ABSTRACT
This chapter presents an analysis of the variation of the strength of rulings of the Romanian Constitutional Court (RCC) issued in the 1992–2015 period. The chapter argues that the Romanian Constitutional Court attempted to position itself as a guardian of the constitution, and without taking away politics from the legislator, it focused on securing the boundaries of lawmaking. After a rather discrete first decade and a constitutional revision in 2003, the Court’s powers were increased to some degree; thus, as the general political context started to become less stable and more polarized, it found itself at the centre of embittered political disputes. Focusing on two relevant periods from the Court’s activity but assessing the data and the conclusions against the entire 23-year time span, several factors have been identified for explaining the variation and diversity of judicial decisions. Based on contextual factors, such as general political stability, the political affiliation of the judges and the specifics of a priori and a posteriori constitutional review or the relevance of dissenting opinions, the study concludes that, in spite of a political backlash against the Court, it is far-fetched to speak about a constitutionalization of the political environment in Romania, as the RCC struggled to avoid becoming a positive legislator and generally avoided offering consistent remedies, leaving it up to the parliament to correct faulty legislation.
