Therefore, in the first hypothesis, the demand should be directly introduced to the Court, following the legal procedure. In the second hypothesis, the contestation should be formulated to the National Contestations Solving Board, and a plaint against the decision of this organ can also be formulated to a Court.
THROUGH THE DECISION NO. 5/2015, THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT ESTABLISHES THAT IN THE PUBLIC ACQUISITIONS AREA THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF CONTESTING THE CONTRACTING AUTHORITY’S ACT DIRECTLY TO THE COURT OR TO THE NATIONAL CONTESTATIONS SOLVING BOARD.
At the same time, the Government Emergency Ordinance no. 34/2006 concerning the assigning of public acquisition contracts, public work concession contracts and services concession contracts, establishes that in the purpose of protecting the competent authority from the risk of an eventual inappropriate behavior, the petitioner has the obligation to constitute the good conduct guaranty for the entire period starting from the date when the contestation/ demand/ complaint has been handed in, until the date when the Board’s Decision or the Court’s Decision becomes definitive.
In this context, the Court notes that unconditionally keeping the good behavior guaranty affects the private property right, regulated by the Art. 44 of the Constitution, and that the diminution of the patrimony of the contestation/ demand/ complaint authors cannot be the direct consequence of exercising a right, a fundamental liberty or a procedural right.
Published in The Romanian Official Gazette no. 188 of the 19th of March 2015
The act has entered into force on the 19th of March 2015
Issuer: The Constitutional Court