SOME CONSIDERATION REGARDING THE ART. 35 … 05 11.pdf · Ioan Muraru, Simina Tănăsescu, Drept constituţional şi instituţii politice, vol. I, All Beck Publishing House, Bucharest,

Iulian Boldea (Editor) - Literature, Discourses and the Power of Multicultural Dialogue Arhipelag XXI Press, Tîrgu Mureș, 2017. eISBN: 978-606-8624-12-9

83 Section: Social Sciences

SOME CONSIDERATION REGARDING THE ART. 35 FROM ROMANIAN CONSTITUTION

Daniela Cristina Valea

Assoc. Prof., PhD, ”Petru Maior” University of Tîrgu Mureș

Abstract: the romanian state, through romanian constitution, republished, recognizes everyone‟s right

to a healthy, well preserved and ecologically balanced environment. starting from these provisions found in the article 35 para. 1 from romanian constitution, in the title ii regarding the fundamental

rights, freedoms and duties, the right to a healthy environment is a human fundamental right. also, the

romanian constitution establishes, in article 35 para. 3, that all individuals and corporate bodies are subject to the duty to protect and improve the environment. based on this text, i think that we can talk

about a fundamental duty as well.

in this paper we will address some aspects regarding the dual legal nature and the content of the right

to a healthy environment using, in particular, the jurisprudence of the romanian constitutional court in this matter.

Keywords: right to a healthy environment; protection of the environment; fundamental right; fundamental duty; jurisprudence of the romanian constitutional court.

Considering the criterion of the content and the purpose pursued1, the right to a

healthy environment2 is part of the category of social-economic rights, respectively, those

fundamental rights and freedoms which aim to ensure exclusively the material or cultural

development of individuals3 (linked to the economic

4 and social basis of the society

5).

Moreover, according to the chronological criterion, it is part of the ―third generation‖ rights,

their embodiment being largely based on the cooperation between states6, but we consider that

an important role belongs also to the individual, whether natural or legal person, both

according to the level of culture and ecological education, and in terms of day-to-day conduct.

It is a fundamental right of complex significance involving the responsibility7 of the State but

also of all individuals in an inflected effort to protect the environment8.

1 Ioan Muraru, Simina Tănăsescu, Drept constituţional şi instituţii politice, vol. I, All Beck Publishing House,

Bucharest, 2006, pp. 156 and 157; Bianca Selejan-Guţan, in I. Muraru and E.S. Tănăsescu (coord.), Constituţia

României – comentariu pe articole, C.H. Beck Publishing House, Bucharest, 2008, p. 326. 2 For details, see Ernest Lupan Dreptul la un mediu sănătos în legislaţia românească, in ―Juridical Current‖ no. 3-

4/2003, pp. 120-134. 3 Tudor Draganu, Drept constituţional şi instituţii politice – tratat elementar, Lumina Lex Publishing House,

Bucharest, 2000, vol. I, p. 155. 4Andrea Kajcsa, The role of Economy as material source of law, in „Curentul Juridic‖ Journal, no. 1/2014, pp.

65-63. 5 *** Drepturile şi libertăţile individuale – componentă esenţială a noii Constituţii a României, editorial in the

Journal ―Dreptul‖ no. 2/1992, p. 9. 6 Genoveva Vrabie, Marius Bălan, Organizarea politico-etatică a României, European Institute, Iaşi, 2004, p. 314. 7Cristina M. Kassai, Safeguarding the environment by choosing Green Public Procurement, in „Curentul

Juridic‖ Journal, no. 3/2017, pp. 33-39; Dragoș Chilea, Justice and democracy defeated by human rights, in

„Curentul Juridic‖ Journal, no. 4/2016, pp. 77-84. 8 Marieta Safta, Drept constituțional și instituții politice, vol. I Teoria generală a dreptului constituțional.

Drepturi și libertăți, Hamangiu Publishing House, Bucharest, 2014, p. 208.



