Furthermore, when analyzing the actual constitutional provisions disputed between these public authorities, I found that most of them were centered on the fourth paragraph of article 1 of the Fundamental Law, which refers to the principle of separation of powers.
Moreover, the most frequently broken constitutional provisions are those regarding the Parliament's competency--or so they are perceived by the Parliament--when the President is the one breaching them and, quite paradoxically, the ones in which the judicial authority disputes its independence and competency over certain rulings with the dualistic structure of the executive branch--a total of 4 cases.
On a final note, I believe that the analysis of the constitutional prerogatives presumably broken and disputed in the juridical conflicts of a constitutional nature between public authorities are also those provisions which need a terminological improvement and thereby, the Romanian Constitutional Court is the only authority competent to carry out such clarifications.
Before proceeding with the analysis of this next variable, it is important to note that not all of the cases implying juridical conflicts of a constitutional nature which were brought to the Romanian Constitutional Court were automatically admitted as such.
On this note, from a total of 11 Decisions on juridical conflicts of a constitutional nature between public authorities, the Romanian Constitutional Court decided that 4 of them were not cases of such conflicts (55), 5 of them were indeed admitted as constitutional conflicts and reglemented accordingly, whereas 2 had a special status (56)--they were recognized as being juridical conflicts of a constitutional nature, but they were perceived to have already stopped before the Court's ruling so no legal clarifications were made in those cases.
2008 admitted the existence of a juridical conflict of a constitutional nature between the Public Ministry and the Parliament regarding the procedural aspects employed in the prosecution of the Cabinet members who are also Parliament members.
Secondly, after admitting the existence of a juridical conflict of a constitutional nature between the President and the judicial power, as represented by the High Court of Cassation and Justice regarding the disregard of the latter to enforce the Decision No.
2009, regarding the constitutional conflict between the judicial authority, as represented by the High Court of Cassation and Justice and the Parliament and Government on the other hand, the Court decided that the former "does not have the constitutional competency to establish, modify or repeal the juridical norms with legal power and neither to do the judicial review of the legislation" (57).
Moreover, another juridical conflict of a constitutional nature was acknowledged in the Court's Decision No.
2010, once more in a paradoxical manner, ruled that there was another conflict between the Parliament and the Government on the same matter, only that this time, the public authority causing it was the Parliament--namely the Senate--which refused to debate the motion of censorship that followed after the Government had assumed its responsibility, claiming that, in the light of the previously presented decision of the Constitutional Court, the Prime-Minister Emil Boc had to take back that respective act.
On the whole, the clarifications which were made by the Romanian Constitutional Court in the five decisions on which it had accepted the existence of a juridical conflict of a constitutional nature between public authorities serve as instruments in preserving the principle of balance and powers, because they offer clarifications and binding interpretations that are independent from the political powers involved to certain constitutional provisions.
The Impact of the Rulings of the Romanian Constitutional Court