Search

In this study I aim to analyze the constitutional principle of equality of rights, starting from the concept. Equality is an objective law principle, is also a subjective public law right and, more than that, as qualified in the doctrineI , is a ”fundamental right with the value of a general principle for the field of fundamental rights”. Equality ”is rather considered as a principle right than as a law principle”, because it accompanies and guarantees the use of the other rights. On the other side, equality has also been interpreted as a distinct set of rights, composed of different specific realities. In its general form, equality resides in each citizen’s right of not being subjected to discrimination and of being treated equally, both by public authorities and by the other citizens. This is about an “equality in rights”, opposed to the concept of “actual equality” because the lawgiver provides an equal juridical framework for all citizens, ascertaining a formal equality, but he cannot guarantee equal results. The jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court underlined the other perspective: the material equality, actual equality or equality by law, which refers to all concrete cases, considering the existent differentiations and aiming for a concrete equality of the results. As we`ll notice, the Constitutional Court analyzed equality also as a possibility of admitting a right to difference in case of different legal situations.

Fundamental principle of EU law is governed, at present, by Article 5 (4) of the EU Treaty, as well as Article 5 from the Protocol no 2 of the Lisbon Treaty, the Protocol on the application of the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality. This principle implies that the content and form of Union action shall not go beyond what is necessary to achieve objectives of the Treaties. Established constitutionally by the provisions of Article 53 (2) of the Romanian Constitution, the principle of proportionality cannot and should not be ignored in public administration, obviously. In our opinion, taken into consideration our national constitutional regulation could come off an erroneous conclusion that the proportionality concerns only the restriction of certain rights, not being necessary to govern the activity of public administration. But such an assertion cannot be supported at EU level where its action, its institutions actions and the Member States action that falls within the sphere of EU law are conditioned on the compliance with this principle. Moreover, even at national level, by the Strategy for consolidation public administration for 2014-2020, adopted by Government Decision no. 909/2014, the principle of proportionality is recognized as one of the general principles underpinning this strategy and, especially, the public administration through its activity. Also, for example, the proportionality was settled as a principle in the draft Code of Administrative Procedure, a relevant issue even if this bill did not become a law until now. In same context, after the ECJ decision in the case C-8/55 Fédération Charbonnière de Belgique v. High Authority of European Coal and Steel Community, the Court of Justice consistently recognized, in its jurisprudence, the existence and the applicability of this principle, such as is revealed by the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court of Romania. Good governance, but also the control mechanisms developed to protect and guarantee such governance requires a Member State, such as ours, the implementation of EU law by national authorities by taken into consideration even of the principle of proportionality that will focus on the policies chosen to be applied, the administrative and judicial measures applicable, the recognized, protected and guaranteed rights.

Attempts to legitimize war have been made since ancient times. In ancient Greece, for example, war was considered legitimate for the winners. Nowadays, the old Latin phrase “jus ad bellum”**, in whose name states have frequently engaged in warfare, has been abolished. As a result, the UN Charter has established a complex system for the sanctioning of the aggressor state, designed to ensure and restore the international rule of law by putting an end to acts of violence and minimizing their consequences. Self-defense is a right the states may exercise under well-established conditions and limitations only. With respect to nations that are dominated by foreign states and are therefore seeking to gain their independence and exercise their legitimate rights by all means, including by war, it has been established that the use of armed force by the dominator-states is an act of aggression forbidden by the international rule of law. The non-aggression principle is basically the one that has turned international law from a law of war into a law of peace, to the point where war is considered today as the most serious international crime.

Juridical principles have a privileged place within the positive juridical order, representing foundation of the legal edifice: they prove the continuity of law during the centuries and that is why here we have to dig in order to find out the foundation of law, its permanent nature, its substance; they precede and give birth to positive law, which lies upstream of legal rules; principles build and direct the entire system of law, conferring to the legal order its necessary stability; being the underlayer of positive law, the principles of law represent a stability factor and, also, a source of unity, coherence, consistency and efficiency for that legal system1. The entire law science consists in reality of “generating from the multiplicity of law dispositions their essential, namely these exact last justice principles, from which all the other dispositions derive. Hereby, the entire legislation becomes of a great clarity and is caught in the so-called legal spirit”2.