The European context

In defining the concept and the status of the right to a healthy environment, the

international acts concluded and the human rights statements have been decisive. At European

level, we mention Article 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on

the Protection of the Environment according to which ―a high level of environmental

protection and the improvement of the quality of the environment must be integrated into the

policies of the Union and ensured in accordance with the principle of sustainable

development‖9; the Aarhus Convention adopted on 25 June 1998; the European Convention

for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter the European

Convention).

Even though the text of the European Convention has not explicitly enshrined the right

to a healthy environment, this fundamental right is still acknowledged nowadays, defended

and guaranteed in a ―praetorian‖ way, through the jurisprudence of the European Court of

Human Rights (hereinafter ECHR).

Thus, in the European Court case law, the right of the individual to live in a healthy

environment was circumscribed to the scope of the right to life provided by Article 8 of the

European Convention, together with the private life, family, domicile and post delivery,

physical and psychic integrity, the intimate sphere of the individual, the individual‘s right to

establish and develop relationships with others. Through its jurisdiction, the ECHR has thus

enshrined the right to a healthy environment as a component of the right to privacy, outlining

its contents on two coordinates10

: which could be called ―general principles in the field of

environmental law‖ and the state obligations11

.

Thus, the right to a healthy environment is a fundamental right circumscribed to the

sphere of the right to private life, the protection within Article 8 para. 1 and Article 6 para. of

the European Convention being extended also to this right. It has been ruled that pollution of

any kind (noise pollution, harmful chemical emissions, nuclear radiation, etc.) can harm the

right to privacy, or it can affect a person‟s physical well-being and may deprive the normal

use of his home, regardless the existence of a serious danger to the individual‘s health12

.

The content of the right to a healthy environment also includes the person‟s right to

information on the risks of pollution and the quality of the environment. Thus, it is the State‘s

duty to take all the necessary measures to stop or reduce any form of pollution, but also the

obligation to provide relevant information on the serious risks of pollution, both information

available to the general public and information which by their nature are not directly

accessible13

.

The Strasbourg Court has also held that the harm brought to the right to a healthy

environment through pollution gives rise to the right of obtaining a fair satisfaction, by

exercising the right to a fair trial, with all its inherent consequences14

.

9 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/RO/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A12012P%2FTXT. 10 ECHR - Judgment of 25 April 1978 in the case of Tyrer v. the United Kingdom; ECHR - Judgment of 21

February 1990 in the case Powell and Rayner v. The United Kingdom; ECHR - Judgment of 9 December 1994

in the case Lopez Ostra and Others v. Spain; ECHR - Judgment of 19 February 1998 in the case Guerra and

Others v. Italy; ECHR - Judgment of 16 November 2004 in the case of Moreno Gomez v. Spain; ECHR -

Judgment of 20 March 2008 in the case Budayena v. Russia; ECHR - Judgment of 30 November 2004 in the

case Oneryildiz v. Turkey; ECHR - Judgment of 8 July 2003 in the case Hatton v. the United Kingdom; ECHR -

Judgment of 10 November 2004 in the case Tashkin and Others v. Turkey. 11

Răzvan-Horaţiu Radu, Bogdan Cristea, Considerații referitoare la dreptul la mediu în jurisprudența Curții

Europene a Drepturilor Omului, in the journal ―Dreptul‖, no. 7/2009, pp. 217-219. 12 Mircea Duţu, Recunoașterea și garantarea dreptului fundamental la un mediu sănătos, in the Journal

―Dreptul‖, no. 6/2004, pp. 102-103. 13 Mircea Duţu, art. cit., pp. 103-104. 14 Mircea Duţu, art.cit., p. 102.



The right to a healthy environment is one of those fundamental rights whose content

materializes especially through the established obligations.

In the case of the right to a healthy environment, these obligations are in fact

guarantees of the law, but also prerequisites for the accountability of the state15

.

It is the jurisprudence of the ECHR which has given consistency to guaranteeing the

right to a healthy environment by linking these guarantees to the (negative and positive)

obligations imposed on the State aiming to ensure the effectiveness of the protected rights16

.

