Elena Cerneschi, Daniel Catalin Fenechiu, Simona Mihaela Oprea, Alexander Morarescu, Alice Draghici, Florin banish, Violeta Podolianu, Mihnea Stoica, Ingrid Zaarour - Lawyers in the Bar Bucharest, Niculae Lovin Serban - Dean of the Bar Ilfov, Papiniu Andreea Alexandra notary public, please respectfully get to analyze this material is

Amicus curiae on the necessity of submission by Your Excellency in accordance with art. 77 para. (2) of the Constitution of the Romanian Parliament a request for review of the Law on amending and supplementing Government Emergency Ordinance no. 155/2001 on approval of the management of stray dogs.

January. Violation of Legislative Drafting

On 09/10/2013, Legal, Discipline and Immunities and Public Administration, Territorial Planning and Ecological Balance filed Standing Bureau of the Chamber of Deputies, Joint Report on the request for review of the Law on amending and supplementing Government Emergency Ordinance No. 155/2001 on approval of the management of stray dogs following the decision of the Constitutional Court no. 1/11.01.2012 sent to the Commission for Public Administration Territorial Planning and Ecological Balance and the Legal, discipline and immunities to review, on 18/03/2013.

Ab initio Please note that the two commissions had time to reach you consider that sufficient and reasonable (about 6 months) for the preparation and submission of the joint.

However, we appreciate that the report is being prepared in a superficial criticism, in haste, under pressure time and omitting in culpably issues of law and fact, known to members of the Chamber of Deputies could influence their vote or contents amendments allowed.

Legislation are two great moments: 
a) Evidence of legal regulation of social situations that advertisement, 
b) legal ideal separation should apply these statements by the Company's legal consciousness.

Legislative action involves changing trend, innovation of new normative legal solutions, rated as superior or better than existing regulatory solutions.

Action regulation is subject to strict discipline as do the legislative procedure, the Parliament being held inter alia to respect the Constitution and the decisions of the Constitutional Court of Romania. To think and act otherwise is to accept abuse, chaos and lack of accountability of the legislative process and pernicious influence on Romanian society and the Romanian state.

In culpably, the joint committee of the two major theses in recitals hide Constitutional Court Decision no. 1/11.01.2012 mandatory both in terms of device and accounting considerations and the legal and factual basis for these two committees have submitted Joint Report of the Standing Bureau of the Chamber of Deputies. Thus, although the findings are cited in the report of the Constitutional Court: "... the Constitutional Court finds that the wording of Art. 1 section 8 of the law does not meet the requirements of foreseeability required by art. 1 paragraph. (5) of the Constitution of Romania, republished. The Court notes that the text of art. 1 section 8 of the Act sets out the proposed solutions regarding the obligation of public authorities to tackle the stray dogs without regard for the order to be applied so that the public authorities responsible for applying the law of criticism will be put in a position to choose random one or more of these. However, the proposed solutions of an act can not be applied randomly, the legislature is required to establish the conditions, methods and application of clear criteria and objectives. Thus, based on the law criticized the Court noted that the Legislature should establish a priority order on these solutions and the solution euthanizing stray dogs to be applied only as a last resort, ie only when all other solutions have been consistently applied by local authorities, but have not reached to limit or eradicate this phenomenon - of the importance of providing the order of application of legislative measures, see Decision no. 536 of 28 April 2011, published in Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 482 of 7 July 2011 "are omitted other equally important sentence:" Human dignity, constitutional aspect involves two inherent dimensions, namely the relationships between people, which targets the right and duty of the people to be respected them and, in accordingly, to respect fundamental rights and freedoms of their peers (see, to that effect, and Decision no. 62/18.01.2007, published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 104 of 12.02.2007) and the human relationship with the environment, including the animal world, which implies, for the animals, man's moral responsibility to care for these creatures in a way to illustrate the nature of civilization achieved. "

In this way the proposed amendments and approved the content and spirit, the essence of the law were flawed.

Constitutional Court states that the euthanasia of stray dogs should be applied only as a last resort, ie only when all other solutions have been aplicatecorespunzator by local authorities but have not reached to limit or eradicate this phenomenon (a observe and Decision. 536/28.04.2011 of the CFR).

Critics joint report through the absence therein of: 
- ascertaining proper application / inappropriate alternative solutions among which the most important is the sterilization of stray dogs by local authorities 
- the reasons that led to the improper application of alternative solutions, in terms of justification necessity of applying since the beginning of the "final solution."

The joint report must include the amendments allowed for the purposes given above. This omission was intended to protect those involved, responsible and decision makers in local government who have been unable or unwilling for reasons covered illicit criminal to solve the problem of stray dogs uzand legislative framework at hand to tragic event occurs in September 2013.

There is a preliminary assessment of the impact of proposed legislative changes through amendments to the Romanian society. The only "assessment" was made by the statements of leaders opinion formers and politicians, transmitted in society and the media channels and sometimes unreasonably deeply unserious have arranged for killing all the dogs as the only solution, exposing even ridicule people Do not share this sentence.

