Dear Emanuela. I think these principles are judiciables, but the arguments line of the Judiciary need to be filleda by "matters of principles", and not by "political questions", according Dworkin's theory ("A Matter of Principle"). I'm not sure about the Romenia political situation, but i saw that the Constituttional Court approved the Parlamentary process of Impeachment. What could You tell us more about these matter?

Dear Volodymyr, on what authority do you rely when you make this assumption? I was thinking about rule of law and democracy as both European and international legal principles. Once you have them enshrined in the preamble of most important international treaties and in the national constitutions, they become fundamental principles of law and they play a role in the interpretation of law. My question is whether they may have normative value in certain situations and by that also become judiciable.

I will not describe myself as an expert in Romanian law because my studies of law have been fully completed in the Western part of Europe, where I've also lived during the past ten years. However I speak the language and I can read/listen to the Romanian news. I can give you only my personal opinion.

In order to become Member of the European Union, a country must be a democratic state that respects the rule of law. The European Commission has recently expressed concerns in relation to the conflicting situation between Basescu (the president of the country) and Ponta (the premier minister) and the intentions of the government to interfere with the independence of the justiciary. The adjective used is irreversible, the Commission wants to be ensured that the democratic process is irreversible. In my opinion, there are no such guaranties, neither in Romania nor elsewhere, because democracy can not be taken for granted. It must be reinvented every day.

In Romania, people, I mean usual people are very tired and disappointed to watch the faked democratic show, they want to be able to live a decent life and no more. The problem is that the global financial crisis has added to the tension and the Romanians went in the streets for many weeks to change the government (during the winter 2011-2012) and like always the change brought under pressure from the streets has not provided stability but the tension continued and became even more infectious due to the personal conflict between the president and the premier.

The possible sanction is to suspend the Romanian votes from the Council, however it is not very probable that this punishment will be used against Romania under the present circumstances. The real sanctions are in fact political the deterioration of the image, the depreciation of the national currency etc.

" In my opinion, there are no such guaranties, neither in Romania nor elsewhere, because democracy can not be taken for granted. It must be reinvented every day".

I totally agree with you!!!

About Romanian situation, this "economic crisis" had showing a lot of consequences, sometimes good one, sometimes don't. Anyway, I hope Romanian people learn with this time and that democracy prevail after all.

Dear Emanuela

First of all, I think your question should be clarified a little more, at least for those who are not Europeans and may not understand some points.

1) when you talk about "actionable", are you thinking in domestic jurisdiction (eg., As a constitutional court), supranational one (European Court) or international (such as The Hague)?

2) it is unclear whether the question is in abstract ("in thesi") or referring to Romanian positive law;

Obviously, I can only try an answer in an abstract way:

1) "rule of law" and "democracy" (God knows what they really mean!) certainly may be embodied as explicit principles in conventions and constitutions.

2) if that is the case, then they could serve for the interpretation of law, but...

3) that they have a "normative value" depends, in fact, if there is a jurisdiction capable of enforce them. And this is a factual question, although it could be discuss from a normative point of view.

4) experience shows that when a government is weak and a country is small we can expect that domestic or international courts are encouraged to assume jurisdiction in such cases. An interesting case has just occurred (the last week) in Mercosur deal with the situation in Paraguay, where the Permanent Court of Mercosur refused to admit any matter relating to the "rule of law" and "democracy". It was announced that the Paraguayan government will go to an international tribunal.

I start by citing from the Treaties of the EU:

Preamble:

'DRAWING INSPIRATION from the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe, from which have developed the universal values of the inviolable and inalienable rights of the human person, freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law,(...) CONFIRMING their attachment to the principles of liberty, democracy and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and of the rule of law,'

Article 2 TEU

The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.

Article 21 (2) TEU

The Union shall define and pursue common policies and actions, and shall work for a high degree of cooperation in all fields of international relations, in order to:

(...) consolidate and support democracy, the rule of law, human rights and the principles of international law;

Article 49 TEU

Any European State which respects the values referred to in Article 2 and is committed to promoting them may apply to become a member of the Union.

(...)

The conditions of admission and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the Union is founded, which such admission entails, shall be the subject of an agreement between the Member States and the applicant State. This agreement shall be submitted for ratification by all the contracting States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

Article 263 TFEU

2nd indent: It shall for this purpose have jurisdiction in actions brought by a Member State, the European Parliament, the Council or the Commission on grounds of lack of competence, infringement of an essential procedural requirement, infringement of the Treaties or of any rule of law relating to their application, or misuse of powers.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:083:0001:01:EN:HTML

Preamble of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights:

The peoples of Europe, in creating an ever closer union among them, are resolved to share a peaceful future based on common values.

Conscious of its spiritual and moral heritage, the Union is founded on the indivisible, universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity; it is based on the principles of democracy and the rule of law. It places the individual at the heart of its activities, by establishing the citizenship of the Union and by creating an area of freedom, security and justice.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:083:0389:01:EN:HTML

Now I cite from the Romanian constitution:

Title I- Art 1- General Principles

(3) Romania is a democratic and social state, governed by the rule of law, in which human dignity, the citizens' rights and freedoms, the free development of human personality, justice and political pluralism represent supreme values, in the spirit of the democratic traditions of the Romanian people and the ideals of the Revolution of December 1989, and shall be guaranteed.

Title II Art 40- Right of association

(2) The political parties or organizations which, by their aims or activity, militate against political pluralism, the principles of a State governed by the rule of law, or against the sovereignty, integrity or independence of Romania shall be unconstitutional.

http://www.dreptonline.ro/en_resourses/en_romanian_constitution.php

The judiciary independence is guaranteed by ARTICLE 124: Administration of justice of the Romanian Constitution:

(1) Justice shall be rendered in the name of the law.

(2) Justice shall be one, impartial, and equal for all.

(3) Judges shall be independent and subject only to the law.

I think that now everyone has access to the most relevant sources of law for this question.

http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/the-policy/conditions-for-enlargement/index_en.htm

An old colleague of mine has written an article on this that may be of interest: Paul Daly, 'Justiciability and the "political question" doctrine' [2010] Public Law 160.

@Dominic de Cogan, thank you for the reference!

@Alexandre Gustavo, I have found a recent article written by Paul Sum (LSE) which is pretty well analyzing the political background and even discusses whether EU should do more about the situation than just monitoring. Is instability, no matter its nature, constitutional as in Romania or economical as in Greece, be a justification for more EU intervention? The answer provided by Paul Sum is negative.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2012/08/01/5-minutes-with-paul-sum-romania/