SOME CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE CRISIS CAUSED BY THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC AND NATIONAL SECURITY PART II

 

 

1. On the scientific research of intelligent crisis management

We said in the first part of our paper that it is necessary to intelligently manage crises through rigorous scientific research. The need also arises from the repercussions of the global economic and financial crisis on the realization and effective exercise of human rights that have influenced think tanks in administrative sciences to pay special attention to this phenomenon in debates and studies on good governance. And even if they have not always been able to focus on defining “maladministration”, “administrative reform” solutions have always been proposed.In this sense, it can be said that the public administration reform started immediately after the coup d’état of December 1989 and was not directly and immediately correlated with the crises that Romania went through, being rather a continuous process of change and adaptation to new realities, using both legal and managerial, economic, financial instruments to reconcile the public administration with the citizen it serves. In the same vein, some of the American administrators who, after reviewing the successive crises of defining public administration, different from both political science and management, insist on the need to change public administration according to environmental changes in which activates, there are three explanatory models of transformation: the biological metaphor (administration as a system), the rational metaphor (administration as omniscience) and the political metaphor (administration as an actor), even when traditionally the public administration is ”schizophrenic” and ”resistant” to chang ”, its power being“ covered in clouds, covered with fog and clothed in haze ”, and if knowledge means power then the public administrator has both[1]. Romanian studies also noted the resistance to change of public administration, even if reform is necessary, even imperative, in the conditions imposed by crises and not modernization – a state due in part to the reality that the monopoly of constraints around which the power space was built administrative is not enough to ensure its cohesion, the administration being subordinated to centrifugal forces, which exert a continuous pressure on its components and which constantly threatens their homogeneity; that is why we are witnessing the expansion of the administrative space to the size of the whole society, simultaneously with the blurring and smoothing of the borders between them, the administrative sciences having the mission to manage “well” and responsibly the changes proposed by the reforms required by public administration crises[2].

Therefore, according to the UN Committee of Experts on Public Administration, public system reform consists of deliberately transforming administrative structures and procedures to make them work better. Structural changes may take the form of mergers or separations, and procedural changes may consist of reconfiguration systems, by defining quality standards and strengthening capacities. Reflecting the definition of public administration as the art of crisis management, the United Nations Economic and Social Council considers that strengthening governance and public administration capacity for development means helping national actors to equip themselves with priorities in their countries. In the field of development, ensuring their development taking into account the results obtained, putting in place effective tools to set objectives, make decisions, systematize normal procedures, plan and carry out activities and complete them through controls and evaluations. However, we must accept that strengthening the capacity of the public administration system to deal with crises is a multidimensional approach, encompassing elements other than strictly administrative ones, in particular electoral processes, legislatures, the rule of law and access to justice, human rights, decentralization, local governance and the provision of public services, accountability and transparency, the role of civil society and the private sector in governance, the formulation of intervention policies for all stakeholders, international aid and its absorption power; all these facets of governance must be taken into account in order to improve the administrative capacity to deal with crises, increase the capacity of actors to realize their potential and build open, transparent and concerted organizations to strengthen them and promote a common dimension and building trust[3].

In this constructive, transformational and pragmatic sense, a real strategy has been developed at EU level to improve the methods by which the Union uses its powers entrusted to its citizens not only in normal times but also in times of crisis, when the need arises to manage its consequences and administrative reforms to move to a new stage of development. The institutional reform proposals initiated are based on five principles of good governance, namely: institutional openness and transparency, active participation, self-responsibility, institutional effectiveness and coherence, active participation, their implementation being strengthened through the system of proportionality and subsidiarity. Although some Member States have problems due to the financial crisis and the economic downturn, the Union is trying to manage them effectively, with hopes that through increased convergence and competitiveness, the proposed objectives will be met. Also, at national level, all public administration reform measures taken in recent years have not been an end in themselves, but the formulation of public policy imperatives dictated by the need to face the economic and financial crisis that Romania has had to go through. This management of the administrative crisis meant in the legislation issued during the coronavirus pandemic the establishment of new bodies, procedures and instruments, such as deliberative authorities, committees for financial crisis situations but also recovery plans. In order to counteract the “schizophrenia” inherent in the public administration system, mentioned above, but also the resistance to change, even in the motivated case of facing crises, public administration reform must reconnect between administration procedures and central concepts of good administration, not only those which are legally binding, as derived from documents adopted internationally, as well as from Romanian legislation and practice. Only in this way can we make the right decision after judging the crisis, in order to bring a new social balance that will allow further development in the conditions of a massive paradigm shift.Only in this way can we make the right decision after judging the crisis, in order to bring a new social balance that will allow the management of the crisis generated by the coronavirus pandemic.

2. How has the coronavirus pandemic changed crisis management in Romania?

2.1. Clarifying issues

Based on the principle that the executive must be recognized as an activity for normal times and an activity for abnormal times, we considered it necessary to analyze the extent to which the Government has used the institution of legislative delegation in accordance with constitutional provisions or whether it uses the basis constitutional only as a pretext to regulate in the areas reserved to the law. In order to find answers to these questions, we will analyze the constitutional basis, the relevant doctrine and jurisprudence in this matter, the role of the People’s Advocate, during the state of emergency. We will not investigate, in the following, the legislative delegation granted by the Parliament to the Government, based on a special empowerment law, but we will limit ourselves only to the legislative delegation in extraordinary situations, the regulation of which cannot be postponed. According to the provisions of article 115 par. (4) of the Romanian Constitution, republished, „The Government may adopt emergency ordinances only in extraordinary situations whose regulation cannot be postponed, having the obligation to motivate the urgency within them”, and in the following paragraphs of the same article are provided the conditions that they must be complied with in order for the emergency ordinance to enter into force, to be adopted or rejected by law, as well as the prohibitions to issue emergency ordinances in certain areas. We will not analyze the constitutional provisions previously invoked as the doctrine has already done so successfully, but we will present, in the following, the opinions already expressed, as follows: „In a synthetic interpretation, we note that the initial wording of exceptional cases was replaced by the phrase extraordinary situations, also an indeterminate legal concept left at the discretion of the Government. However, unlike the initial variant, the current constitutional provision seeks to clarify this concept, stating that “regulation cannot be postponed.” Of course, in the case of extraordinary situations, their regulation is also urgent, it will intervene immediately, so it cannot be postponed, but this condition results from the urgency of these ordinances, established even by their name. At present, no one disputes this character as a second condition for the adoption of this type of ordinances, the Constitutional Court also issuing decisions in this respect, regarding the existence of the two conditions. Or, in the new constitutional configuration, in fact, the meaning of the notion of emergency is defined, which no one disputes, but which the Government also respects only rarely, when resorting to the adoption of emergency ordinances. The following elements necessary for establishing the constitutional dimensions of the notion of extraordinary situation have been identified in the doctrine: a) it is an essential constitutional condition, fundamental for the adoption of emergency ordinances; b) it is an objective and independent situation, in the sense that its production does not depend on the will of any public authority and is not justified by the establishment of another situation of constitutional crisis; c) it is an unpredictable situation that deviates from the usual rules or expectations and whose regulation does not support in any way the postponement; d) it is a situation that endangers the public interest, the normal functioning of the state authorities and the political regime; the danger caused by this situation must call for urgency, be a definite and immediate danger about to occur. The extraordinary situation must consist in a state of absolute urgency, which presupposes two elements: the impossibility to resort to other procedures for its legislation; the measures ordered, by their material content, to have a character of absolute necessity and urgency”. These are the constitutional provisions and some of the doctrinal explanations regarding the exceptional situations and the conditions under which the Government can adopt emergency ordinances.It is therefore recognized, to the executive power, the possibility to regulate, in certain situations, in primary fields, reserved to the law[4].

However, the state of emergency established in order to manage the effects of the Covid 19 pandemic was marked in Romania by the excess of repressive measures. Who does not know how to protect and stimulate, repress? The level of fines imposed by ambiguous regulations and the Vol.ume of amnesia applied was hallucinatory. They exceeded the bargaining power and payment capacity of those sanctioned. Beyond these issues, does the issue of the constitutionality of those measures also arise? Aren’t they hit by nullity because of constitutional flaws? Through the powers conferred on us by the researcher’s instruments, we will try to decipher, together with other authors, these violations of the Constitution. Thus, according to one opinion, the state of emergency is a fact, before it becomes a legal regime. Therefore, we are dealing with a state of affairs that can be transformed into a state of law, at the initiative of the President of the Republic. He notes this by a presidential decree, thus allowing the executive to turn it into a legal regime by establishing exceptional measures of a binding nature to manage the situation. In other words, the President’s decree does not give rise to a state of emergency, but only establishes it, as a matter of fact, and gives the Government the possibility to administer it on the basis of normative acts adopted by it as a matter of urgency[5].

2.2. Some critical aspects, from a legal perspective, regarding the establishment of the state of emergency

Terminologically, by state of emergency is meant: „The exceptional situation of war or other public danger that threatens the state of the nation regulated by art. 15 of the Convention, during which the States Parties may take a series of measures to temporarily suspend the exercise of certain rights or freedoms provided for in the Convention, under certain conditions strictly governed by it”. According to art. 15, the adoption of measures derogating from the provisions of the Convention, in conditions of urgency, requires the fulfillment by the invoking States of substantive conditions concerning: the cases in which they are authorized, the character of necessity and their object, but also of form: the procedure to be followed for taking these measures. These conditions may achieve the objective of limiting the arbitrary power of the State only in so far as they are subject to the control of the Court[6].