The State has a principled negative duty and that is to refrain from interference. The positive

obligations are materialized by taking reasonable and appropriate measures able to protect the

rights to privacy and domicile and, in general, to a healthy environment17

, such as:

- developing the necessary legislative and administrative framework to ensure the

protection of the environment and human health;

- the State‘s obligation to assume authorization, implementation, exploitation, security

and control of potentially hazardous activities for the environment and humans;

- carrying out tests, surveys and studies to prevent and anticipate the harmful effects of

different activities in advance, and to establish a fair balance between the competing interests

at stake;

- ensuring that the public has access to information that will enable them to assess the

dangers they face;

- the obligation, based on the precautionary principle, of acting without delay in taking

effective measures capable of preventing or eliminating the risk of serious and irreversible

damage;

- guaranteeing access to justice.

The right to a healthy environment was thus enforced in the gallery of fundamental

rights, linked to the right to privacy and protected by the mechanisms and instruments of the

European Convention.

The national context

Complying with the European and world tendencies in this field, as well as the

obligations assumed by Romania in the process of accession to the European Union, the

Romanian legislator has given the right to a healthy environment an express constitutional

regulation, thus placing it at the level of fundamental right also in the domestic law.

According to Article 35 of the Romanian Constitution republished18

, the Romanian

state (our outline) - recognizes the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.

The state also provides the legal framework for the exercise of this right. In order to outline

the content of the right to a healthy environment, the duty of natural and legal persons to

protect and improve the environment was established.

This provision was introduced in the text of the Basic Law19

once with the

constitutional review process that took place in 200320

.

15 Genoveva Vrabie, Marius Bălan, Organizarea politico-etatică a României, European Institute, Iasi, 2004, p.

360. 16 Mircea Duţu, art. cit., p. 104; Răzvan-Horaţiu Radu, Bogdan Cristea, art. cit., p. 219; Petrică Truşcă, Andrada

Trușcă Trandafir, Dreptul fundamantal la un mediu sănătos în jurisprudența CEDO, in the Transylvanian

Journal of Administrative Sciences, no. 1 (23)/2009, p. 103. 17

ECHR - Decision of 27 January 2009 in the case Tătar and Tătar v. Romania; ECHR - Judgment of

07.07.2009 in the case Brândușe v. Romania. 18 The revised Constitution was republished in the Official Journal of Romania no. 767 of 31 October 2003. 19 The Romanian Constitution of 1991 was adopted by the Constituent Assembly on 21 November 1991 and

approved by the national referendum organized for that purpose on 8 December 1991, the date of its entry into

force.



Even before including the right to a healthy environment in the Constitution, there was

a legal framework – at the constitutional level - on the obligation to protect the environment.

First of all, Article 134 para. 2 letter e) from the Constitution of Romania, before the

revision, imposed on the state the obligation to ensure the restoration and protection of the

environment, as well as the preservation of the ecological balance, an obligation maintained in

the current Article 135 para. 2 letter e) of the Romanian Constitution republished. In

correlation with this obligation, we consider that it is also necessary to mention the duty of

creating the necessary conditions for the increase of the quality of life (formerly Article 134

paragraph 2 letter f), which became after the revision Article 135 para. 2 letter f) because a

high (or even reasonable) quality of life is compatible only with a healthy and

environmentally balanced environment.

Secondly, Article 41 para. 6 of the Constitution of Romania (now Article 44 paragraph

7 after the revision) stipulated the owner‘s obligation to exercise the prerogatives of the right

to property by complying the tasks related to environmental protection.

Thirdly, through and under Article 11 and 20 of the Constitution (which maintained

their number after the revision), international provisions in the field had already entered into

the sphere of domestic law, by accepting them, the Romanian state being committed to a

number of obligations.