In relation to this last category of people among which we count and we show that the law itself, the solutions adopted, we produce a deep sadness. We believe the law to be promulgated in the form violates human dignity, because the legislature will actually targeting mass killing of stray dogs. This explains the different and changing period in which they can be accommodated in shelters, from 30 days to 14 days (art. 4 of the Act) and the ambiguity of formalities that must be met, versus a real opportunity to have their lives. The period of 14 working days is insufficient for evaluating medical sterilization control and possibly medical treatment, vaccination, deworming, immunization, microchipping, knowing that can not be given up for adoption than the dog that went through these phases. Moreover, in the same period, the adopter must prepare necessary documentation (proof space that results in appropriate conditions for growth and housing of dogs, material resources for the growth and maintenance of dogs, owners or shareholders agreement backyard neighbors , adoption fee whose amount is not known until now). Also, in the same period, the adopter must be effective and create conditions that can not take formal notice of the existence of dog offered for adoption, its characteristics and the time remaining until his murder.

Conclude that Parliament did not want to take responsibility to use appropriate terms watched interest.

Thus, although euthanasia is a method for suppression of life, medical assistance and that sole purpose, noble, of the subject of further protect the suffering caused by an incurable disease, the term is used by the legislator wrongly being violated so binding principles defining the concepts that undertakes within the proposed legislative solutions to achieve an explicit configuration concepts and terms used in the new regulations that have another meaning than the common, to ensure their proper understanding and thus avoid Misinterpretation (article 25 of Law 24/2000 republished). The legal document should be written in a language and style specific legal regulation, concise, sober, clear and precise to exclude any ambiguity, strict compliance with the rules of grammar and spelling. The specific terms may be used only if Activity is spent referred regulation.

Excellence, respectful please note that in art. 7 paragraph. (2) of the Act: "Unclaimed dogs will be euthanized and not adopted ....." art. 7 paragraph (3) of the Act: "The decision for euthanasia is issued for each dog ...." Art. 7 paragraph. (4) of the Act: "Pending the euthanasia procedure can be claimed or adopatati dogs", the term euthanasia is used in the wrong way and wrong with its significance. Correctly and according to the will of the Romanian Parliament in place of the term euthanasia should be provided the time of the murder or killing.

As a matter adjacent to demonstrate that the euthanasia procedure and meaning of this term is described in art. 5 of the law which makes a careful and impartial observer to be comprised of confusion in understanding and applying the provisions of art. 7 of law.

Romanian Parliament should consider that as just this once, to take full responsibility for his intentions. If we wanted to euthanize stray dogs then unequivocally and correctly, the procedure for suppression of life can only target incurably ill dogs. If the legislature intended the disappearance of all the stray dogs, the term correctly and unequivocally is killing or murder.

February. Social peace. Respect for human dignity

According to Art. Article 4. (1) of the Constitution: "The State foundation is national unity and solidarity Roman citizens." According to Art. Article 4. (2) of the Constitution of Romania: "Romania is the common and indivisible homeland of all its citizens regardless of race, nationality, ethnic origin, language, religion, sex, deopinie, political adherence, property or home social. "

Excellence, please respectfully noted:

- There are many Romanian citizens are not convinced that killing all stray dogs is a moral and civilized solution;

- There are many citizens of this country who believe that local authorities and the public should respect the obligation to provide correct information to the citizens in public affairs and matters of personal interest (art. 31 par. (2) of the Constitution). Legislative solution adopted, without showing reasons which made it impossible to apply alternative methods without showing those responsible for this failure, has divided society and undermine the solidarity that should exist between citizens of the country. We believe you should have to make an effort on the part of local authorities and public to convince us that although alternative solutions were applied properly and all involved in the process have acted with the good faith and in a professional manner to meet certain standards of life citizen, there is only the solution. Passing over the fact that it has never been called into question by the political class, in a thoroughly question the existence or absence of a civilized life in Romania, we can not observe the law to be promulgated enroll in fact the same note disregard for respecting the will, aspirations, feelings, emotions, aspirations citizens of this country.

We observed that the activity of "taking" of stray dogs are on the public domain in force restarted the recently born on the one hand and on the other hand satisfaction suffering. Moving into another register, dare to take this opportunity to ask the political class as a whole: What explanations child or a parent present during capturing a community dog, knowing it to be killed? Probably will says: "This dog has killed for trying to protect you and your dog can kill you" and he can answer: "We live in a country of barbarians and politicians wanted it."

Excellent, will return high mission to identify and use the leverage necessary to reduce as much shock felt by those who for reasons of education, culture, morality, social status, affection, and relationship with the environment are not prepared to accept the application of a such laws, in the form sent for promulgation frustration being reinforced and not assuming liability policy makers and local government for the situation reached.

Excellence, please allow us to conclude by recalling the words eminent lawyer and Professor Vintilă Dongoroz it reads: "A law that requires man is not man, is absurd and can not be implemented."

The selected account,



av. Dan Caraman 
av. Doriana Cimpan 
av. Ivona Elena Cerneschi 
av. Daniel Catalin Fenechiu 
av. Simona Mihaela Oprea 
av. Alexander Morarescu 
av. Alice Draghici 
av. Florin banish 
av. Violeta Podolianu 
av. Mihnea Stoica 
av. Ingrid Zaarour 
av. Dr. Niculae Lovin Serban 
Andreea Alexandra notary Papiniu

No comments:

Romanian Stray Dogs