In order to answer this question, it is necessary to explain what are the "juridical conflicts of a constitutional nature" that the Constitutional Courts are entrusted to solve.
The opinions or suggestions "regarding the manner in which a certain public authority or its structures act or should act, although critical in content, are not likely to generate institutional blockages unless they are followed by actions and/or inactions of a nature to forbid the fulfillment of the constitutional attributions of those public authorities.
Therefore, it appears that the positive definition specifies what a juridical conflict of a constitutional nature is and what are the conditions for certain disputes to be considered to belong to this category, whereas the negative definition clearly specifies what type of disputes--albeit, more frequent--are not classified as juridical conflicts of a constitutional nature, but mere personal and/or political disputes which do not infringe on any Constitutional rights of other public authorities.
Another relevant issue as to determining the purpose of assigning such a role to the Constitutional Courts is that of establishing the public authorities which may be involved in a juridical conflict of a constitutional nature.
Therefore, it appears that the Romanian Constitutional Court has decided to adopt a narrower definition of the public authorities, meant to prevent an overwhelming quantity of claims of a juridical conflict of a constitutional nature which was quite likely to be generated by the political parties or the parliamentary groups pertaining to this category.
Finally, an exception to these theoretical delimitations which came to be through practice is the statement according to which a juridical conflict of constitutional nature cannot exist between the judicial branches, including between the High Court of Cassation and Justice, and other public authorities, as the courts would need to analyze and solve their general competency ex officio (19).
146, paragraph e) of the Fundamental Law of 200322, the Romanian Constitutional Court has been granted the prerogative to solve the juridical conflicts of a constitutional nature between the public authorities, a power which follows the model of other European states, such as Poland (23), for instance.
The empirical analysis that supports the previously-presented ideas regarding the topic of this paper is actually based on the decisions of the Romanian Constitutional Court regarding the juridical conflicts of a constitutional nature between the public authorities that have been taken from 2005 until 2010, namely the Decision No.
Although not particularly excessively numerous, the decisions of the Romanian Constitutional Court regarding the cases in which it was required to solve the supposedly juridical conflicts of a constitutional nature between public authorities have gradually increased (25) and, on the whole, they are more numerous than in other European states in which the Constitutional Courts have the same attribution--the best example in point being that of Poland, which is also a post-communist state.
Hence, by analyzing all of the cases brought to the Constitutional Court from 2005 until 2010, it appears that the Parliament has been involved in most of the juridical conflicts of a constitutional nature--8 times, followed closely by the President and the Government, with 7 conflicts each.
However, it is important to keep in mind that the Constitutional Court does not necessarily need to be notified by one of the parties that are involved in the conflict, thus implying that any public authority can refer a case to the Court (26).
In 2005, the first juridical conflict of a constitutional nature was between the President and the Romanian Parliament and therefore, in terms of their respective political affiliations, between the Democrat Party and the Social Democrat Party which was represented both in the Chamber of Deputies and in the Senate by Adrian Nastase and Nicolae Vacaroiu;