On a secondary framework, the following may also be considered: the Environmental

Protection Law no. 137 of 29 December 199521

, repealed by G.E.O. no. 195 of 22 December

2005 on the protection of the environment; Water Law no. 107 no. 107 of 25 September

199622

; Law no. 86 of 10 May 2000 ratifying the Convention on Access to Information,

public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, signed

at Aarhus on 25 June 199823

; Law no. 360 of 2 September 2003 on the regime of dangerous

chemicals and preparations24

.

After the review of 2003, the State‘s efforts to create an appropriate legislative

framework continued, with the adoption of: Law no. 157 of 24 May 2005 on the accession of

Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union25

; Law no. 265 of 29 June 2006 for the

approval of G.E.O. no. 195 of 2005 on environmental protection26

; Hunting and Protection of

Hunting Fund Law no. 407 of 9 November 200627

; G.E.O. no. 152 of 10 November 2005 on

Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control28

, repealed by Law no. 278 of 24 October 2013

on industrial emissions29

; G.E.O. no. 23 of 5 March 2008 on fishing and aquaculture30

.

20 Revision Law no. 429 of 18 September 2003, approved by a national referendum organized for this purpose.

On 29 October 2003 it was published in the Official Journal of Romania no. 758 of 29 October 2003 (date on which it entered into force), with the publication of the Constitutional Court‘s judgment no. 3 of 22 October

2003 to confirm the outcome of the referendum. 21 Republished in the Official Journal of Romania no. 70 of 17 February 2000 and repealed by G.E.O. no. 195 of

22 December 2005 on environmental protection, published in the Official Journal of Romania no. 1196 of 30

December 2005. 22 Published in the Official Journal of Romania no. 244 of 8 October 1996, as subsequently amended and

supplemented. 23 Published in the Official Journal of Romania no. 244 of 22 May 2000. 24 Published in the Official Journal of Romania no. 634 of 5 September 2003, republished in the Official Journal

of Romania no. 178 of 12 March 2014. 25 Published in the Official Journal of Romania no. 465 of 1 June 2005. 26 Published in the Official Journal of Romania no. 586 of 6 July 2006. 27

Published in the Official Journal of Romania no. 944 of 22 November 2006. 28 Published in the Official Journal of Romania no. 1078 of 30 November 2005. 29 Published in the Official Journal of Romania no. 671 of 1 November 2013. 30 Published in the Official Journal of Romania no. 180 of 10 March 2008, substantially modified by Law no.

317 of 13 October 2009 for the approval of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 23/2008 on fishing and

aquaculture, published in the Official Journal of Romania no. 708 of 21 October 2009.



The national legislative framework, in line with the European exigencies, also imposes

those general principles capable of ensuring the fulfillment of the positive obligations of the

state and the achievement of the objective imposed by the declaration of environmental

protection, an objective of major public interest and by the conceptual constraints imposed by

the ―sustainable development of society‖, respecting the democratic values and rule of law31

.

Thus we mention the precautionary principle in decision-making; the principle of preventive

action; public information and participation in decision-making; free access to justice; the

principle of biodiversity and ecosystems conservation specific to the natural bio-geographical

framework; the sustainable use of natural resources; the principle of retaining pollutants at

source; the ―polluter pays‖ principle; the principle of integrating environmental policy into

other sector policies.

Actual means of achieving these objectives are provided by Article 4 from G.E.O. no.

195/2005: integrated pollution prevention and control using best available techniques for

activities with significant environmental impact; adopting development programs by

complying with the requirements of environmental policy; the correlation between the

territory planning and the urban planning with the environment; carrying out environmental

assessment before approving plans and programs that can have a significant effect on the

environment; environmental impact assessment in the initial phase of projects with significant

environmental impact; promoting normative acts harmonized with European and international

regulations in the field; creating a national integrated environmental monitoring system;

recognition of products with a low environmental impact through the award of the Ecolabel;

rehabilitation of areas affected by pollution; education and public awareness, as well as its

participation in the development and implementation of environmental decisions; removal of

pollutants with priority that directly and seriously endanger human health.

