I chose two pieces of fresh ribs, cut to length, of different widths. I washed and wiped them with a napkin, I sprinkled them with spices on both sides, then I placed them in a bowl and poured over them the sauce, I covered with a plate and I left them for about 2 hours, from time to time I turned them after one side to another. While the ribs were resting, I prepared the filling. I put the potatoes and carrots cleaned, washed and cut into small cubes. I boiled them, adding a teaspoon of delicacy to the water. Separately I cut the small green onion, as well as the pepper, I put them over the minced meat, I added salt, pepper and thyme. and I mixed well
.I heated a little oil in a pan and put the minced meat to harden, I hardened it until it changed color.I took it out in a bowl, taking care not to put it with the juice left. -they boiled the potatoes and carrots, I drained them of water and put them over the minced meat. I let them cool and then I broke three eggs and I homogenized the composition. I took a round yena bowl, I placed paper baked, I took the two pieces of rib and sewed them, forming two rounds, one larger and one smaller. I placed the first piece of rib in the middle of the bowl, fill it with the composition of minced meat, then place the smaller piece coast and fill with the rest of the composition. On top we put baking paper and try to dress the cake very well. Put the dish in the preheated oven, turn off the heat and leave for about 3 hours and 1/2 in the oven.
After an hour I took the bowl out of the oven and changed the baking paper, sprinkled the paprika and put garlic "decorating" the cake. I covered it again with baking paper and put the bowl back in the oven. baking paper and let it brown well. I served it with baked potatoes.
Cheesecake with raspberries
Do you want to receive the best recipes by e-mail?Fluffy Cheesecacke jelly Raspberry cake stew
terina mar jelly Plums Pecan
Caramel Bread Strawberry shortcake Rudy
chicken rolled pork tripe soup ciulama
figs catch cold cake mini cakes
Method of preparation
Chicken ciulama with mushrooms
Cut the breast into cubes, season and lightly fry until it changes color. Separated
Poultry liver stew
Washed liver, put it in the fridge, in a bowl with milk for 30 '. Chop the onion, garlic
Chocolate fondant according to a recipe by James Martin
Usually I don't like to reproduce exactly a recipe because I always feel the need for the recipe to bear my mark, but this weekend I made 2 desserts (this is one of them) where I followed the recipes without changing anything & # 8230please no significant because I added the essence of oranges mine
Always watching culinary shows I discovered a Chef named James Martin who cooks both main courses and desserts and I once wrote down this recipe of his, which he called Chocolate Fondant.
Searching later on my Google friend, I saw that this dessert is also called Chocolate Puff or & # 8230 more pretentious Moelleux au chocolat and I thought I'd try it too & it was really a refined dessert but not I would always do & # 8230
200 gr 70% bitter chocolate
a little breadcrumbs for wallpaper shapes
I melted the butter with chocolate in a bain marie, separately I beat the eggs well with the sugar until they increased their volume and the composition became aerated. After the chocolate melted and cooled a bit, I added the orange essence to it, then I added it over the eggs and mixed lightly, then I added the flour and mixed it until it incorporated well.
I preheated the oven to be prepared in advance for my delicious chocolate dessert.
In 12 forms of muffins (aluminum) I put a little oil and lined with breadcrumbs then I filled them about three quarters with my dough and put them in the oven for 10 minutes.
After the time expired, I checked their edges and they were hardened, so I thought my chocolate dessert was ready.
I carefully removed the fondant from the form and served with a few pieces of raspberry and mint for decoration.
The above ingredients are for a countertop. You can make a single countertop by doubling the quantities or bake two countertops like me.
For the top, first melt the chocolate with the butter. Let cool. Separate the egg whites from the yolks. Mix the egg whites with the sugar.
Mix the yolks a little with a pinch of salt, then add the melted chocolate with the butter. Over the egg whites, add the chocolate composition with the yolks. Mix well, then add flour mixed with baking powder, stirring gently. Put the composition in the tray with baking paper and bake until the edges come off and a pojghita is formed on top.
Let the countertops cool.
For the mascarpone cream I mixed the whipped cream, I added the powdered sugar and at the end the mascarpone rubbed a little.
For the chocolate cream, I mixed the whipped cream, rubbed the fine chocolate cream a little and gradually added the whipped cream.
The slightly more difficult part is the assembly.
