Last but not least, in 2010 the first juridical conflict of a constitutional nature was between the Parliament and the Government and centered around the bill on the national education and later that same year, another conflict ensued again between the same public authorities.
In essence, it appears that the political affiliation which was most actively involved in constitutional conflicts was the Democrat-Liberal one (or the Democrat, prior to December 2006), mainly through the Presidential authority and the post-2008 Government.
The Constitutional Prerogatives Which Were Violated in the Conflicts
The second important variable in analyzing the role of the Romanian Constitutional Court in safeguarding the checks and balances principle is, naturally, that of the constitutional prerogatives which were presumably violated in the conflicts.
The first juridical conflict of a constitutional nature was brought to the Court's attention by the President of the Chamber of Deputies on the 8th of January 2005, claiming that the following Constitutional provisions had been broken: that of art.
2006, the President of the Superior Council of Magistracy considered that the Constitutional stipulations of articles 1, paragraph 4) (35), 80, paragraph 2) (36) and 133, paragraph 2 (37) had been disregarded by the behavior and public declarations of the President Traian Basescu, the Prime-Minister Calin Popescu Tariceanu and several members of his Cabinet--in brief, this was a conflict between the judicial branch and the two parts of the executive, over certain political statements made by the latter.
Then, in 2007, the Prime-Minister Calin Popescu Tariceanu notified the Constitutional Court on a constitutional conflict in which the President was accused of refusing to fulfill his duties with regard to nominating a new minister at the proposal of the Prime-Minister and as such violating a series of constitutional provisions on this matter under articles 80, 85, 86, 87, 91, 103, 106 and 107 on which I will not further develop at this point (38), but basically, this was a negative juridical conflict of a constitutional nature, in which the President refused to fulfill certain attributions regarding the approval of the nomination of Ministers, fact which led to an inter-branch conflict in the dual executive of the Romanian political system.
Later that same year, in the most complex decision of the Romanian Constitutional Court which compiled three notifications of presumed juridical conflicts of a constitutional nature which, nonetheless, all dealt with the same issue in the matter of the criminal investigations of four Cabinet members who were also Parliament members, art.
At the end of 2008, in the conflict between the President Traian Basescu and the High Court of Cassation and Justice as representative of the judicial branch, there was just one constitutional provision, namely that of art.
In addition, the first conflict of 2009 between the judicial authority, on the one hand, and the Romanian Parliament and Government on the other disputed the supposed violation of the following Constitutional provisions: art.
Finally, a similar situation occurred in 2010, when two juridical conflicts of a constitutional nature between public authorities shared the same articles of the Fundamental Law in their dispute--that between the Parliament and the Government on the bill of the national education--respectively art.
Therefore, after an overview of the constitutional provisions which were violated in the juridical conflicts of a constitutional nature between public authorities and which were brought forth to the Romanian Constitutional Court, as well as of the parties involved in these conflicts, it appears that most of them occurred between the President and the Parliament (3), followed closely by the conflicts between the President and the judicial authority (2) and those between the Government and the judicial authority (2).