At the onset of the study it is necessary to mention that its topic will be circumscribed to regulations on the principle Justice is equal for all in the Romanian Constitutions and in comparative law – selective aspects. By this approach, the proposed study opens a complex and complete vision, but not exhaustive, to the reflections on the principle Justice is equal for all in the Romanian Constitutions and in comparative law. In comparative law analysis, we will keep a symmetrical approach to identifying regulations on the principle Justice is equal for all in the Constitutions of other countries. The subject of the scientific endeavor will be circumscribed to the scientific analysis of its parts, as follows: 1. Introduction. 2.Identification of constitutional rules on the principle Justice is equal for all in the Constitution of Romania and comparativelaw. 3. Highlights Romanian doctrine and comparative law on the principle Justice is equal for all. 4. Jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court on the principle Justice is equal for all (selective aspects). 5. Conclusions.

According to Professor Djuvara “law can be a science, and legal knowledge can also become science when, referring to a number as large as possible of acts of those covered by law, sorts and connects them by their essential characters upon legal concepts or principles which are universally valid, just like the laws of nature”. The general principles of law take a privileged place in the positive legal order and represent the foundation of any legal construction. The essence of the legal principles resides in their generality. In respect of the term “general”, Franck Moderne raised the question on the degree of generality used in order to define a principle as being general – at the level of an institution, of a branch of the law or at the level of the entire legal order. The purpose of this study is to find out the characteristics of law principles. In our opinion, four characteristics can be mentioned.

I live with the feeling that, in the past few years, Romania has been a drifting ship. We do not know where is it going, nor the place it will arrive at. Like any individual endowed with reason, I wonder why chaos took over this society and, if I would have the power to change anything, what would be the solution to less troubled waters. I think we lost our way because we forgot to always refer to the values that should guide us ... or because we refer too often to non-values. I think we could find our way and stop wandering if we will rely our evolution on values, if we will teach our children from a young age what values and non-values are and if we could run our existence in the spirit of a real value horizon. People live together, not just coexist, as so deeply professor Gheorghe Mihai highlighted1. Coexistence is specific to herds, packs, hordes; but human community means collaboration, cooperation, consensualisation, which implies a consciousness towards values. "What is missing now to the human society is a behavior that relates to a code of virtue"2. Moral values are the support for the legal values. Unfortunately, today, it seems to me that values are inverted and that the belief in the perfectibility of the individual (and therefore the perfectibility of law) is increasingly being questioned. Contemporary society is characterized by lack of motivation, lack of a strategy and the absence of any ideals. In this context, I believe that the individual today feels the necessity of some value referrences more acutely, whilst the society needs a law deeply based on moral values. As morality itself contributes to the valorization of the law, I think that moral appeal is more necessary today than yesterday, as a remedy for the individual and, consequently, the law to overcome their crisis. For all these reasons and also because I share the view that "the concrete law is not viable without values and these values are always expressed in the defining principles of a law system"3, I felt the need to write about values and valuation.

In its grand historical-spatial diversity, in spite of the natural differences between civilizations, law presents a permanent and universal nature, represented by a bunch of constants. These constants of law are, doubtlessly, the juridical principles, those indispensable tools meant to facilitate harmonization, on international level, of the legal systems. Along with the global trend of unifying space and time and escalation of a new stage of civilization, a more diversified society, we are witnessing today a reconfiguration of the Romanian legal system, reflected in the adoption of new legal codes. In this historical context in which Romania is placed, researching the importance of law principles becomes a necessity. Law principles have a privileged place within the positive juridical order, representing the foundation of any juridical construction: they certify the continuity of law during the centuries and that is why here we have to dig in order to find out the foundation of law, its permanent nature, its substance; they precede and give birth to positive law, which lies ahead of legal rules; principles build and guide the entire system of law, conferring to the legal order its necessary stability; being the underlayer of positive law, the principles of law represent a factor of stability and, also, a source of unity, coherence, consistency and efficiency for that legal system.