First I set the tray on which I placed the cake. Depending on its size, I cut the base of the castle. From a countertop I cut the base of the castle and then part of the towers with the help of a glass. I placed the towers in the four corners of the base, which I cut a little to penetrate the tower a little.
From the second countertop I cut a second smaller base which I placed over the first base. In each corner of the base no. 2 I placed smaller towers cut from the counter with the help of a smaller glass. Over the second base I placed one last big tower. The towers must be higher than the bases.
I cut each countertop in three horizontally. Each base had three thin countertops and two layers of mascarpone cream. At the towers the countertops were just as thin, but more to get the height.
I dressed the whole cake in chocolate cream. I decorated it with melted white chocolate, chips and chocolate flakes. At the top of the big towers I placed chocolate cones. I placed flags on the small towers.
Rib cake .... recipe no.600 - Recipes
We present you the full text of the notification:
PRESIDENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
Pursuant to the provisions of art. 146 lit. a) of the Constitution and of art. 15 of Law no. 47/1992 on the organization and functioning of the Constitutional Court, republished, with subsequent amendments and completions, I formulate the following
NOTICE OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY
Law for declaring June 4 the Day of the Treaty of Trianon
On May 19, 2020, the Parliament of Romania sent to the President of Romania, in order to promulgate, the Law for declaring June 4 the Day of the Treaty of Trianon (PL-x no. 521/2019).
We consider that this law contradicts the constitutional provisions of art. 1 para. (4) regarding the observance of the principle of separation of powers in the state and of art. 1 para. (5) in its component regarding the stability of legal relations, as well as in the one regarding the quality of the law, of art. 16 para. (1) regarding the equality in rights, of art. 61 para. (1) the second sentence of the Constitution, according to which “Parliament is [. ] the sole legislative authority of the country ”, of the constitutional provisions regarding the domains reserved to the organic laws established by art. 73 para. (3) lit. t) corroborated with those of art. 31 para. (5), as well as those of art. 147 para. (4) regarding the erga omnes obligation of the decisions of the Constitutional Court, for the arguments that we will present in the following.
1. Non-compliance with the constitutional provisions of art. 1 para. (4), of the provisions of art. 61 para. (1) and of art. 147 para. (4)
As it results from the title, as well as from the provisions of art. 1 of the law deduced from the constitutionality control, the object of regulation is the declaration of June 4 as the day of the Treaty of Trianon. We appreciate that the establishment of this content, in such a way, denotes the purely enunciative character of the regulations, without the object of the law being clearly determined.
According to the constitutional jurisprudence, the law is defined as a legal act of power, has a unilateral character, giving expression exclusively to the will of the legislator, whose content and form are determined by the need to regulate a certain field of social relations and its specifics. Also, according to the Constitutional Court, the law, as a legal act of the Parliament, regulates general social relations, being, through its constitutional essence and finality, an act with general applicability. However, in so far as the area of incidence of the regulation is determined concretely, given the intuitu personae reason of the regulation, it has an individual character, it being designed not to be applied to an indeterminate number of concrete cases, depending on their classification. norm, but, de plano, in a single case, pre-established unequivocally (Decision no. 600/2005, Decision no. 970/2007, Decision no. 494/2013 and Decision no. 574/2014).
In the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court it was also noted that: “The scope of the regulation is determined by the legislator, it being designed to be applied to an indefinite number of concrete cases, depending on their classification in the hypothesis of enacted norms. Otherwise, insofar as the scope of the regulation is determined concretely, considering intuitu personae reasons, the law is individual, being applicable to a single unequivocal predetermined case, and, implicitly, loses its constitutional legitimacy, violating the principle of equality. in the rights of citizens and the principle of separation of powers in the state ”(Decision no. 249/2018).
Therefore, according to the constitutional jurisprudence, a law must be drafted in accordance with the Constitution, to represent the legal act of the Parliament, to express and regulate general social relations. The normative character of the law requires the establishment of express provisions regarding the rights and obligations that must be established for the recipients of the legal norm, but also for the consequences of non-compliance with these obligations, by imposing sanctions.