For example, the constitutional court has determined that ―the restrictive regulation of

the spaces where smoking is permitted32

is an option of the legislator, stating the

constitutional provisions which guarantee the right to life and the right to physical and mental

integrity of the person [Article 22 para. 1], the right to health care, while establishing the

State‘s obligation to take measures in ensuring hygiene and public health [Article 34 para. 1

and 2], the right of every person to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment,

respectively the obligation of the state to provide the legal framework for the exercise of this

right [Article 35 para. 1 and 2], as well as the right of children and young people to special

protection and assistance in the achievement of their rights [Article 49 para. 1]‖. The

constitutional provisions referred to above ―impose a number of positive obligations on the

state, which imply appropriate legislative measures for their implementation, for which the

legislator has a wide margin of appreciation, to protect the constitutional rights of citizens,

regardless they are smokers or non-smokers.‖33

Although the Romanian Constitution does not provide a legal definition, it uses the

notions of environmentally healthy and ecologically balanced, notions defined in some way

by the subsequent legislation. Thus, ―ecological equilibrium‖ consists of all the states and

interrelationships between the elements of an ecological system, which ensure the

maintenance of its structure, its functioning and its ideal dynamics‖. Moreover ―environment‖

is defined as ―the set of natural conditions and elements of the Earth: air, water, soil, subsoil,

landscape features, all atmospheric layers, all organic and inorganic matter, also the living

31Lucian Chiriac, L‟organisation d‟une justice indépendante – partie du mécanisme de construction de l‟état du

droit, in „Curentul Juridic‖ Journal, no. 2/2013, pp. 21-24. 32 Law no. 15/2016 for the amendment and supplementation the Law no. 349/2002 for the prevention and control

of the effects of tobacco products consumption, the Official Journal of Romania no. 72 of 1 February 2016.

33 Decision no. 29 of 27 January 2016, published in the Official Journal of Romania no. 196 of 16 March 2016.



beings, natural interaction systems including the elements listed above, including some

material and spiritual values, quality of life and conditions which can influence the welfare

and health of man‖ (Article 2 of G.E.O. no. 195/2005).

Starting from the legal provisions, the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced

environment can be defined as the fundamental right consisting of that subjective right of the

individual, essential for physical existence and mental integrity, for the individual‘s material

and intellectual development, provided by the fundamental law, to live in an environment that

provides him/her with a certain level of quality of life, well-being and health.

The notion of a healthy environment implies not only an unpolluted environment, but

also an ecologically balanced environment, as established by the Declaration of Principles of

Human Rights and the Environment, which expressly recognizes the cultural and spiritual

importance of the natural environment34

.

The jurisprudence of the Romanian Constitutional Court in this matter

In defining the concept of the right to a healthy environment as a fundamental right,

the Constitutional Court of Romania also has a special role to play35

. It was referred to with

the resolution of the applications to challenge the constitutionality of the legal provisions

which, in the opinion of those who invoked these constitutional challenges, would have been

contrary to the Article 35 of the Constitution of Romania. Some constitutional challenges

even concerned the normative acts that formed the core of the legislative center of the right to

a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, and others focused on different subsequent

normative acts.

The the dual juridical nature comes from both normative regulations and

jurisprudence: both a fundamental subjective right and a fundamental duty for any subject of

law (individual or collective)36

.

By resolving these applications for challenging the constitutionality (all rejected for

that matter), the Constitutional Court of Romania mainly outlined a series of actual ways that

the obligations established under Article 35 of the Constitution of Romania take on, either by

the State or by the (legal) persons. Although, theoretically, the obligations deriving from the

content of the right to a healthy environment are also incumbent on the private individuals, in

the jurisprudence of the Romanian constitutional court there are no references on this matter

yet.