Art. 15 provides for the possibility of adopting such measures „in case of war or public danger that threatens the life of the nation.” In its case law, the European Court of Human Rights has characterized these notions as “exceptional and imminent situations of crisis or danger, which affect the population as a whole and pose a threat to the organized life of the state community”. Therefore, the danger in question must be exceptional and threaten the life of the nation. The origin of the danger can consist in a natural calamity, war, reVol.t, rebellion, insurrection, etc. It is up to the states to determine the state of emergency („war or public danger that threatens the life of the nation”). The danger must be real (proven) or imminent. This also includes a crisis affecting only part of a country’s territory: for example, derogations concerning only part of the United Kingdom in the context of the terrorist conflict in Northern Ireland or only south-eastern Turkey.In the short history of the Council of Europe, there has been no war situation that would lead to the application of derogating measures, and therefore the Court has not been put in a position to interpret this notion either. However, in the Court’s practice, so far, such derogations have been allowed in cases[7].

2.3. About the procedure for declaring a state of emergency

According to the provisions of art.93 para. (1) of the Constitution, the state of emergency is established by decree of the President of Romania, which is countersigned by the Prime Minister and is published as soon as possible in the Official Gazette of Romania, from which time it begins to take effect. The provisions of art. 12 of GEO No. 1/1999 also establish that the President of Romania must ask the Parliament for the approval of the adopted measure, within maximum 5 days from the establishment of the state of emergency. The decision of the Parliament is taken by organic law and is for admission or rejection of the decree establishing the state of emergency, insofar as the solution is to reject, the measures ordered shall cease to have effect from the date of publication of the law in the Official Gazette of Romania. We consider that the term of 5 days in which the Parliament is requested to approve the adopted measure is one of recommendation, the provisions of GEO No. 1/1999 not providing for a sanction in the event of non-compliance.

The provisions of the ordinance expressly specify the role of the Parliament in approving the measures ordered by the President by decree, without referring to the possibility of the legislature to censor the provisions of the decree, in the sense of extending or, conversely, restricting the scope. In this respect, we consider that there is no justification to limit the possibility of the Parliament to modify the provisions of the decree. Some of the implicit effects of declaring a state of emergency are provided in direct connection with the rules of operation of state institutions and as a guarantee of their stability. First of all, the provisions of art.63 para. (1) of the Constitution establish that the mandate of the Parliament is extended until the end of the state of emergency. On the same reasoning are regulated the provisions of art. 89 para. (3) of the Basic Law, which stipulate, inter alia, that Parliament cannot be dissolved during a state of emergency. Also, throughout the state of emergency, the Parliament remains in power, even if it is not in session, according to the provisions of art. 93 para. (2) of the Constitution[8].

The efficiency of establishing the state of emergency is given by informing the population of the measures to be applied in the next period. We consider that the essential aspects that may be the subject of the communication are the area concerned, the period for which the decree is established, the measures of immediate application, as well as the restrictions on fundamental rights and freedoms that will operate until the entry into force of the decree. Of considerable magnitude interpreted as public dangers that threaten the life of the nation. Examples include: the terrorist phenomenon in Northern Ireland, the terrorist activity of the PKK in south-eastern Turkey, the threats of attacks on Great Britain after the attacks of 11 September 2011 in the United States of America, the attempted coup d’etat in Turkey in the summer of 2016 and possible associated terrorist acts. In other cases, the requested derogations were not allowed, where the former European Commission of Human Rights stated that the conditions for the application of art. 15 of the Convention and the legislation and administrative practices of the new regime installed in Greece violated several rights provided by the Convention, not being justified by art. 15 of the Convention. However, the Court is the only one able to verify whether the states have exceeded the strict measure imposed by the crisis situation by checking the national margin of appreciation. Moreover, the stay in force of derogating measures after the cessation of exceptional circumstances constitutes a violation of the Convention. The same applies to the territorial overrun of the derogating measures[9].

The decree establishing the state of emergency must provide the following aspects: a) the reasons that imposed the establishment of the state; b) the areas where it is established; c) the period for which it is established; c1) the first emergency measures to be taken; d) the fundamental rights and freedoms whose exercise is restricted, within the limits of the constitutional provisions and of art. 4 of this emergency ordinance; e) the military and civil authorities designated for the execution of the provisions of the decree and their competencies; f) other provisions, if deemed necessary”. From the corroboration of the provisions of art.5, art. 14 lit. c) and art. 15 of GEO No. 1/1999 results that the decree establishing the state of emergency cannot have an indefinite duration, being limited to a maximum of 30 days, and will be extended by the President of Romania with the approval of the Parliament. We consider that insofar as a period of time is stipulated above the maximum provided by the legal provisions, it can be corrected by the Parliament by the law of approval, or otherwise the duration should be considered, by law, as 30 days. A similar procedure extends or restricts the area for which the state of emergency is established.The competence to coordinate the measures ordered by decree is shared according to the basis for establishing the measure. If it concerns the existence of current or imminent serious dangers that could endanger national security or the functioning of constitutional democracy, the competence falls to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, with the support of the Ministry of National Defense, upon request and with the approval of the Supreme Council. Also, if the basis for establishing a state of emergency is determined by a calamity, the competence belongs to the National Emergency Management System, under the leadership of the Minister of Administration and Interior and under the coordination of the Prime Minister. The measures likely to be ordered during the state of emergency are regulated by corroborating the provisions of art. 11, art. 14 lit. c1) and art.20 of the GEO No. 1/1999.If the first two enunciated dispositions refer to the obligation to communicate to the population the urgent dispositions established by decree, the provisions of art. 20 contain an exhaustive list of possible measures that may be imposed, which correspond to fundamental rights and freedoms whose limits of exercise would be restricted. We consider that the provisions of art. 20 must be interpreted with caution as they refer to both the state of siege and the state of emergency, some of which are preferably applicable to the state of siege, which is why their eventual takeover in the decree establishing the state of emergency must performed with caution. The cessation of the state of emergency may take place on the date set by the decree establishing or extending it, or at the time of the cessation of the situation which led to the taking of the measure, in the latter case the entry into force of the decree shall be ordered by a new decree[10].

Therefore, by Presidential Decree No. 195 of March 16, 2020[11], in the context of the need to take measures to combat the SARS-CoV2 pandemic that has affected Romania in the meantime, a state of emergency was established in Romania, for a period of 30 days, in order to protect the right to life and health of people but also to reduce the negative effects on the economy. The decree on the establishment of the state of emergency was approved by the Romanian Parliament on March 19, 2020[12]. Art. 2 of the Decree stipulates that during the state of emergency the exercise of the following rights is restricted: free movement; the right to intimate, family and private life; inviolability of the home; the right to education; freedom of assembly; the right of private property; the right to strike; economic freedom. The emergency measure has been extended for another 30 days, starting on 15 April 2020. As it was considered that some of the measures derogate from Romania’s obligations as a party to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms[13], the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was mandated to notify the derogation of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, according to Romania’s international obligations. By Verbal Note No. 498 of March 18, 2020, the Permanent Representation of Romania to the Council of Europe notified the General Secretariat of the Council of Europe about the measures taken, attaching a note to the minutes and a copy of the presidential decree. In other words, through this notification, the Romanian authorities took advantage, for the first time in their short history of being a member of the Council of Europe, of the derogations provided by art. 15 of the Convention.Thus, art. Article 15 of the Convention, entitled ‘Derogation in case of emergency’, allows States Parties to the Convention to, under certain conditions expressly provided for, unilaterally derogate from part of their obligations by temporarily suspending the exercise of certain rights and freedoms it provides. Except, art. Article 15 of the Convention provides for signatory states with a derogation clause which allows, in exceptional circumstances, the replacement of normal legality with exceptional legality. In the history of the Council of Europe, until the outbreak of the SARS COV2 pandemic, only 8 states (Great Britain, Ireland, Greece, Turkey, Ukraine, Albania, Armenia, France and Georgia) have notified the derogation provided by art. 15 of the Convention. Due to the pandemic, along with Romania, 9 other states also invoked the derogation in question (Latvia, Armenia, Estonia, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova, Albania, San Marino, Serbia and Northern Macedonia).

The state of emergency is a fact before it becomes a legal regime. Therefore, we are dealing with a state of affairs that can be transformed into a state of law, at the initiative of the President of the Republic. He notes this by a presidential decree, thus allowing the executive to turn it into a legal regime by establishing exceptional measures of a binding nature to manage the situation. In other words, the President’s decree does not give rise to a state of emergency, but only establishes it, as a matter of fact, and gives the Government the possibility to administer it on the basis of normative acts adopted by it as a matter of urgency. The decree by which the President ascertained the state of emergency and thus initiated the consecutive procedures (procedures provided by law, and not invented by him or by the government), affects the balance of powers. That is why the constituent legislator elected the President to ascertain it, because the President is not part of any power, being a mediator between them. The election of the President was also justified by the urgency of solving the problems posed by particularly serious threats to untimely values ​​such as public health, national security, etc. A one-person institution can manifest faster than a collective one[14].

The regime of the state of emergency is not provided by the Constitution, but by a special law. The Constitution provides only the regime of ascertaining the situation that attracts the application of that special law. It is only that law that changes the normal balance between the powers of the state. Noting, by his decree, the existence of factual reasons for the implementation of the law on the state of emergency, the President creates the premises for the initiation of the subsidiary mechanism of exceptional governance, previously defined by the Parliament.

