The unconstitutionality exception arose in two criminal cases before Judec?toria (the common local court) Constan?a and Judec?toria Târgovi?te, both courts raising the exception of unconstitutionality ex officio, in cases where the prosecutors requested the release of data retained by electronic communications service providers. The two courts hesitated to grant the prosecutors’ request, and argued that Law 82/2012 and art. 152 of the RCrPC were unconstitutional, following invalidation of Directive 2006/24/EC by the CJEU.
The Public Ministry (the authority under which prosecutors are organised) argued that despite invalidation of Directive 2006/24/EC by the CJEU, the national implementing law was still constitutional, essentially stating that the national authorities’s interference with the right to private life was proportional.
In its reasoning, the RCC had little margin of interpretation.
Firstly, the RCC itself had already declared that Law no. 298/2008, the first implementation in Romania of Directive 2006/24/EC, had been unconstitutional, by Decision, no. 1258 of 8 October 2009. References to this former decision hold the only mention of the jurisprudence of the ECtHR, namely two decisions, Prince Hans-Adam II of Lichtenstein v. Germany and Klass and others v. Germany.
Comparing the first Romanian implementation of Directive 2006/24/EC with Law 82/2012, the Court found that while complementary data had been better defined, several situations may be identified where national authorities could request the retained data without any judicial review, and found that the system of administrative and criminal sanctions established by the new law was not sufficient to provide guarantees against interferences with the right to private life and freedom of expression of the persons involved.
Secondly, as the Romanian implementation of Directive 2006/24/EC was largely identical to the directive itself, the court’s finding concerning the compatibility of Law 82/2012 with the rights to private life, personal data protection and freedom of expression represent a summary of the CJEU’s motivation in joint cases C-293/12 and C-594/12, the court expressly recognising the direct and compulsory effect of the CJEU’s decision.
Finally, the Court found that art. 152 RCrPC was constitutional, since release of retained data was conditioned by prior approval from a judicial authority, and therefore provided sufficient guarantees concerning interfereces with the rights to private life, to personal data protection and to freedom of expression. However constitutional, the Court showed that the text had remained without object following the invalidation of Law 82/2012, on which it relied for application.
In light of these arguments, the RCC found that Law 82/2012 was unconstitutional in its entirety, and art. 152 RCrPC, while constitutional, became inapplicable.

The Charter was invoked, among others, as grounds for the review of constitutionality of several national provisions concerning the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of electronic communication services.