In the case of the law subject to constitutional review, it can be seen that the provisions contained, and in particular those which should be the subject of regulation, are purely declaratory, as they are not determined by the need to regulate a certain area of social relations and its specificity, but are rather generated by the desire to pre-establish, unequivocally and in one case, the declaration of June 4 as the day of the Treaty of Trianon. However, the essence of a law, as a legal act of the Parliament, is its normative character itself, and not an eminently declarative one, without legal effects. In this regard, the Constitutional Court also ruled: "Even in the absence of an express prohibitive provision, it is in principle that the law is usually normative, the primary nature of the regulations it contains being difficult to reconcile with their application to a case. or in individual cases ”(Decision no. 600/2005).
However, in this case, the purely declarative character of the law deduced from the constitutionality control, as it can be deduced both from the title of the criticized law and from the provisions of art. 1, without being able to effectively constitute rights and obligations, is likely to determine ambiguities regarding the effects that the law could produce. Therefore, we consider that such a regulatory area is the essence of a simple declaration  of the Parliament, of an announcement, without normative character.
From the provisions of art. 2 of the criticized law results that the purpose of the regulation is to mark the day of the Treaty of Trianon by organizing, at national and local level, cultural-educational and scientific events dedicated to awareness of the meaning and importance of the Treaty of Trianon. Thus, the purpose of the criticized law is not an individualized one, precisely determined, as it is not clear what is the general social interest concerned. However, the law, by its essence and constitutional purpose, must be an act of general applicability and aim at a general interest of society. However, in the present case, the law subject to constitutional review has a limited scope of application on the declaration of 4 June as the day of the Treaty of Trianon. The sphere of incidence of regulation, thus qualified by its purpose and determined in this way by the legislator, has in a field that falls, in fact, within the regulatory competence of the central public administrative authorities, and not in that of the Parliament, which cannot to legislate "for the purpose of marking the Day of the Treaty of Trianon" and to provide for the holding of events organized at national and local level, "dedicated to raising awareness of the meaning and importance of the Treaty of Trianon".
In view of all these aspects, we consider that the legal instrument by which this act of declaration of June 4 is made, the Day of the Treaty of Trianon is an erroneous one, as this declaration per se cannot be imposed and / or made by a law, as a legal act of the Parliament, but can be realized only through a secondary, executive / administrative level act or can take, possibly, the form of a political declaration.
Therefore, the legal regime regarding the declaration of such days does not fall within the hypothesis of the primary regulation, so that it cannot be imposed by a law.
Therefore, we see that the Parliament, acting in this way and arrogating its legislative power, under the conditions, scope and purpose mentioned, acted ultra vires, entering the area of competence of the executive authority, the only one with responsibilities in the field of mentioned, by a secondary regulatory act, which is subject to the competence of the central public administration authority.
In this sense, it is also the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court, according to which the acceptance of the idea that the Parliament can exercise its competence of legislative authority in its discretion, at any time and under any conditions, adopting laws in areas belonging exclusively to illegal, administrative acts, was equivalent to a deviation from the constitutional prerogatives of this authority enshrined in art. 61 para. (1) of the Constitution and its transformation into an executive public authority. In addition, the constitutional court considers that such an interpretation is contrary to those established in its jurisprudence and, therefore, in contradiction with the provisions of art. 147 para. (4) of the Constitution, which enshrines the erga omnes obligation of the decisions of the Constitutional Court "(Decision no. 777/2017).
Therefore, we appreciate that the Parliament, in this way, acted contrary to the constitutional provisions of art. 1 para. (4) regarding the observance of the principle of separation of powers in the state and of the provisions of art. 61 para. (1) the second sentence of the Constitution, according to which “Parliament is [. ] the sole legislative authority of the country », as well as the constitutional provisions of art. 147 para. (4) regarding the erga omnes obligation of the decisions of the Constitutional Court.
2. Non-compliance with the constitutional provisions of art. 1 para. (5) and of the provisions of art. 16 para. (1) of the Constitution
Regarding the object of the regulation, we see that by the wording of the title, as well as its articles, the criticized law is ambiguous and does not present clarity regarding the content of the regulation.
The importance of establishing the object of a regulation in the economy of the normative act was established by the Constitutional Court itself through its jurisprudence, from which it results that a law must provide its regulatory scope. Thus, according to the constitutional court, the object of the law cannot be ambiguous, but it can be deduced even from its title, which, according to art. 41 para. (1) of Law no. 24/2000 on the norms of legislative technique for the elaboration of normative acts, must include the generic name of the act, depending on its legal category and the issuing authority, as well as the object of the regulation expressed synthetically. Therefore, the Court considers that, in the absence of general provisions of the law guiding the regulation, its object is given by the title itself. (Decision no. 1/2014, Decision no. 1/2015 and Decision no. 61/2017).