In addition to the fact that the presidential decree is only an act of finding, and not of disposition, it is issued under the resolutive condition of approval by the Parliament. Its only full and unconditional effect is to force Parliament to meet within a maximum of five days to decide whether to approve the transition to a state of emergency identified by the President or not. Parliament cannot ignore the decree, but has the right to reject it. Why did it settle like that? Because the Parliament is, among the state powers, the most affected by the change, even temporary, to the relationship between prerogatives (the one who acquires increased prerogatives being the executive), but especially because he is the supreme representative of the Romanian people (art. 61.1 thesis first). The president is not the supreme representative of the people, the latter being the holder of national sovereignty. The president is neither the ”head of state”, but the ”symbol” who personifies the state. It is logical, therefore, that the perception of the President, who has come to the conclusion that a state of affairs has been created which makes it appropriate to govern in an emergency system, should be subject to censorship by the people (the one who bears the consequences of such governance).

2.4. The specific conditions for declaring a state of emergency in Romania

The hypotheses of establishing the state of emergency are regulated in art. 3 of GEO No. 1/1999 which establishes an accumulation of conditions necessary to be fulfilled in order to be able to declare a state of emergency. The first hypothesis refers to “the existence of current or imminent serious dangers to national security or the functioning of constitutional democracy.” The primary condition is the existence of dangers, the fact that the legislator preferred the use of the plural does not necessarily mean the existence of a large number of determinants, but rather the need for multiple implications on different plans for national security or the functioning of constitutional democracy. The seriousness of the danger relates to the consequences it is likely to produce. They do not need to be certain, but only quantifiable in a sufficient way to lead to the idea that national security or the functioning of constitutional democracy may be affected. The current or immediate nature of the hazard presupposes either that it is ongoing or about to occur. This must be understood in relation to the suitability of the threat, which must also be current or imminent. It should be noted that the immediate occurrence of the danger is not a rigid criterion, it can also exist to the extent that the damage would materialize over a period of time, but with the consequence of a considerable amplification of the consequences. The fulfillment of the above conditions must necessarily be convergent in the direction of endangering national security or the functioning of constitutional democracy.

The second part of the provisions of art. 3 of GEO No. 1/1999 consists in the situation regarding “the imminence of the occurrence or the production of some calamities that make it necessary to prevent, limit or eliminate, as the case may be, the consequences of some disasters”. As mentioned above, the danger materialized in a calamity must be current or imminent, in which case we refer to those already reported. The prevention, limitation or elimination of the consequences is, in this case, the purpose of the establishment of the state of emergency, being relevant in the sense that the subsequent measures must address these objectives. At first sight, we would consider that between the provisions of art. 3 of GEO No. 1/1999 is an apparent contradiction, the legal text referring on the one hand to national security and the functioning of constitutional democracy, and on the other hand to the occurrence of calamities. First of all, it must be borne in mind that both the concept of national security and the functioning of democracy are abstract and aim at the functioning of state institutions, with all the attributes related to independence, indivisibility, sovereignty and full exercise of civil rights and freedoms. On the other hand, the notion of calamity is related to disasters caused by natural phenomena, pandemics that by intensity, duration and/or extent lead to disruption of the functioning of the social climate and even state institutions. The separation of these two notions in the content of the same article is not such as to suggest a functional independence, as there may be hypotheses in which concrete situations target, cumulatively, both hypotheses, in compliance with the provisions of art. 18 and art. 19 of GEO No. 1/1999, which establish shared competences according to the basis for which the measure was ordered[15].

2.5. About the derogating measures and their necessity

The derogating measures must be absolutely necessary, be strictly indispensable in order to be able to deal with the public danger. The state cannot suspend based on art. 15 of the Convention rights and freedoms guaranteed only to the extent that their exercise would be such as to prevent him from facing public danger, i.e. measures must be strictly limited to the requirements of the situation. Of course, national authorities have a margin of discretion, being better placed than the Court’s judges to assess whether there is such a danger and what is the nature and extent of the derogations needed to overcome it. However, the State’s discretion is subject to the control of the Court. In the Lawless case, the Court found that the arrest and administrative detention of individuals suspected of participating in terrorist acts was a measure strictly limited to the requirements of the situation, since the functioning of ordinary criminal jurisdictions, special criminal courts and military tribunals did not prove sufficient. for the restoration of peace and public order. Subsequently, in Branningan and Mc Bride v. The United Kingdom, the Court raised the question whether the extended discretion granted to the State in question did not lead to the exclusion of the Court’s review. In the present case, however, the Court stated that it complied with art. 15 of the Convention excludes any judicial review of the extension of the duration of pre-trial detention to almost 7 days in the case of alleged terrorists, although in a previous case (Brogan) the Court had held that detaining a person arrested for 4 and a half days before a judge is a violation of art. 5 par. 3 of the Convention. It should be noted, however, that in the Brogan case there was no question of the applicability of art. 15 whereas the United Kingdom Government did not introduce such derogating measures. However, in other Turkish cases, the Court’s control was more rigorous, considering that the lack of any judicial control during pre-trial detention is not an indispensable measure to deal with the public danger. In a recent case, however, the Court failed to examine whether the situation complained of constituted a valid derogation because the parties had not raised this issue. On the other hand, in the recent jurisprudence generated by the attempted coup in Turkey in 2016, the Court, examining the requests made by two Turkish journalists, stated that the state of emergency could not be used as a pretext to limit the political debate. take all measures to protect the values ​​of democracy such as pluralism, tolerance and openness. In the same cases, analyzing the way in which the Turkish authorities proceeded to deprive the same persons of their liberty, the Court agreed with the analysis of the Constitutional Court of Turkey and considered that they were not taken according to legal means and violated art. 5 of the Convention. Therefore, the derogating measures exceeded the absolutely necessary character required by the given situation. We note in these cases the importance which the Court attaches to the observance of constitutional guarantees by the restrictions imposed. When the Court examines whether a state has exceeded the strict measure imposed by the crisis situation, factors such as: the nature of the rights affected by the derogation, the duration of the state of emergency and the circumstances that created it are taken into account; whether the ordinary legislation was sufficient to deal with the growing public danger; whether the measures taken are in response to the emergency situation; whether these measures were used for the purpose for which they were adopted; whether there is a constant check on the need to apply the derogation, as a condition of proportionality; if the measures imposed are doubled by safeguards in order to prevent potential abuses; whether the measures were proportionate to the aim pursued and whether they were unjustifiably discriminatory; if they followed the legal paths, etc.

2.6. Object and formal conditions of the derogating measures

First of all, the “state of emergency” provided by art. 15 does not allow States to derogate from all the provisions of the Convention. Thus, the Convention does not allow any derogation from the right to life (art. 2), except for death resulting from lawful acts of war, from the prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment (art. 3), from the prohibition of slavery. Article 4 (1) or from the principle of “no punishment without law” (Article 7), rights which are regarded as absolute. In addition, 3 of the Additional Protocols to the Convention add other hypotheses from which derogations are not allowed: Protocol No. 6 on the abolition of the death penalty in time of war, Protocol No. 13 on the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances and Protocol No. 7 but only regarding the right not to be judged or punished twice (non bis in idem), provided by art. 4. Therefore, these rights continue to be fully applicable even in the exceptional circumstances of the state of emergency[16].

Secondly, derogating measures must be compatible with other obligations deriving from international law, for example with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted by the United Nations in 1966. This provision is such as to ensure compliance with a minimum standard assumed. at the international level, in the field of respect for human rights. Third, states are required to specify the duration and geographical area of ​​the measures taken. Article 15 of the Convention provides for the obligation of States to inform the Secretary General of the Council of Europe of the derogating measures which it wishes to take and of the reasons which have determined them, as well as of the date on which the measures cease to be in force. , and the provisions of the Convention become applicable again. The information must be addressed as soon as possible and the information provided must be sufficient for the addressees to be able to assess the nature and extent of the derogations from the provisions of the Convention. The Court’s control also extends to compliance with the formal requirements. Thus, in one case, the former European Commission of Human Rights decided that art. 15 is inapplicable because, in the absence of a formal act of notification, the derogating measures taken cannot be justified by Verbal Note No. 498 of March 18, 2020, the Permanent Representation of Romania to the Council of Europe notified the General Secretariat of the Council of Europe of the measures taken, attaching to the verbal note a copy of the presidential decree. In view of the notification of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe of the measures taken, we consider that from this point of view the formal condition is met. Furthermore, on 2 and 15 April 2020, by two verbal notes, the Permanent Representation notified the General Secretariat of the Council of Europe of the measures taken by the national authorities to achieve the objectives that led to the decreeing of the state of emergency[17].