For example, it was stated that the legal provisions of Article 1 para. 2 from O.U.G.

no. 9/201337

which imposed the environmental stamp as a tax liability which is made to the

Environment Fund budget as an income and is used by the Environment Fund Administration

to finance programs and projects for environmental protection, does not harm the right to a

healthy environment. The constitutional court considered that the measures taken by the

legislator in this context had in view the fulfillment of the obligation stipulated by the

34 Lucretia Dogaru, Protecția dreptului la un mediu sănătos în jurisprudența CEDO, in the Journal "Juridical

Current", no. 4/2011, pp.137-144. 35Mircea Criste,Le controle de conventionalite: l'ultime frontiere, in „Curentul Juridic‖Journal, no. 1/2016, pp.

43-55; Ionița Cochințu, Dreptul și obligația Curții Constituționale de a interpreta un text constituțional, in Ionița Cochințu, Marian Enache (coord.), In memoriam Ioan Vida, Hamangiu Publishing House, Bucharest, 2017, p.

133. 36 Petrică Truşcă, Andrada Truşcă Trandafir, Dreptul fundamantal la un mediu sănătos în jurisprudența CEDO,

the Transylvanian Journal of Administrative Sciences, no. 1(23)/2009, p. 118. 37 G.E.O. no. 9/2013 on the environmental schedule for motor vehicles, published in the Official Journal of

Romania no. 119 of 4 March 2013.



respective constitutional norm to take all necessary measures against the polluting actions and

activities that affect the ecological balance38

.

Also, in the view of the Constitutional Court, considering the provisions of Article 35

para. 2 of the Fundamental Law, the provisions of Article 17 para. 3 and 4 of G.E.O. no.

195/2005 are also included. These provisions impose sanctions on the economic operator for

non-compliance with the obligations established by the environmental permit, the

environmental agreement or the integrated environmental permit consisting initially in the

suspension and subsequently in the annulment of these acts (provisions which have been the

object of several constitutional challenges39

).

The Court also gave shape to the scope of the environmental protection tasks provided

in Article 44 para. 7 of the Constitution, considering that the limitation of the exercise of the

right of ownership imposed by Article 71 of the G.E.O. no. 195/200540

on environmental

protection also has a social and moral justification, since the rigorous compliance with these

norms is a major objective, the protection of the environment, and therefore of the existing

green space, being in a direct link with the public health level, which establishes a value of

national interest41

.

By Decision no. 337/2011 the Constitutional Court has stated that the State, in

exercising the obligations imposed by Article 35 of the Constitution may establish rules

according to which ―activities with a possible significant impact on the environment can take

place only on the basis of the integrated environment permit/authorization, referring to the

already existing activities, which are in progress (upon the entry into force of the legal text –

our note) and the ones that will soon start‖, featuring in fact, actual measures that allow

assessment of the ―potential danger they might pose to public hygiene and health or to the

environment‖42

. On this aspect, we also consider that the author of the constitutional

challenge wrongly invoked the unconstitutionality of the challenged text (which imposes the

obligation to obtain the authorization for the first category of activities, which started before

its establishment by law) on the constitutional provisions concerning the right to health

protection and the right to a healthy environment, a stronger argument being that of the

violation of the principle of non-retroactivity of the law provided in Article 15 para. 2 of the

Constitution of Romania, republished.

In conclusion, in the international and European context outlined quite clearly and in

the economic-social and cultural evolution context manifested throughout the 20th century and

the beginning of the 21st century, marked by worrying global phenomena, the right to a

healthy and environmentally balanced environment could only be imposed, as well as at the

constitutional level. Fundamental law, with a dual legal nature, subjective law and at the same

time a fundamental duty, and a profound and complex content, it enjoys a substantial

legislative consecration. To avoid remaining a simple desideratum, we appreciate the need for

38 Decision of the Constitutional Court no. 645 of 11 November 2014, published in the Official Journal of

Romania no. 43 of 19 January 2015; Decision of the Constitutional Court no. 94 of 2 March 2015, published in

the Official Journal of Romania no. 318 10 May 2015; Decision of the Constitutional Court no. 18 of 9 March

2015, published in the Official Journal of Romania on 31 May 2015. 39 Decision of the Constitutional Court no. 92 of 3 March 2015, published in the Official Journal of Romania no.

