President promulgates ANI Law: I stand by arguments in constitutional challenge

President Nicusor Dan on Friday promulgated the Law on integrity in public office, but said he stood by the arguments in the constitutional challenge he had previously filed."I promulgated today the Law amending and supplementing certain normative acts in the field of integrity, in the form in which it was sent to me by the Romanian Parliament. I continue to stand by the arguments in the constitutional challenge I submitted to the Constitutional Court," the head of state said in a statement released to the press.He said that, in a different context, had there been no risk of losing NRRP funds because the law was not adopted and had there been sufficient time for debate, he would have sent the bill back to Parliament for reconsideration. The president called on Parliament to hold a "thorough" discussion of the promulgated law."We cannot afford not to access these funds, nor can I accept another blow to Romania's credibility abroad. I call on Parliament, during the autumn session, to resume and deepen discussions on this law. Integrity is far too important an issue for society and must be translated into legislation that is beyond any suspicion and interpretation," Nicusor Dan said."I believe the arguments in my constitutional challenge were very strong. I nevertheless await the Constitutional Court's reasoning to see the opposing view. I have maintained my position even after the Constitutional Court's reasoning in other constitutional challenges that were rejected. After the reasoning is issued, the law will return to Parliament for debate and only afterwards to me. I hope we can complete the legislative process by August 31, the NRRP deadline," the head of state wrote on August 18, when the Constitutional Court rejected his constitutional challenge concerning the ANI Law.President Nicusor Dan challenged the Law amending and supplementing certain normative acts in the field of integrity before the Constitutional Court on August 10.In the constitutional challenge posted on the Presidential Administration's website, it was argued that, in terms of its normative content, the law had been adopted in breach of constitutional rules and principles.The head of state invoked the requirements of legal clarity and the legality of sanctions regarding the phrase "a person who has a relationship similar to that between spouses" contained in the law."The two provisions extend the obligation to complete and file asset and interest declarations from the holder of public office to the 'husband, wife or person who has a relationship similar to that between spouses', subject to the administrative penalty provided for in Article II, point 21. The first deficiency concerns the clarity of the provision: the law establishes no objective criteria - duration, cohabitation, economic interdependence, public acknowledgement - for determining when an emotional relationship becomes legally relevant, leaving the person concerned to determine for themselves whether they fall within the scope of the obligation. Nor does it regulate the situation of a relationship that begins after the official's appointment, the termination of a relationship, or successive relationships. In terms of foreseeability of conduct, this contravenes Article 1(3) and (5) of the Constitution, which require legislation to be clear and accessible so that its addressees can adapt their conduct," the challenge stated.According to the president, in the absence of legal criteria, the provision effectively delegates to the supervisory body the task of defining, on a case-by-case basis, the scope of the offence.The challenge also examined, in relation to the law challenged before the Constitutional Court, the third party's right to private life, the personal nature of liability and discrimination among public officials.In this regard, it argued, among other things, that "the interference produced by the challenged provision with the third party's private life does not withstand the proportionality test required by Article 26 of the Constitution, in conjunction with Article 20 of the Constitution and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights".The challenge identified another separate flaw, distinct from the intrusion into private life, namely "the direct extension of liability to a person who has never assumed the status giving rise to the obligation".Another criticism levelled at the law concerned "discrimination among public officials based on the legal form of the personal relationship".Before filing the constitutional challenge, the Presidential Administration had published on its website the asset declaration of the head of state's partner, Mirabela Gradinaru.