2.7. To what extent should Romania resort to derogating measures?

First of all, it must be emphasized that the derogation from the provisions of the Convention, given the state of emergency, is of an eminently exceptional nature, which is strictly interpreted in the Court’s view. Therefore, States do not have a blank check for non-compliance with their rights as guaranteed by the Convention and it continues to apply to them. Such a measure shall not have the effect of ceasing the activity of the Court as a whole, or of its activity in relation to complaints against that State. Although the Court’s work is currently affected by the pandemic and is dependent on the measures taken by France, the host state, the Court continues its work by using electronic mail and telework so that applications are further received and processed and distributed to courts. Secondly, given the case law of the Court, we can appreciate that a situation like the current global health crisis, with the effects it generates, can be framed in the requirements of the conventional text of “situation of public danger that threatens the life of the nation”, so States have a ground on which to derogate from the provisions of the Convention. Thirdly, as regards the duration of the derogating measures, as stated above, it is a factor which the Court examines. Of course, a period as short as possible which ends as soon as it has ceased and the state which determined the derogating measures will be such as to meet the criteria of necessity of the restrictions imposed. However, the duration is not in itself a determining factor, given that restrictions extending over several years have been deemed to comply with the requirements of the Convention. Fourth, in so far as the Court examines any interference, restriction or potential violation of the rights and freedoms provided for in the Convention under the conditions of the pandemic, the outcome will depend on the specific situation of each State and the actual analysis, regardless of whether or not the derogation from art. 15 of the Convention. Last but not least, particular attention must be paid to the situation in Romania. According to Decrees No. 195 and 240, the derogating measures only consider the rights contained in art. 2 respectively: free movement; the right to intimate, family and private life; inviolability of the home; the right to education; freedom of assembly; the right of private property; the right to strike; economic freedom. Unlike other previous situations in which States parties have derogated from the provisions of the Convention, it should be emphasized that Romania has not invoked the derogation from the right to liberty and security or freedom of expression. Considering that, in accordance with art.2 and 4 of Decree No. 195 and art. 2 and 3 of Decree No. 240, the exercise of the rights in question is restricted in proportion to the degree of realization of some criteria expressly provided and the applicability is gradual we can appreciate that the invocation of art. 15 of the Convention represents a gesture of prudence of the Romanian authorities rather than an attitude assumed of violation or restriction of certain rights. Although the derogation invoked by the Romanian authorities seems justified so far and in line with the Court’s requirements, a concrete analysis must follow its total duration and the concrete measures that will be taken, not excluding the invocation of other rights that could be limited in the future[18].

A legitimate discussion that can be made in the case of Romania is to what extent a derogation from the provisions of the Convention was necessary given that the rights provided in art. 2 of the decree have a correspondent in rights provided by it that have a relative character and that allow from the national authorities, under certain well-defined conditions, interferences, limitations or restrictions. In this sense can be invoked, by way of example, art. 41 of the Annex of Decree No. 195 which stipulates that “Prescriptions and forfeitures of any kind shall not begin to run, and, if they have begun to flow, shall be suspended for the duration of the state of emergency established under this decree.” It is obvious that these provisions constitute a limitation of the right of access to court, component of the right to a fair trial provided by art. 6 of the Convention. However, such a limitation can be regarded as legitimate from the perspective of the case law of the Court. Or, art. 2 of the decree does not expressly provide for a restriction of the right to a fair trial and, therefore, we cannot consider that, in the absence of an express specification, the derogation provided by art. 15 of the Convention and invoked by the Romanian authorities in the notification sent to the Council of Europe also extends to this right. Of course, the invocation of art. 15 allows for much more restrictive measures on the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention than under normal conditions. However, it is important that these measures do not turn into an abuse of power. In any case, as we have pointed out above, states have a wide margin of discretion in determining what measures are needed during a state of emergency, but the state’s room for maneuver is not unlimited and can be subject to European control, insofar as The Court will be seized of actions for breach of fundamental rights and freedoms[19].

3. National security, a pretext for restricting fundamental rights and freedoms

3.1. About the constitutional restriction of some fundamental rights and freedoms

The fundamental rights and freedoms referred to in both the provisions of art. 53 of the Romanian Constitution, as well as by the provisions of GEO No. 1/1999 are those expressly listed in Chapter 2 of Chapter 2 of the Basic Law entitled “Fundamental Rights and Freedoms”. The restriction of fundamental rights and freedoms is regulated by the provisions of art. 53 of the Constitution, in strict compliance with the stipulated conditions. However, we find such derogating provisions in other international normative acts to which Romania has acceded, therefore, similar provisions are found in the provisions of art. 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights[20], art.15 of the European Convention for the Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, art.52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. It is expressly indicated in the provisions of art. 31 of GEO No. 1/1999 that the measures instituted by means of declaring a state of emergency are limited to the situations that required the taking of such steps. Also, the prevalence of international law is established, in the sense that during the establishment of the state of emergency Romania has the duty to comply with the obligations assumed by an international act to which it has acceded. Given the specificity of the regulation and the systematic interpretation of the provisions of the said ordinance, we consider that the provisions of international law regarding the respect of those fundamental rights and freedoms whose limitation is irreconcilable, as well as measures related to international cooperation are taken into account.

3.2. National security argument that may justify the violation of certain fundamental rights or freedoms

National security is one of the arguments indicated by the provisions of art. 53 of the Constitution which may justify the violation of certain fundamental rights or freedoms[21]. Against this perspective, we must keep in mind that in accordance with Romanian legislation and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights there are a number of rights and freedoms whose inviolability cannot be violated. In this sense are also the provisions of art. 32 of GEO No. 1/1999, according to which during the state of emergency it is prohibited:

– the limitation of the right to life, as this right is protected in the light of the provisions of art. 22 para. (1) and (3) of the Constitution, respectively Protocol No. 13 the ECHR.

– torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment – provision corresponding to the provisions of art. 22 para. (2) of the Fundamental Law, as well as art. 3 of the ECHR. The case law of the European Court is consistent and explicitly reflects the correspondence and fair balance that must exist between national security and the measures ordered in this perspective.

– conviction for crimes not provided for as such, according to national or international law – corresponding to the provisions of art. 23 para. (12) of the Constitution, establishing that no punishment can be established or applied except under the conditions and under the law. In criminal law these provisions are subsumed under the principle of legality of incrimination based on the provision of the deed in criminal law and the principle of legality of punishment, according to which the associated sanction must have been provided at the time of the relevant criminal act.

– restricting free access to justice – corresponding to the provisions of art. 21 of the Constitution which proclaims free access to justice. In view of this provision, we consider that the legislator has shown an inconsistency in the regulation. Thus, the provisions of art. 4 of GEO No. 1/1999 establishes that during the establishment of the state of emergency the exercise of some fundamental rights and freedoms may be restricted, except for the human rights and fundamental freedoms provided in art. 32, therefore, according to the mentioned text, the ordinance stipulates that the restriction of free access to justice is a fundamental freedom, or if we refer to the provisions of the Constitution we observe that the provisions of art. 21 which enshrines free access to justice are positioned outside the section intended for fundamental rights and freedoms in which both the content of the ordinance and the provisions of art. 53 of the Basic Law is reported[22].

In addition to the above, we also point out that there are other rights whose exercise cannot be limited for reasons of national security. Under this aspect we base our exposition on the final provisions of art. 31 of GEO No. 1/1999 which stipulate that the measures imposed by the state of emergency may be taken in compliance with the obligations assumed by Romania under international law, including in this section all international treaties (latosensu) that have been ratified by Romania. Therefore, in so far as the provisions of ratified international treaties provide for rights which are not permitted, their provision prevails over domestic law. In this sense, the provisions of art.9 of the ECHR, corresponding to art. 29 of the Romanian Constitution, proclaims the freedom of thought, conscience and religion, the convention stipulating that “they cannot be restricted in any way”.

The category of fundamental rights and freedoms whose exercise can be restricted during the establishment of the state of emergency can be determined, in a first phase, by identifying the measures that can be ordered by the decree of the President of Romania, these being grouped in art. 20 of GEO No. 1/1999. The provisions of the article indicated are incidental to both the state of siege and the state of emergency. The main fundamental rights and freedoms whose restriction can be pursued with regard to the state of emergency are: free movement, inviolability of residence, secrecy of correspondence, freedom of expression, right to information, right to education, freedom of assembly, right to strike, right to property private. Far from being an exhaustive list, but an indicative one, the restrictions of the rights and freedoms regulated by the Constitution may vary depending on the concrete provision of the measures provided by the decree establishing the state of emergency.

3.3. Legal framework for establishing a state of emergency in order to restrict the exercise of fundamental rights or freedoms

The legal conditions necessary for the establishment of the state of emergency can be related to the content of the provisions of art. 53 of the Constitution and concern a sum of conditions whose observance must be cumulative. The declaration of the state of emergency must be related to a factor likely to affect national security, constitutional democracy and for the prevention, limitation or elimination of the consequences of disasters, as provided in art. 1 of GEO No. 1/1999 and art.53 para. (1) of the Constitution. The general conditions regarding the limitation of the exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms are provided in art. 53 of the Basic Law and refer to the following aspects: the taking of such a measure can only be the object of the law and concerns only the provisions on fundamental rights and freedoms regulated in Chapter 2, Title 2 of the Fundamental Law; the existence of the exceptional situation, such measures may be ordered “only if necessary”; observance of the principle of proportionality between the gravity of the danger and the intensity of the interference caused to citizens and, finally, the observance of the temporary and non-discriminatory nature of the restrictions on the exercise of fundamental rights or freedoms.[23]Do we conceive of power systems that are too complex, too efficient for the people they govern? Although we will benefit from many new possibilities, in this study we have shown the risks that arise from the existence of an over-consolidated state. A precise and perfect system of law enforcement may not be suitable for the government of people with defects, imperfect, traumatized. A system based on “wise constraints”[24] may help us maintain a satisfactory level of freedom in the world of coronavirus, but there is no room for complacency. And this is only part of the story. Next, we will deal with the fate of freedom from the perspective of a difficult choice that we should not be faced with by Covid-19: what do we choose between the right to health care or the right to privacy?

