Some Considerations Regarding the Heads of State Immunity in the European Union Member Countries

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the legal framework of the immunity that the heads of state enjoy in some of the European Union member countries, including Romania, according to the constitutional provisions in force nowadays. The head of state immunity, regardless whether talking about a president of a republic or a constitutional monarch, is justified by considerations of political needs, such as stopping certain abuses, annoying t processes or any other ways that may bring prejudice to the authority that such a state function should impose. The European comparative law shows that the form of government or the nature of the political regime, the modality of appointment of heads of state or, further more, the extent of their powers are not constitutive variables of immunity. If in a monarchy, the sovereign still enjoys absolute immunity, the presidents of republics have only a derogation status from the common law in respect of their liability, mainly for crimes committed in the course of their duties and, incidentally, for exterior acts. As for the crimes committed in the exercise of the presidential function, only those of an exceptional gravity engage consequences, carried out by the nation’s representatives to the ad hoc courts, of parliamentary or constitutional nature. However, if the acts are committed outside the office, most of the republics provide only procedures that temporarily postpone the application of the civil, administrative or criminal common law to head of state until his term expires.