What Decentralisation Should Have Been Like
Unclear provisions, serious technical problems in the legislative text and conflicting regulations, are the main reasons that prompted the Constitutional Court of Romania to dismiss the Decentralisation Act as unconstitutional. The decentralisation bill, for which the Government asked Parliament for a confidence vote in November last year, was a prerequisite for administrative decentralisation, presented as one of the most ambitious projects in post-communist Romania. Decentralisation targeted several key areas, such as agriculture, education, culture, public healthcare, tourism, youth and sports programmes.
Leyla Cheamil, 14.02.2014, 13:07
Unclear provisions, serious technical problems in the legislative text and conflicting regulations, are the main reasons that prompted the Constitutional Court of Romania to dismiss the Decentralisation Act as unconstitutional. The decentralisation bill, for which the Government asked Parliament for a confidence vote in November last year, was a prerequisite for administrative decentralisation, presented as one of the most ambitious projects in post-communist Romania. Decentralisation targeted several key areas, such as agriculture, education, culture, public healthcare, tourism, youth and sports programmes.
Deputy PM Liviu Dragnea explained last year that the institutions previously under the direct supervision and receiving funds from the central government would now be transferred to county and local councils, with the number and salaries of the administrative staff unaltered. Unhappy with the decentralisation bill, the Liberal Democrats in the Opposition notified the Constitutional Court, on grounds that it came against provisions regarding the unity of the Romanian state and that the transfer of property from one administrative unit to another should be regulated by government orders.
Moreover, the opposition argued that requesting a vote of confidence in Parliament is not the constitutional avenue for passing such important legislation. According to the Constitutional Court judges, the text contains too many ambiguities, deadlines are too short and the impact of the new legislation has not been properly analysed.
Also, the Court says, the exact procedures for financing the decentralised institutions are not clearly defined. As far as agriculture and rural development are concerned, the Court found that the specific decentralisation measures stipulated in the bill are ambiguous, in that rural development programmes remain subordinated to an Agriculture Ministry department, whereas agriculture directorates are reorganised into county units. As for tourism, there are unclear provisions that regulate the institutions which should authorise the functioning of guesthouses and of accommodation units and restaurants in tourist resorts and in specific territorial units.