3.4. The right to health care or the right to privacy? A choice we should not be faced with by Covid-19

3.4.1. Clarifying issues

As a preliminary point, it is essential to understand that measures to prevent the spread of this virus are the main concern during this period. At the same time a processing of personal data. However, the protection of personal data cannot be eliminated from the field of priorities, even in this exceptional context, because it has an overwhelming importance for the exercise of our right to privacy, as a fundamental right guaranteed by art. 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This global struggle, although essential, must not create the necessary conditions for disproportionate interference in people’s privacy. This raises a legitimate question: are employers entitled to collect information on the health, travel and personal interactions of employees as measures to prevent the spread of the virus to the workplace? Before proceeding to a comparative analysis of the answers given by the supervisory authorities of various states regarding the legality and proportionality of such measures, it is necessary to briefly address the notions of “data processing”, “personal data”. Andhealth data, in order to show why the above-mentioned preventive measures, inVol.ve the processing of personal data. According to Regulation (EU) 2016/679, personal data is any information concerning an identified or identifiable natural person and a data processing means any operation or set of operations performed on personal data or sets of personal data, with or without the use of automated means, such as collecting, recording, organizing, structuring, storing, adapting or modifying, extracting, consulting, using, disclosing by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available, aligning or combining, restricting , deletion or destruction. Therefore, the collection, by employers, in employment relationships, of data related to private travel or personal interactions of employees is a processing of personal data, an operation that falls under the provisions of privacy. Health data means personal data related to the physical or mental health of a natural person, including the provision of healthcare services, which disclose health information. Referring to this definition, data on the specific symptoms of employees, collected by employers through statements on their own responsibility or through questionnaires are data on the health of employees.

But what happens when employers implement actions to measure the temperature of employees? Are they obliged to comply with regulations on the protection of personal data? We try a few possible answers. Thus, on the one hand, it must be borne in mind that, although the use of thermal scanners may not inVol.ve the collection of identification data of persons so scanned, data protection legislation will apply if an identification, even later, of persons targeted is possible. Thus, for example, if the system used records the data and the employer has various sources that can be used to later identify the scanned persons (card readers, electronic timekeeping systems, etc.), then this operation inVol.ves a data processing of character personally and falls within the scope of regulations in the field. Also in this regard, it is important to note that with the technological development, more complex systems have been created, which allow not only functions for measuring temperature and storing a large number of data but also functions for adding peripheral accessories such as card or fingerprint readers, which become real tools for processing personal data. We therefore appreciate that whenever the systems used for temperature monitoring save records and allow (even later) identification of persons, the use of these systems certainly generates personal data and falls within the scope of privacy regulations. An exemplary and not exhaustive analysis of the guidelines and interpretations given by global supervisors is made by the aforementioned author[25].

At EU level, in a statement adopted on 19 March, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) emphasized that Regulation (EU) 2016/679 allows employers to process personal data in the context of an epidemic, in accordance with national law and under the conditions provided for therein. In the context of employment, the processing of personal data may be necessary to comply with a legal obligation to which the employer is subject, such as obligations relating to health and safety at work or for reasons of public interest, such as disease control and other health threats. As regards special categories of personal data, such as health data, they may be processed by employers, according to the Committee, if such processing is necessary for reasons of overriding public health interest under the law union or national law or to protect the vital interests of the data subject. Employers may request specific information on health status in the context of Covid-19 from employees or visitors, according to the Committee statement only by applying the principle of proportionality and minimizing data and only to the extent possibility which national law allows. As regards the performance of medical examinations of employees by employers, this could be done exclusively on the basis of national employment or health and safety laws. Basically, employers should only process employees’ health data if their own legal obligations require it. Examining the Committee’s statement as a whole, it can be concluded that, in the context of Covid-19, employers can obtain personal data about their employees if they are required to perform their duties and organize their work in accordance with the national law. Therefore, the analysis of national legislation is absolutely necessary to determine the extent to which personal data can be processed[26].

3.4.2. National legislation in the field, in the context of the pandemic with Covid-19

Does the national legislation of Romania require or allow employers to collect personal data from employees (data on private travel, people they interacted with, including data on health, such as symptoms, temperature monitoring, etc.) in order to prevent the spread of the Covid-19 pandemic? The answer to the question can be found in the recommendations of the authority with responsibilities in the field, but also in the labor legislation. Let’s take them one at a time. On 18 March 2020, the National Authority for the Supervision of Personal Data Processing (ANSPDCP) issued recommendations regarding the processing of data on the health status of persons in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic[27]. According to these recommendations, health data can be processed under certain conditions, summarized as follows:

– if the processing is necessary for the fulfillment of the employer’s obligations in the field of employment, security and social protection [art. 9 para. (2) lit. (b) of the Regulation],

– if the processing is necessary for purposes related to preventive medicine (…), the establishment of a medical diagnosis, the provision of medical or social assistance or medical treatment or the management of health or social assistance systems and services [art. 9 para. (2) lit. (h) of the Regulation],

– if the processing is necessary for reasons of public interest in the field of public health [art. 9 para. (2) lit. (i) of the Regulation] or if the data subject has given his or her explicit consent to the processing [art. 9 para. (2) lit. (a) of the Regulation].

Moreover, analyzing the provisions of Law 319/2006 on safety and health at work, which, with few exceptions, apply in all sectors of activity, both public and private, we deduce that the special rules of this law do not derogate from the rules including the same obligation for employers to take the necessary measures to ensure the safety and health of workers, a responsibility in which employers must carry out a risk assessment and decide on the protection measures to be taken and, after case, on the protective equipment to be used. Consequently, the establishment of effective protection measures at unit level is the attribute of the employer, who will develop its own instructions for completing and enforcing legal regulations, taking into account the particularities of the job but in all cases, the employer will act in accordance with the law[28]. However, the collection of data not related to the health of employees, translated into practical cases, in order to prevent the spread of the virus to the workplace can be done by employers. More clearly, employers could ask employees for certain information, such as whether, for example, employees have traveled in a heavily affected area in the last 14 days or whether they consider that they have come into contact with a confirmed or suspicious person. Such processing could be based on the provisions of art. 6 para. (1) lit. c) or f) of the Regulation, respectively the fulfillment of a legal obligation of the employer or for reasons of public interest. However, the principles of proportionality and data minimization require that the information requested by employers be strictly limited to what is necessary to achieve the purpose. We thus consider that it is sufficient to know whether or not the employees traveled in a risk area, as it is not necessary to collect, in a systematic and generalized way, data on all employees’ journeys during the reference period. It may also be sufficient for employers to know whether employees have come into contact with confirmed or suspicious persons without collecting data on the identity of those persons.Obviously, the limited storage time, ensuring the confidentiality and integrity of the data as well as the achievement of a transparent processing in relation to the employees are elements on which the very legality of the processing of these data depends.

Analyzing the ANSPDCP recommendation, compared to the recommendations issued by the other supervisory authorities, we deduce that, beyond the presentation of the legal framework that would allow the processing of data on the health of data subjects in the context of Covid-19, which was not difficult to anticipate, the authority does not issue no practical recommendations, much less in the field of labor relations.It is therefore incumbent on employers, as data controllers, to analyze and interpret national legislation in order to establish the extent to which it allows them to process personal data of their employees, in the context of Covid-19, an analysis which we will achieve in the following.

The common law on labor relations is represented by the provisions of Title V – Health and safety at work in Law 53/2003 on the Labor Code, structured as follows: Chapter I – General provisions, Chapter II – Committee on Safety and Health at Work and Chapter III – Protection of employees through medical services. Thus, if Chapter I – General provisions regulates the obligation of employers to take the necessary measures to protect the safety and health of employees, Chapter III – Protection of employees through medical services, regulates the obligation of employers to ensure employees’ access to medical service stipulating that the occupational physician is responsible for effectively supervising occupational hygiene and health conditions and for ensuring the medical control of employees both during employment and during employment individual employment contract.

3.4.3. About collecting data on employee health

Analyzing the provisions of the Regulation, the guidelines issued by the aforementioned supervisory authorities as well as the applicable national legislation, we consider that employers should not ask employees about their health status, respectively if they show certain specific symptoms of Covid-19 or impose the obligation to undergo temperature monitoring, as such processing is unlikely to be based on the consent of employees, on the employer’s obligations in the field of employment, security and social protection, on needs related to the provision of assistance medical or social or public interest in the field of public health. The consent of employees to collect data on their health is from the outset not recommended as a basis for processing, being unanimously known that such consent is unlikely to be considered valid, due to the imbalance of power between the two parties, employee – employer. It should be noted that neither the basis provided by art. 9 para. (2) lit. (b) of the Regulation could not be successfully invoked as a processing of health data for the purpose of fulfilling obligations in the field of employment, security and social protection could be legitimate only in so far as would be authorized by Union or national law or by a collective labor agreement concluded under national law which provides adequate safeguards for the fundamental rights and interests of the data subject. However, in the context in which the national legislation, to which I referred above, provides that the supervision of workers’ health is ensured by the occupational physician, in the absence of derogating legal regulations, employers should not themselves monitor the condition health of their own employees, having no legal basis for it. Equally, processing based on the public interest in the field of public health would constitute legitimate processing only in so far as it would be carried out under Union or national law, which provides for appropriate and specific measures to protect the rights and freedoms of the data subject. , especially of professional secrecy, so that we opine in the sense that neither art. 9 para. (2) lit. i) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 could not be invoked as a legal basis for the preventive collection of health data from all employees, lacking an internal legal basis for such conduct[29].

