Stelian Ion’s boss, Dan Barna, knew that imposing compulsory vaccination is illegal. However, he lobbied for her

Photo by Lucian Alecu Dan Barna

It is interesting that the head on the political line, but also on the line of Government of Stelian Ion, at that time, Dan Barna, was of a completely different opinion than that of the Ministry of Justice. A diametrically opposed opinion that was publicly expressed by the USR leader, just a few weeks before this explosive opinion was issued. At the end of June, USR President Dan Barna said that “there should be much stronger measures to encourage vaccination, in the sense of limited access to events, not even on the test side, but only vaccinated people. Precisely to encourage vaccination, because, yes, we are talking about the prospect of a wave four, which we see is already active in many countries around the world, we are talking about a strain that responds to the vaccine – and that’s very good – but for that we must to be vaccinated ”. In a TV show, he added that “there is – and I say unfortunately – the possibility of compulsory vaccination, (…) but I strongly support measures to encourage vaccination, because it is the solution by which we can all we assure that we will not end up again in the unpleasant situations we experienced last year “.

These statements contradicted a decision of the Cluj Court of Appeal, cited in the opinion of the Ministry of Justice, annulling an entire article of Government Decision 531/2021, which conditioned the participation of a citizen in certain aspects of socio-cultural-economic life of four types of illegal obligations. One was vaccination, the second was an RT-PCR test, the third was a rapid antigen test, and the fourth was proof of going through the disease.

Specifically, the court classified as illegal discrimination the imposition of these four types of obligations for participation in sports competitions organized in Romania, as well as in drive-in performances, concerts, public and private festivals or other cultural events in open spaces, if less than 1,000 people take part. Another abolished provision was the exclusive obligation of vaccination to participate in such events with more than 1,000 people. The annulled normative act aimed at allowing the organization of private events (weddings, baptisms, festive meals, etc.), without being limited to them, in salons, cultural centers, restaurants, bars, cafes, event halls and tents, up to maximum capacity. of the outdoor or indoor space, if all participants are vaccinated. It was also mandatory to vaccinate, present negative tests or proof of illness for people participating in open-air festivities on the occasion of the end of the school year, with the participation of teachers, students and their companions.

As shown in these documents, but also as it appears from the court ruling, the measure of prohibition of access to certain spaces, if you do not present proof of vaccination, testing or passing through the disease, is a discriminatory act, restricting the exercise of certain rights and freedoms. fundamental rights, enshrined in the Constitution. However, the exercise of the restriction of certain rights and freedoms may be restricted when there is an exceptional situation, only for a limited time and only by law adopted by Parliament.

Lawyers say that vaccination is a permanent medical act, but established on the basis of temporary restrictive measures. This is where the contradiction comes in. But the Romanian Government, since the beginning of the pandemic, but, more specifically, after the establishment of the state of alert, in May last year, forced the constitutional normative framework, issuing decisions to extend this situation, month by month, based on decisions of To the National Committee for Emergency Situations that have never been published in the Official Gazette. This was even amended by the High Court of Cassation and Justice, in a case this year, when it established that, from a legal point of view, by not publishing them, these CNSU decisions have no legal value. However, they were the basis for the issuance of Government decisions, which, in practice, approve the measures proposed by an act that is legally null and void.

The same thing happened with the last Government Decision to extend the alert status, which introduced the obligation to present the “green” certificate.

The reason why the Government is doing such a trick to impose restrictive measures is simple. Government decisions cannot be appealed to the Constitutional Court. They can be abolished only in administrative courts. With a limited duration of applicability, the GDs regarding the extension of the state of alert operate for 30 days, after which another Government Decision is issued, with the same types of restrictions or even new ones, which, in turn, can also be abolished. in court, but through another trial. And so on, to infinity.

Whereas, if the Executive were to comply with the constitutional framework, it would have to submit a bill to Parliament if it wishes to supplement measures that infringe on fundamental human rights and freedoms. And the law, if it passes the vote of the Parliament, can be challenged at the Constitutional Court. This time, if the Court finds that these legal provisions are unconstitutional, they can never be introduced in any normative act.

Not even the way of issuing an Emergency Ordinance in this field is possible, because the Constitution completely forbids affecting the exercise of certain rights and freedoms by emergency ordinance.

Source: by

*The article has been translated based on the content of by If there is any problem regarding the content, copyright, please leave a report below the article. We will try to process as quickly as possible to protect the rights of the author. Thank you very much!

*We just want readers to access information more quickly and easily with other multilingual content, instead of information only available in a certain language.

*We always respect the copyright of the content of the author and always include the original link of the source article.If the author disagrees, just leave the report below the article, the article will be edited or deleted at the request of the author. Thanks very much! Best regards!