Mr. President of Romania,
Undersigned: Dan Caraman, Doriana Cimpan, Ivona Elena Cerneschi, Daniel Catalin Fenechiu, Simona Mihaela Oprea, Alexander Morarescu, Alice Draghici, Florin Surghie, Violeta Podolianu, Mihnea Stoica, Ingrid Zaarour - lawyers in the Bucharest Bar, Niculae Lovin Serban - dean of Bar Ilfov, Papiniu Andreea Alexandra public notary, please receive this material submitted for analysis which represents: AMICUS CURIAE
By your Excellence,
in accordance with art. 77 paragraph (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.
1. Technique legislative breaches on 10/09/2013, Legal, Discipline and Immunities and Public Administration , Territorial Planning and Ecological Balance filed Permanent Bureau of the Chamber of Deputies, Joint Report on the request for review of the Law on amending and supplementing Ordinance emergency Government 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 Report.
However, we are aware that the Report is subject to criticism, being superficially prepared, in haste, under the pressure of time and on purpose omitting issues of law and fact, known to members of the Chamber of Deputies which could influence their vote or content of the allowed amendments.
The Legislation knows two great moments:
a) The establishment of social situations which require legal regulation
b) The separation of legal ideal should apply these statements depending on a company's legal consciousness.
Legislative action involves changing trend, innovation of new normative legal solutions, rated as superior as 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 hides 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 much criticized law will be put in a position to randomly choose 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 much criticized law, 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 and 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, from a constitutional point of view, involves two inherent dimensions, namely the relationships between people, which targets the right and duty of the people to be respected and 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 and approved amendments but also the spirit and the essence of the law were flawed.
The Constitutional Court states that the euthanasia of stray dogs should be applied only as a last resort and only when all other solutions have been consistently applied by local authorities but have not reached to limit or eradicate this phenomenon (to observe and Decision 536/28.04.2011 of the CFR).
We question the Joint Report due to the absence therein of:
Ascertaining proper application / inappropriate alternative solutions among which the most important is the sterilization of stray dogs by local authorities;
Reasons for the improper application of alternative solutions, in terms of justifying the necessity of applying since the beginning of the "final solution"
This Joint Report should have included the amendments allowed for the purposes mentioned above. This omission was intended to protect those involved, responsible and decision makers in local government who have been unable or unwilling for illicit reasons to solve the problem of stray dogs using the legislative framework at hand until the occurrence of the tragic event 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 through the statements of leaders, opinion formers and politicians, transmitted in society and media channels and the deeply unserious idea appeared which stated that the only solution is killing all the dogs as the only solution.
A large amount of people disagree this monstrous idea and are being mocked. In relation to this last category of people among which we count ourselves, we want to show that the law itself, the solutions adopted, produce us a deep sadness.
We believe the law to be promulgated in this form violates human dignity, because the legislature will actually target the 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 save their lives. The period of 14 working days is insufficient for evaluating, medical sterilization, control and possibly medical treatment, vaccination, deworming, immunization, micro chipping, knowing that a dog which did not go through these phases can not be given for adoption. Moreover, in the same period, the adopter must prepare necessary documentation (proof of space that results in appropriate conditions for growth and housing of dogs, financial resources for the raising and maintenance of dogs, owners’ or shareholders’ agreement with backyard neighbours, adoption fee-which 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 the dog offered for adoption, its characteristics and the time remaining until his murder.
We conclude that Parliament did not want to take responsibility to use appropriate terms.
Thus, although euthanasia is a method for suppression of life, medical assistance and that sole noble purpose of the subject of further protecting the suffering caused by an incurable disease, the term is used by the legislator wrongly, being violated so binding principles defining the concepts that undertake within the proposed legislative solutions to achieve an explicit configuration of 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, in strict compliance with the rules of grammar and spelling. The specific terms may be used only they refer to the activity mentioned in the regulation.
Excellence, 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 adopted dogs",
the term euthanasia is used in the wrong way and with its wrong significance.
Correctly and according to the will of the Romanian Parliament in place of the term euthanasia, the term murder or killing should be used. As a related fact, to demonstrate that the euthanasia procedure and how the meaning of this term is described in art. 5 of the law, a careful and impartial observer must be comprised by confusion in understanding and applying the provisions of art. 7 of the law.
The Romanian Parliament should consider that as just this once, to take full responsibility for its 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 stray dogs, the correct term to be used was killing or murdering.
2. Social peace. Respect for human dignity:
According to art.4 ( 1 ) of the Constitution: "The State foundation is based on national unity and solidarity among its Romanian citizens"
According to Art. 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, opinion, political adherence, property or social origin"
Excellence, please respectfully state that:
There are many Romanian citizens who 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 paragraph (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 undermined the solidarity that should exist between citizens of the country. We believe you should 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 in good faith and in a professional manner to meet certain standards of life the citizen, there is only the solution. Ignoring the fact that it has never been called into question by the political class, we thoroughly question the existence or absence of a civilized life in Romania.
We can not leave unnoticed the fact that the law to be promulgated enroll in fact in the same note of disregarding the will, aspirations, feelings, emotions of citizens of this country.
We noticed that the activity of "taking" of stray dogs which are on the public domain restarted in force gave way to a recently born satisfaction on the one hand and suffering, on the other.
Moving to another register, dare to take this opportunity to ask the political class as a whole: What explanations does a parent present his child during the capturing of a stray dog, knowing that it will be killed? Probably he will say: “The dog must be killed in order to protect you, the dog can kill you” or he can say: “We live in a country of barbarians and politicians wanted it (this)."
Excellence, your high mission is to identify and use the leverage necessary to reduce as much as possible the 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 such a law, in the form sent for promulgation. The frustration is being reinforced by the lack of liability of policy makers and local government responsible for the present situation.
Excellence, please allow us to conclude, recalling the words of the eminent lawyer and professor Vintilă Dongoroz, which state the following: "A law which asks man not to be human, is absurd and can not be implemented"
With deep consideration.....