3.4.4. Obligation of employees to inform employers about the illness with Covid-19 from the perspective of restricting the right to privacy under Decree 195/2020

As for a possible obligation of employees to inform the employer about the illness with Covid-19, we consider that it could subsist based on the provisions of art. 23 of Law 319/2006 on safety and health at work, according to which, employees have the obligation to immediately communicate to the employer and / or designated workers any work situation about which they have good reason to consider it a danger to the safety and health of workers and the obligation to cooperate, as long as necessary, with the employer and / or the designated workers, in order to enable the employer to ensure that the working environment and working conditions are safe and without risks to safety and health.

As regards the restriction of the right to privacy under Decree 195/2020[30], we agree with the above-mentioned author that the entire analysis of the legality and proportionality of the processing by employees of personal data of employees in connection with the Covid-19 virus, was based on the fundamental right to respect for privacy, as regulated by the provisions of art. 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. But what happens in situations where the exercise of this right is restricted for public reasons, such as preventing the spread of Covid-19 and managing the consequences, a measure imposed by Decree 195/2020 which established the state of emergency in Romania? Can we still invoke, in this situation, the right to respect for privacy, in order to oppose illegal and abusive processing of our personal data? The answer is and must be, in our opinion, an affirmative one[31].

First of all, we are talking about a restriction of the exercise of a right and not about the suppression of the right itself, a distinction that is particularly important and explicitly highlighted by the provisions of art. 53 of the Constitution. Then, in order to be legitimate, the restriction must be absolutely necessary and proportionate to the situation which determined it. Therefore, even after the decree of the state of emergency, the right to respect for privacy continues to exist, as a fundamental human right, and its exercise can be limited only by reference to the eVol.ution of the epidemiological situation. It is thus possible that, in this exceptional situation, employers may process more personal data about their employees than they would process outside this framework, without the Covid-19 pandemic being a justification for unlimited processing of employees data and implicitly for a disregard for the right to privacy of employees but also a possible influence of the state of emergency on the national security of Romania, as we will try further.

3.5. About the influence of the state of emergency on Romania’s national security

From a dialectical perspective, there is a middle-purpose relationship between the decree of the state of emergency and national security, but which must take into account the particularities and conditions imposed both by the provisions of the fundamental law and by the provisions of the special rules. The peculiarities of establishing the state of emergency are based on the premises of a state of necessity, of a case of force majeure at state or international level. These legal instruments presuppose a last rationale regarding national security and the functioning of constitutional democracy and the presence of exceptional situations may justify the taking of particular measures, both in terms of the adoption procedure and as a provision per se. Such a hypothesis is represented by the establishment of the state of emergency, as it is defined by the provisions of art. 3 of GEO No. 1 of 21 January 1999 on the state of siege and the state of emergency[32].

The provisions of GEO No. 1/1999 is based on the provisions of art. 53 of the Romanian Constitution, republished, which regulates the conditions and limits of the restriction of fundamental rights and freedoms in the event of endangering national security. In this context, we must keep in mind that such restrictions on fundamental rights and freedoms may occur, as a rule, by organic law, and in particular by decree of the President of Romania, approved by Parliament and followed by military ordinances of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Internal, when the state of emergency has been instituted on the entire territory of the country, or of the officers empowered by it, when the state of emergency has been instituted only in certain administrative-territorial units. In principle, therefore, even in the case of establishing a state of emergency, the restriction of the exercise of fundamental rights or freedoms is exceptional, the constitutional legislator conditioning the taking of such measures as: defense of national security, order, health or public morality, rights and of citizens’ freedoms. Also within the provisions of art. 53 of the Romanian Constitution shows the necessary and cumulative conditions that must be met in order to restrict the exercise of fundamental rights or freedoms, aiming at: the necessary nature, proportionality, non-discriminatory and non-affecting the substance of rights or freedoms that would be restricted.

The notion of national security is reproduced in the provisions of art. 1 of Law No. 51 of July 29, 1991 and is defined as “the state of legality, balance and social, economic and political stability necessary for the existence and development of the Romanian national state as a sovereign, unitary, independent and indivisible state, maintaining the rule of law and the climate of unrestricted exercise of the fundamental rights, freedoms and duties of the citizens, according to the democratic principles and norms established by the Constitution ”. The hypothesis of establishing the state of emergency is given in the light of the provisions of art. 1 of GEO No. 1/1999, this measure will be taken in crisis situations that require exceptional measures to be instituted in cases determined by the emergence of serious dangers to the defense of the country and national security, constitutional democracy or to prevent, limit or eliminate the consequences of disasters. Such exceptional situations are also represented by epidemics /pandemics that affect a very large number of people, which can lead to endangering public health, financial security, internal security, etc. The provisions of art. 3 of GEO No. 1/1999 substantiates the need to establish a state of emergency in situations represented by the existence of current or imminent serious dangers to national security, as well as in the hypothesis of imminent production or actual production of a disaster that makes it necessary to prevent, limit or eliminate the consequences of disasters.[33] The measures ordered may be of a political, economic and public order nature, and may be ordered for the entire territory of the country or in some administrative-territorial units. An example, in the sense of those specified, is the request of the People’s Advocate to “establish a state of emergency in the context of the Coronavirus epidemic” of March 12, 2020. The document states that “the People’s Advocate, as constitutional guarantor of fundamental rights and freedoms, taking note of the administrative measures adopted in recent days in the action to combat the spread of the Covid virus – 19 calls on the President of Romania to declare a state of emergency and the Romanian Parliament to approve it, in accordance with art. 93 paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Romanian Constitution. […] As provided by the Basic Law in exceptional cases. These are the requirements of the rule of law, in which the restriction of certain rights and freedoms can be done only under the conditions of art. 53 of the Romanian Constitution.”[34]National security is an objective that is supported by a set of pillars represented, among others, by state institutions, civil rights and freedoms, the fundamental attributes of guaranteeing the independence, inviolability and decision-making autonomy of the state. Ensuring a fair relationship between national security and the citizen is achieved by balancing the collective interests with the private ones, however there are exceptional situations that force the restriction of fundamental rights or freedoms for national security, such a hypothesis is represented by the establishment of a state of emergency. In essence, we believe that the restriction of fundamental rights and freedoms can only operate in relation to those capable of compression, indestructible in terms of their substance; precisely under this argument there is also the category of rights exempted from almost any kind of restriction.

4. Instead of conclusions, no more resistance! It’s time to fight back

The invisible reality is not just a national one, but a planetary one. This is the only explanation for the allegations made by Michelle Bachelet, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (former President of the Republic of Chile), made just a few days ago. He noted, among other things, that: “Given the exceptional nature of the crisis, it is clear that states need additional powers to cope. However, if the rule of law is not respected, the health emergency situation risks becoming a catastrophe for human rights, whose harmful effects will far exceed the pandemic itself? The senior UN official also noted that “Governments should not use emergency powers as a weapon to silence the opposition, control the population or even stay in power,” the UN official warned. The considerations of the UN Commissioner for Human Rights are welcome in a time of pandemic in which the temptations to exaggerate and over-interpret the rules adopted during the crisis are not lacking in many member countries of the international community, especially those with a more fragile democracy.

As far as we are concerned, replacing the state of emergency with the state of alert could perpetuate some of the regulations promoted by the mentioned military ordinances (traffic outside the localities, travel of the elderly, etc.). Or, in this perspective, a reconsideration of them would be indispensable, in order to eliminate some abusive interpretations. As we have shown, the current regulations are far from demonstrating an adequate professionalism, but on the contrary its lack. Legal norms cannot be interpreted at the discretion of a political or administrative decision-maker, otherwise the rule of democratic law remains an axiom without any real support. A decision-maker, regardless of who he is and regardless of the place he occupies in the hierarchy of public institutions, cannot offer interpretations beyond the letter of the law, as unfortunately happened practically in the cases examined above. Military ordinances could also bring the desired corrections. Why was this not done and a wide space was left open for arbitrary interpretations, without the citizen being able in some cases to justify himself, because otherwise he risked a considerable fine or maybe even more than that? Certainly, it is not about meritocracy, but, as Professor Andrei Marga recently stated, perhaps with a certain accent of exaggeration, of ”prostocracy”. Reflecting on this finding, I remembered the words of the Spanish poet and writer Francisco Quevedo, who remarked, four centuries ago, that ”where there is little justice, it is dangerous to be right”[35].

In this key, the present approach can also be decoded. This study is an opinion and is the first episode in a series entitled ”The coronavirus pandemic between truth and falsehood, between dream and reality. Anti-crisis journal”, through which I try to express the things that happen to me, that I think about, that I analyze, some that I decide and others that I want to decide, but I can’t do. And it is obvious that everything we knew until now about our activity will no longer resemble or no longer resemble what it was three months ago. It is quite complicated for you to realize how much things can change in just a few days. It is almost impossible to put yourself in a position to think of different strategies from one day to the next, almost from one hour to the next. I think that our nature needs to settle down, it needs to dissect and deepen things before it is able to think or rethink strategies and solutions. It is very likely that each of us is less aware that not only our activity is changing, but especially our life. What we knew before the pandemic is no longer the same, what we did then no longer resembles, a few weeks later, what we do today. We’ve watched movies with and about Revelation in the past, but without inVol.vement and without really believing that these things could ever happen, and here they are. Our life will be different. It’s already different. Will we be able to put everything back together? How could we do that? Where could we have the power to do it? When will we be able to do that? Unfortunately or fortunately, now we have to do! Now that people are addicted to the comforts of their daily lives and work! Comfort and tranquility are important for each of us. They represent somewhere the springs to wake us up in the morning and to start over with everything we have undertaken on both sides, personal and professional. But when we have to make changes from one hour to the next, things get a little more complicated. It is natural for fear to have its say, for the panic generated by a situation unprecedented in the modern age to dictate unwanted thoughts and moods. But for everyone, things are happening.