Thus, we find that the name of the title and the content of the law subject to constitutional review can not be determined precisely what are the regulated social relations, the object of the criticized law is not determined, clearly and unequivocally fixed. The criticized law does not impose, by its norms, clear rules or general principles, to guide the entire regulation, this being deficient also regarding its addressees and their conduct, these cannot be specified or identified through the provisions regarding the organization of events for marking. Trianon Treaty Day.
Therefore, we consider that under these aspects the law deduced from the control of the Constitutional Court violates the provisions of art. 1 para. (5) of the Constitution, both in its component regarding the stability of legal relations, and in the one regarding the quality of the law, by reference to art. 3 para. (1) in conjunction with art. 52 para. (1) of Law no. 24/2000.
As stated in the explanatory memorandum, the intention of the initiators is that the legislative proposal seeks to regulate the appropriate measures for the appropriate marking of this day at national and local level, while referring to the special importance for the Romanian nation of the political and legal document materialized by the Trianon Treaty. .
Therefore, from the analysis of the reasons that were the basis for the elaboration of the legislative proposal, as well as of the regulations established by art. 2 of the law subject to constitutional review, it appears that the purpose of the law is to highlight the importance of that treaty by organizing cultural-educational and scientific events. We consider that, in this way, the purpose of the regulation, imprecisely determined, risks to remain unattainable as the organization of the respective manifestations may be likely to give rise to events contrary to those pursued by the legislator. Or, through this, we appreciate that the norm is precariously constructed, realized in a vague and unpredictable manner.
Also, art. 2 para. (2) of the criticized law stipulates that the central and local public administration authorities may support materially and logistically, from their own budgets, the organization and development of the events provided in par. (1). At the same time, according to par. (3) of the same article, public institutions, from their own funds, as well as non-governmental organizations and representatives of civil society may support events organized by central and local public administration authorities. Therefore, although it is intended to establish the normative framework in which public authorities and institutions can act, the text of the law establishes only one possibility, leaving to the choice of the respective public authorities and institutions whether or not to support, from a material and logistical point of view, the organization and development. those manifestations. Thus, we consider that, through these provisions, the law contains provisions of a recommendatory nature, thus being ineffective.
Therefore, we consider that this regulation is unpredictable, as it is not clear what is the objective criterion that can guide the conduct of these authorities, which is likely to give rise to a subjectivism in implementation regarding the allocation of amounts from their own dedicated budgets. those public events, public institutions being able to act at their discretion in applying these rules.
Therefore, in view of the above and, in particular, the lack of rules establishing clear and certain obligations for the financing of these public events, we consider that the law deduced from the constitutional review is lacking in clarity and predictability, which may lead to inconsistency. and instability in its future application.
With reference to the relevant constitutional case law, according to which the solutions provided for by a normative act cannot be applied randomly, the legislator being obliged to establish clear conditions, modalities and criteria and objective application, and taking into account the reasons specified above, we appreciate that the law contains, at art. 1 and 2, provisions that create a legislative framework contrary to the principle of security of legal relations in its component regarding the clarity and predictability of the law, which is likely to affect the quality requirements of the law, as they find their expression in art. 1 para. (5) of the Constitution, reported to Law no. 24/2000, as it results from the interpretation given by the constitutional court (Decision no. 1/2012, Decision no. 681/2012 and Decision 447/2013).
Moreover, by establishing a possibility and not an obligation on the part of the public authorities / institutions regarding the financing of the manifestations provided by the criticized law, the legislator establishes a norm that is not objectively and rationally justified. Leaving to the discretion of the central and local public authorities the distribution of the necessary funds to support the respective public events, discriminatory behaviors of the mentioned public authorities may arise, contrary to the constitutional principle of art. 16 para. (1) on equal rights for citizens. These provisions may be likely to establish a privilege for certain local authorities, depending on their political affiliation, creating the possibility for them to approach and manifest a differentiated, subjective behavior in the distribution of those funds.