318 10 May 2015; Decision of the Constitutional Court no. 774 of 18 December 2014, published in the Official

Journal of Romania no. 124 of 18 February 2015. 40 According to which ―the change of the destination of lands set as green spaces and/or provided as such in the urbanism documentation, the reduction of their area or their removal is prohibited, irrespective of their legal

regime‖. 41 Decision of the Constitutional Court no. 1.118 of 8 September 2011, published in the Official Journal of

Romania no. 710 of 7 October 2010. 42 Decision of the Constitutional Court no. 337 of 10.03.2011, published in the Official Journal of Romania no.

364 of 25 May 2011.



a concerted effort, both from the state (actually from the states) and from individuals

(individually or collectively).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Dragoș Chilea, Justice and democracy defeated by human rights, in „Curentul Juridic‖

Journal, no. 4/2016.

Lucian Chiriac, L‟organisation d‟une justice indépendante – partie du mécanisme de

construction de l‟état du droit, in „Curentul Juridic‖ Journal, no. 2/2013.

Ionița Cochințu, Dreptul și obligația Curții Constituționale de a interpreta un text

constituțional, in Ionița Cochințu, Marian Enache (coord.), In memoriam Ioan Vida,

Hamangiu Publishing House, Bucharest, 2017.

Mircea Criste,Le controle de conventionalite: l'ultime frontiere, in „Curentul Juridic‖Journal,

no. 1/2016.

Lucretia Dogaru, Protecția dreptului la un mediu sănătos în jurisprudența CEDO, in the

Journal "Juridical Current", no. 4/2011.

Tudor Draganu, Drept constituţional şi instituţii politice – tratat elementar, Lumina Lex

Publishing House, Bucharest, 2000, vol. I.

Mircea Duţu, Recunoașterea și garantarea dreptului fundamental la un mediu sănătos, in the

Journal ―Dreptul‖, no. 6/2004

Ernest Lupan Dreptul la un mediu sănătos în legislaţia românească, in ―Juridical Current‖

Journal, no. 3-4/2003.

Andrea Kajcsa, The role of Economy as material source of law, in „Curentul Juridic‖ Journal,

no. 1/2014.

Cristina M. Kassai, Safeguarding the environment by choosing Green Public Procurement, in

„Curentul Juridic‖ Journal, no. 3/2017.

Ioan Muraru, Simina Tănăsescu, Drept constituţional şi instituţii politice, vol. I, All Beck

Publishing House, Bucharest, 2006

Răzvan-Horaţiu Radu, Bogdan Cristea, Considerații referitoare la dreptul la mediu în

jurisprudența Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului, in the journal ―Dreptul‖, no. 7/2009.

Marieta Safta, Drept constituțional și instituții politice, vol. I Teoria generală a dreptului

constituțional. Drepturi și libertăți, Hamangiu Publishing House, Bucharest, 2014.

Bianca Selejan-Guţan, in I. Muraru and E.S. Tănăsescu (coord.), Constituţia României –

comentariu pe articole, C.H. Beck Publishing House, Bucharest, 2008.

Petrică Truşcă, Andrada Truşcă Trandafir, Dreptul fundamantal la un mediu sănătos în

jurisprudența CEDO, the Transylvanian Journal of Administrative Sciences, no. 1(23)/2009

Genoveva Vrabie, Marius Bălan, Organizarea politico-etatică a României, European

Institute, Iasi, 2004.

*** Drepturile şi libertăţile individuale – componentă esenţială a noii Constituţii a României,

editorial in the Journal ―Dreptul‖ no. 2/1992.

The Romanian Constitution of 1991

Revision Law no. 429 of 18 September 2003

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/RO/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A12012P%2FTXT.

Documents

SOME CONSIDERATION REGARDING THE ART. 35 … 05 11.pdf · Ioan Muraru, Simina Tănăsescu, Drept constituţional şi instituţii politice, vol. I, All Beck Publishing House, Bucharest,