Can it be a future, starting from the present today? Definitely yes! But it certainly won’t look like much of our recent or distant past. Things are already taking on new nuances and what seemed impossible has happened. It was hard to believe that something could change so much in our lives in such a short time. I repeat, if two or three months ago we were looking at this current pandemic quite detached, today it is knocking on the door of our families, our children, our businesses, and it is our decision whether to answer or open the door or come over us or a we send for a walk. These are important moments, unique moments, probably that we all live. There have been interesting moments in the legal field in the recent past, which have changed the overall picture quite a bit. Shortly before, I did not believe in the entry into force of the new Codes, here they are today and have entered the recent history of lawyers in Romania. It was a fundamental change almost, which, like many other times, caught us off guard. This is also a time when we are taken by surprise. As Nicolae Cîrstea said, „When you can no longer, you can take another step, Romanian society and the whole world are going through a period impossible to predict just a few days or months before, a period on which only a strong national solidarity, of guild and, why not, international can help us overcome it.” Of course, none of us can predict the eVol.ution of this crisis situation in the future, but I believe that each of us can contribute to its improvement, by sending signals of solidarity, mutual help and support to community members and, ultimately, to our nation. I believe, together with him, that it is perhaps a unique moment in our lives, in which signals of normalcy, which we want to be present as much as possible every day, can alleviate the feelings of fear and panic that have gripped families, our companies and our people. Can we be strong during this time? We certainly can and certainly will be, not only individually, but especially together. It is a situation unprecedented in the world today, and probably unique in the life of each of us. Aware of all this, we believe that the issuance of normalcy to our fellow human beings can contribute, albeit to a very small extent, to the extraction from the daily life that has become so troubled and in which each of us sees our dreams shattered and longings that I had for this period, for this year, or for the next.

In the context of this eschatological process of change, which has turned into a terrible struggle between God and satan, between the heavenly and the earthly world, this truth is hidden from us. But one day the TRUTH will be revealed to all! Until then, what to do? Are we dead? No, for no one can help the dead; no one plots with the dead. We must prove that we are a living nation, we must prove that we are aware of our mission, we must prove that we are able to make sacrifices in order to preserve this country and its rights for our children, and this mission at the moment. it is entrusted to us, to the Romanians who must show that we are a nation determined to take care of us, to take care of our nation, to take care of its development, the development of good moral and material condition, and not to stay in those ties as to this day, who no longer have their reason to be[36].

Did Romania have an epidemic? Basically, yes. Many compatriots have been diagnosed with the virus that has terrified the world. And politically, too! The President of Romania declared a state of emergency, and the Romanian Parliament confirmed it and, later, extended it. But legal? Do you think anyone thought of that? Perhaps only the public sector personnel, the personnel who manage the emergency situations, who are asked to act quickly, with maximum effectiveness and efficiency, politely, in the conditions in which in the media and in the current social relations there is not enough respect and appreciation for this human resource (wrongly extending the references from isolated cases of corruption to the image of most people working in public administration), ignoring the fact that these staff act in the mentioned salary conditions, using a frequently outdated or incomplete material base . In order to prevent any crisis of public services, with a more or less economic foundation, the central and local public administration in Romania must form a body of specialists in forecasting and programming, sociologists, economists and lawyers, to closely monitor social phenomena. and to prepare in advance the normative acts that must act as a means of social regulation. The media has a moral duty to help the population understand social phenomena, not to alarm. The media also has a moral duty to uphold and promote the human resource values ​​of public services, citizen appreciation along with a fair and balanced remuneration system in all public services and a system of moral rewards such as diplomas, trophies, which matter the annual professional evaluation of staff would help increase the quality of public services and help them to increase the order of magnitude of the crisis. So, if we want to prevent crises in the field of public services in Romania, every citizen – from dignitary to child – must prove, modesty, responsibility, a conduct in accordance with the legal framework, and the legislator together with the government have the obligation to achieve the right legal and material framework for budget sector officials to work in decent conditions. Then their performance will ensure the fulfillment of the social purpose and will ensure the prevention of crises of any kind. Austerity measures are medicines for sick social relations, not measures to prevent future crises. Economic, social and, consequently, political crises are prevented by good governance. But legally speaking, we have entered an epidemic of corruption! Should we clarify what we experienced in the two months? The major covid symphony, conducted by a presidential decree? Or a form of integration into the China-US conflict? Has Romania entered and left the state of emergency without an order (otherwise mandatory) of the Ministry of Health declaring the existence of the epidemic? Unfortunately, the two months of emergency government can be considered as a test of courage and improvisation, but especially of stupid management of a state of crisis!

Since a lot of contradictory opinions are currently circulating in the media, which are rather expressions of fear, of panic that have spread throughout the world, I am not a specialist in the field, I can only express a subjective opinion, as a living witness. of the times, about the Coronavirus pandemic. I have the feeling that I am living one of the hardest experiences that humanity is going through, equivalent to the psychosis of a world war. Regarding the 2 hypotheses on the origin of this virus – natural or human – there are not enough arguments on either side. For us, it is important now to know what we need to do to save ourselves! Regardless of its origin, we know that the virus is a biological entity, endowed with its own intelligence, which seems to be in competition with the human one. For the moment, we find that the intelligence of the virus is in the advantage, but it cannot be defeated. There is only one thing left to do beyond the means recommended by doctors: to increase our body’s ability to defend itself, ie immunity, to become invulnerable to the action of the virus. According to Professor Dumitru Constantin Dulcan: „translated in terms of physics, it means to increase our vibration to a higher level than that of the virus. We know now, thanks to laboratory studies, that what we think has a positive or harmful action on the body, on the environment and space, depending on its own vibration. The low vibrations emitted by our thoughts and actions lowered our immunity and made us vulnerable to a lot of pathogens, bringing us where we are! How should we think to increase our immunity? We need to overcome our fear first. Its vibration places us below that of the virus. It is absolutely necessary to control everything we think and feel! Let’s turn the energy of fear into a positive one, simply changing the feeling of fear with another of a positive color: a pleasant memory, lived in the past or projected in the future, a prayer, a meditation, a favorite music, a pleasant reading. The feeling of joy, good mood, gratitude and gratitude because we still exist, has a chemistry favorable to health. In no moment should we remain uncovered now, overwhelmed by sadness, fear, weakness in the face of the fatal spectacle we are witnessing. Even isolated at home, we can move with a rich literature in this regard. Personal hygiene should also not be neglected. Let’s not forget! Our physical body is the temple of the spirit, and the healthy mind can only be in a healthy body. Asked by his disciples how he healed a young man with epilepsy, Jesus answered them: by faith, prayer, and fasting. Despite those who may be skeptical of this advice, we currently have strong scientific arguments, with experiences made by scientists. I would cite as examples only studies conducted at Harvard University and the Heart Institute of California. It is time to understand that we arrived here only through the arrogance with which we wanted to dominate our fellow men, to denigrate and annihilate them. We are what we think! We are in the 12th hour. If we do not learn anything from this experience, the 13th hour could be fatal. And let’s not forget: the Lord always asks for a little and gives much more, with the measure back!

For what reason, President Donald Trump ordered the reopening of places of worship, passing even over the governors of the states? Because there must be a meaning to God, even if we do not perceive it. A question that often disturbs our Christian conscience, and that we all ask ourselves, along with other questions such as: Why diseases? Why the infirmities? Why are some born with diseases and infirmities? Honestly, we all ask ourselves such questions. And we don’t all know how to answer. You can’t always answer. But is there an answer? Even if only indirectly, it exists. Even the questions we cannot answer, we answer with the belief that everything that happens in the world makes sense. God is a logical God, a God of meaning, not nonsense, not arbitrage. Even if we do not understand the meaning of a thing, we have the belief that in all there is a logic of God. Without this faith we would be completely disarmed and disoriented. Faith gives us hope in a sense and arms us with serenity and patience, even in the most disconcerting cases. We find, on the basis of this belief, some explanations, even if, taken on closer examination, they still hide many mysteries and many unanswered questions remain. But the great answer swallows them all: There must be a meaning to God, even if we do not perceive it! If there is a God, everything makes sense! There is no other way. Our minds reject arbitrariness and absurdity, and God has taught us by ordinance and logic. We may think, for example, that God allows the infirm to be born, to enlighten our minds, to compare by comparison what goods we have and which we do not always know how to value. Let’s imagine: how much are the feet of a man born without legs or whose legs were amputated? And how much do we value them? How grateful are we for them? It is true that when we think in this way, seeking a justification, another thought comes to us: how can we admit such an unjust harshness, with some, of God, in order to make of ourselves instruments for the enlightenment of others? We do not always know how God motivates His actions. Does this explain everything? Obviously not! But this is not a reason to reVol.t or lose our faith. What do we know, for example, about the mystery of the living being, about the senses, about intelligence, about love, about hatred, about the stars? The mysteries come to strengthen our faith, not to diminish it. The mysteries, the unanswered ones reveal to us that Someone else is responsible for us. That if we were the authors of the world, we would know them all! Let us take the example of the great scholars whom the mysteries which they cannot penetrate bring them closer to God. Here is what Einstein wrote: “Know that there is indeed something impenetrable to us, which manifests itself as a supreme wisdom and as an incomparable beauty, which our modest means can perceive only in the most primitive drills — this knowledge, this feeling is at the heart of true religiosity. in this sense they belong to the category of deeply religious people”(What I believe, 1930). A well-known astronomer, CarlSagan, writes just as beautifully: “When you face such deep mysteries, I think it is wise to feel a certain humility”[37].

