Key facts of the case:
The applicants argued, overall, that art. 244-246, art. 248 and art. 279 of Law no. 297/2004 on capital markets, which detailed the offences that might be committed in relation with transactions and the corresponding sanctions did not observe the requirements of clarity, predictability and accessibility. They also argued that the provisions of article 30 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code are unconstitutional because they allow the prosecutor to decide which court should to try a criminal case, between several courts of equal territorial competence.
The Constitutional Court examined the compliance of the measures taken by the state to prevent and punish offences committed in connection with capital markets with art 52 (1) of the Charter which provides that: ‘Any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by this Charter must be provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms. Subject to the principle of proportionality, limitations may be made only if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.’ The Constitutional Court argued that the setting of a fine, for offences committed in connection with capital markets, which exceeds the general limit of the fines established in the general part of the Criminal Code, the fine being thus established in proportion with the value of a certain illicit transaction on the market, is intended to be dissuasive and is justified by the necessity to ensure the integrity of capital markets, as part of preserving public order, situation found to comply with Article 52 (1) of the Charter.