Athe persons free access to an economic activity free initiative and their exercise are guaranteed under the law. However the criticized provisions of Law no. can fall into this category under the terms of the law the constituent legislator himself granting the ordinary legislator the prerogative to establish the conditions for the exercise of the persons free access to an economic activity as well as the free initiative. . The solution to the rejection as inadmissible of the exception of unconstitutionality of the provisions of art. first sentence related to the provisions of art.
And of Law no. is also valid under the conditions in which in the present Country Email List case they are also criticized from the perspective of constitutional standards considered by the Constitutional Court when examining the constitutionality of Law no. in Decision no. of October . .Regarding the provisions of art. first sentence by reference to the other provisions of Law no. criticized in this case the Court reiterates what was retained in Decision no. of October regarding the criticisms brought from the perspective of art. of the Constitution regarding the right to private property The.
Court notes that in its jurisprudence see Decision no. of Romania Part I no. of July paragraph ruled that according to art. para. of the Constitution the legislator has the right to establish the content and limits of the right to property. In principle these limits take into account the object of the property right and its attributes and are established in order to defend the general social and economic interests or to defend the fundamental rights and freedoms of other people it being essential that this does not completely annihilate the right of property in this sense see also Decision.
發表於 2023-12-27 18:41:42
收藏