There are, therefore, questions that we can answer in part, but even when we cannot answer them at all, we must know that they all belong to an order of God, which is certainly well justified from His point of view. I thought of these lines not as a theological excursion into the fundamental truths of the faith, but, with the intention of helping readers, to arm themselves with arguments for defending their faith against those who would try to entice them to atheism or neo-Marxism. It becomes important now, exactly what was previously secondary and totally neglected, that is, the heart, the state of mind, justice and truth, which accompanied the rituals, prayer and sacrifice. A real spiritual revolution. No wonder those accustomed to the old ones could not in any way receive the new ones. They could not understand this radical change of centuries-old mentalities and traditions. In fact, just trying to change them cost Jesus his life. There is nothing harder to fight than with the traditions, entered in the consciousness of the people, even when they become absurd and lose their original meanings. Only through sacrifices can the old be overcome again, the irrational the rational, the faith unbelief.

In conclusion, we believe that the fight against Covid-19 must not turn into a fight between the right to health care and fundamental human rights. The real challenge is to identify socially acceptable measures and acceptance cannot take place as long as fundamental rights and freedoms are seriously threatened. This is because any violation of fundamental human rights principles is in fact a violation of our very right to respect for life and health. As Yuval Noah Harari said in the article “The world after coronavirus”: “Asking people to choose between privacy and health is, in fact, the very root of the problem”[38]. What is certain is that this crisis has become an opportunity for world leaders – visible or not – to establish a new socio-economic order. Politicians, we know your intention to pass the Vaccination Mandate Act quickly in the coming days, although we are all in a state of emergency or alert, but we do not understand at all this rush to force vaccination of both children and adults. Romania, so that no one escapes. Have you established the plan of attack with Bill Gates, why do you want so much to make the plan of the world elites or is there something else in between? You forbade us to take part in the protests, you forced us into houses, you made our mothers, fathers and grandparents sick from our hearts, we shaved our forests, we filled us with 5G antennas, and now you want us to do you exterminate us and our children? Well, you won’t succeed! The other day, Mr. Raed Arafat threatened us that we would not return to our old lives until we were vaccinated against Covid 19. Really? Well, in this case, I’m telling you that I won’t be vaccinated against Covid even when I’m dead, so leave the coercion, because I’m not a cow from the farm so that I don’t understand what’s better for me. Who are you to force me to be vaccinated against all the microbes on Earth? As long as I have discernment, I can decide for myself, moreover, the Fundamental Law of the country guarantees my freedom of choice, as such every person has the right to dispose of himself, according to personal beliefs. The truth is that the elites have taken your mind by imposing your Machiavellian agenda, and now we are locked in your house because you want us to not be able to immunize ourselves naturally in order to produce antibodies against Covid 19, although it has been shown that this viral infection is far from lethal, approaching the death rate of a simple flu.Yes, this pandemic has not left millions dead at all, as originally announced by WHO “specialists”, and studies clearly show that the Covid 19 death rate is currently between 0.01% and 0.05 %. For this percentage, Bill Gates, Dr. Fauci, the Democrats in the USA and their gang of globalists have destroyed the lives of several billion people, leaving behind a real disaster.

But soon the investigations will start in their case as well and they will give an account for what they did, planning this coup with Covid a few years ago. And now they are desperate that people from all over the world have begun to take to the streets to earn a right to a normal life. But no, we do not have this right, just because you believe you are our masters and then your goal is to inject us by force. Only I caught your trick, as such I officially announce that I will NOT stay home on the day of the vote on the law on compulsory vaccination. Just as thousands of people in Israel have protested peacefully for their cause, respecting social distance and other rules, so will I. And if you do not respect the provisions of the Military Ordinance and you want to trample on the rights of millions of Romanians who want to decide for themselves, then I do not see why I should listen to you. If you vote for the Law on Mandatory Vaccination, in violation of the Constitution and the international treaties to which Romania has adhered, you will be charged with a crime against humanity and in this case I will go to all courts to win my last remaining right. Well, he is not negotiating with anyone, as such you cannot submit him to any vote and I urge you all to take a break with the Coercion Law, because you will not find in the Country Budget at least 1 billion Euros every year to vaccine by force on all. Remember that the draft law on compulsory vaccination was rejected in the Budget-Finance Committee in Parliament, precisely because it is not economically feasible.

Focus on what you have to do, because a bigger crisis is coming than in 2008, as such you risk taking us all out into the streets if we start to have empty wallets because of the chaotic measures you have taken in during the pandemic. If before we borrowed from strangers like crazy when everything was going awry, you realize what a lot of shit we are all in now. Yes, there is no more money for any social need and at this moment the adoption of the Vaccination Law is not justified, becauseyou will kill us for days. Decision-makers, I am convinced that not all of you have made a pact with the devil, think carefully about what you will do, because we will not stand idly by and fight as we have never done before, because this Law on wanting to vote is a direct attack on the bodily integrity of our families. You will be aware of us if you commit such an iniquity, so end this madness sooner, so that we too may soon be free. Dear Romanians, you know what will happen if this Law is passed and I inform you that you will no longer be able to drive or work if you do not get vaccinated against Covid 19. The current Law clearly states that the entire population of Romania will be vaccinated if the government or the WHO declares a state of epidemic or pandemic on our territory. And you’ve seen how easy it is to declare a pandemic these days, haven’t you? We will have an epidemic every year, this will happen, as such we have a moral duty to start communicating with our deputies in all ways, so that they can better understand the purpose of this law. In conclusion, vaccination is NOT an obligation, but a choice, so everyone is free to choose for himself. And we will fight for this freedom! May God protect us and protect us!

We are now experiencing a dramatic change in the world. The changes have existed before, but the pandemic has radically accelerated this process. Covid-19 acts as a global and strategic shock that has a massive impact on Europe’s security and prosperity. How much we are left behind with these changes. We live in a world where the Chinese no longer set the tone, but the Americans. If the coronavirus crisis has shown anything clear, it is that China is on its way to global power, while the US is withdrawing. The predictable world of the West, as we know it from the Cold War, now belongs to the past. Many pillars that guarantee our security and prosperity will be broken. And there could be a big fight between China and the United States. The first rehearsal of restriction of liberties with covid 19 provided the New World Government with practical knowledge about the degree of resistance in the streets and on social media. Something we used to imagine science fiction, now we live and we will live as a daily reality. Unfortunately, we live in an age where we all talk about rights and we are constantly referring to the rights we have. We say, “Lord, teach me my righteousness (dikaiamata),” “Long live my kingdom,” while the prayer of the Prophet David is, “Teach me thy righteousness,” and Christ taught us to pray in these words, „Thy will be done,”” Thy kingdom come. “We are always talking about rights. If we read the ideas and philosophy of the Enlightenment, we will find that at the heart of its teaching are human rights. Of course, we do not deny these rights, which, incidentally, But the problem arises when we see only the rights, without having a sense of our duties, and especially when we are not able to live this kenotic ethos, of self-vanity, of Vol.untary devotion.

The following bibliographical indications have no other purpose than to provide a general orientation to the reader who would like to deepen any of the researched topics. As a source for the doctrine and jurisprudence of public law, he will have to resort to the collection of the Journal of Public Law, UniversulJuridic Publishing House. Particularly important in this area of ​​understanding the consequences of administrative crises are the Scientific Notebooks of the I.S.A. „Paul Negulescu”, UniversulJuridic Publishing House, 2010-2019, but also the Vol.umes published by S.A.Ș.A. following the debates on good governance and the right to good administration, Comunicare.ro Publishing House, 2009-2019.With regard to our topic, we appreciate that the treaties and works below are comprehensive.

Bibliography

 

Books

1. Alexandru, Ioan, About law and the science of administration, Editura Universul Juridic, București, 2009
2. Bălan, Emil; Iftene Cristi; Văcărelu Marius, Public administration in crisis situations, authors, Editura Wolters Kluwer, București, 2015
3. Dufour, J.-L, International crises, Editura Corint, București, 2002
4. Florea, C., Restoring the constitutional order in the situation of establishing exceptional states, Editura Sitech, Craiova, 2007
5. Henry, Nicolas, Public Administration and Public Affairs, Editura Cartier, București, 2005
6. Muraru, I.,  Romanian Constitution. Commentary on articles, Editura C.H. Beck, București, 2008
7. Parlagi, A.P., Dictionary of public administration, Editura Economică, București, 2000
8. Pop Ioan-Aurel, History, truth and myths, Editura Enciclopedică, București, 2014
9. Sudre, Fr., European and International Human Rights Law, EdituraPolirom, 2006

10.  Vasilescu, M.; Radu, R.H.; I. G. Popa; I.A. Neagu; G. Munteanu; M.I. Morariu; R.M. Călin; D. A. Călin; I. Cambrea,  Dictionary of Human Rights, Editura C.H. Beck, București, 2013