Article 3 para. (1) of the law deduced from the constitutionality control stipulates that the Government and the central and local public administration authorities shall take the necessary measures for the Romanian flag to be hoisted on this day, in accordance with the provisions of Law no. 75/1994 on hoisting the Romanian flag. the national anthem and the use of seals with the coat of arms of Romania by public authorities and institutions, with subsequent additions.
Art. 3 of Law no. 75/1994 exhaustively lists the conditions under which the Romanian flag can be temporarily hoisted as follows: on the occasion of Romania's national day and other national holidays, in public places established by local authorities on the occasion of official national and international festivities and ceremonies, in places where they take place on the occasion of official visits to Romania by heads of state and government, as well as high-ranking political figures representing the main international intergovernmental bodies, at airports, railway stations, ports and on various routes during military ceremonies, according to military regulations. on the occasion of sports competitions, in stadiums and other sports facilities and during election campaigns, at the headquarters of polling stations, electoral commissions and polling stations.
The comparative analysis of the two articles of law stated above shows that the obligation imposed on the Government and the central and local public administration authorities to take the necessary measures so that on June 4, the Day of the Treaty of Trianon, is hoisted the flag of Romania does not fall into any of the hypotheses of the norm expressly and exhaustively provided in art. 3 of Law no. 75/1994. Therefore, we consider that the norm established in art. 3 para. (1) of the law subject to constitutional review is not correlated with the provisions of those rules to which it refers, respectively with those provided in art. 3 of Law no. 75/1994, which is likely to create ambiguities and, thus, difficulties in implementation, an aspect that disregards the requirements of clarity and predictability of the law, as they have been developed in the constitutional jurisprudence on the quality requirements of the law, as they find their expression in the provisions of art. 1 para. (5) of the Constitution.
3. Non-compliance with the constitutional provisions of art. 73 para. (3) lit. t) by reference to art. 31 para. (5)
According to art. 3 para. (2) of the law subject to constitutional review, the Romanian Broadcasting Company and the Romanian Television Company, as public services, shall include in their programs programs or aspects from the events dedicated to this day. We appreciate that this regulation represents an implicit modification of the provisions of Law no. 41/1994 on the organization and functioning of the Romanian Broadcasting Company and the Romanian Television Company, an organic law and, therefore, this legislative intervention should have been carried out also by an organic law.
Thus, in accordance with art. 31 para. (5) of the Constitution, the organization of public radio and television services is regulated by organic law, the law adopted in this regard by the Romanian Parliament being Law no. 41/1994. According to art. 1 of the same normative act, the Romanian Broadcasting Company and the Romanian Television Company are established as autonomous public services of national interest, editorially independent, through the reorganization of the Romanian Radio and Television.
By the law deduced from the constitutionality control, the provisions of Law no. 41/1994 regarding the object of activity of the two public services are implicitly modified, establishing in their task the inclusion in their programs of broadcasts or other aspects from the events dedicated to the Trianon Treaty Day. However, given that this law is organic in nature, any change in it, express or implied, which concerns its organic provisions and which introduces a new obligation on these services and, implicitly, an extension of the fields of activity must be to follow the same regime.
In the present case, this requirement is mandatory, since, from the material point of view, the rules on the object of activity of the two public companies are essential and directly related to the establishment and organization of those public services, aspects that guarantee them. organizational autonomy and gives them editorial independence.
In this regard, the Constitutional Court established that if the text of the Constitution provides that the establishment, organization and functioning of an authority is achieved by organic law, all aspects concerning that authority are achieved by that category of law (Decision no. 52/2018).
Also, in its case law, the constitutional court has emphasized that a derogation can only be established by a law of the same nature as that of the law from which it derogates. It follows, consequently, that an ordinary law cannot derogate from a provision of the nature of organic law, because it would mean that, by such a derogation, ordinary law would regulate in areas reserved by the Constitution to organic law (Decision No 6/1992 and Decision No 88/1998).
Therefore, since the organization of public radio and television services are reserved, by the Constitution, to the field of organic law, the legislative amendments on it can operate only through a norm of the same nature.
In conclusion, the law, by the way it was adopted, violates the constitutional provisions regarding the fields reserved to the organic laws established by art. 73 para. (3) lit. t) corroborated with art. 31 para. (5), with the consequence of the unconstitutionality of the law as a whole.
In view of the above arguments, I ask you to admit the complaint of unconstitutionality and to find that the Law for declaring June 4 the Day of the Treaty of Trianon is unconstitutional as a whole.