While proclaiming, alongside the traditional parties, the imperative of judicial independence, extremists, their press, and their lawyers are exerting immense political pressure on the judiciary and involving it in the huge game of manipulation.
And not only on the domestic justice system, but also on the ECHR, which has become the subject of colossal lies, the inevitable deflation of which will be directed towards an undeserved discrediting of this international court.
Internally, there is great pressure on the High Court of Cassation and Justice (ICCJ), from which what the supreme court cannot do is expected. The Bucharest Court of Appeal has already made it clear that it is not within the competence of the courts to censor a decision of the Constitutional Court. So if the annulment of the elections was decided by a decision of the Constitutional Court, nothing can overturn it.
Yes, the CJEU has decided that Romanian judges can ignore a decision of the Constitutional Court, but only when it contravenes European legislation, thus violating the obligation of aligning legislation. This is not the case with Decision 32, which settled a specific situation within the scope of the Constitutional Court's competence regarding presidential elections, which are rare in the EU, mostly composed of parliamentary republics or monarchies.
The decision of the ICCJ on the challenge filed by Călin Georgescu after the Court of Appeal refused to annul the BEC decision to implement the Constitutional Court's decision is therefore absolutely predictable. But the almost hysterical expectation created around it will collapse on the remaining shreds of trust in the judiciary, and many will be left with the impression created by extremists, their lawyers, and their press that the ICCJ could, should, but did not want.
Manipulation of the ECHR
By the end of January, the ECHR is expected to rule, say extremists, on the resumption of the second round. From the start, it is a huge manipulation. According to Article 3 of Additional Protocol 1, the ECHR has exclusive competence over parliamentary elections. And even when ruling on the violation of electoral rights, it does not order the repetition of elections but rather compensations.
But the ECHR cannot even reach the substance of the case this month. A process at the ECHR cannot last less than a total of 2 years. The most accelerated procedure was in the case of Laura Codruța Kovesi, who won after almost 2 years of trial.
In the first phase, the petition must pass through a filter verification based on the documents, regarding the court's competence over the request and the fulfillment of the condition that there is a final decision in domestic justice. Yes, LCK did not have such a final decision, but because she did not initiate an internal procedure, precisely with the idea that no internal court can overturn a decision of the Constitutional Court. If she had initiated one, she would have had to wait for its final conclusion.
So what will be judged at the ECHR, theoretically, in January?
Q Magazine published the request of Mr. Georgescu's lawyers.
So in January, not even the filter procedure is on the docket, but the consideration of the request for interim measures. Călin Georgescu requests the suspension of Constitutional Court Decision no. 32/2004 and, implicitly, the resumption of the second round until a final judgment.
According to CEDO procedural specialists we spoke with, the request is inadmissible from the outset. Such interim measures have been accepted by the ECHR only when the rights protected by Article 2 regarding the right to life and Article 3 regarding the prohibition of torture of the Convention are at issue. For example, a decision to extradite a person to a country where there is suspicion that they will be killed or tortured can be suspended.
Entirely exceptional interim measures have also been accepted in cases invoking Article 6 regarding the right to a fair trial and Article 8 regarding the right to private and family life. Obviously, Mr. Georgescu does not invoke any of the 4 articles that would warrant the requested interim measure.
In this case, on the contrary, the suspension could have definitive effects, as it would lead to the resumption of the second round, the election of a new president, possibly even Călin Georgescu. And if the ECHR subsequently finds that the referral is inadmissible or unfounded, meaning that the resumption of the second round was unnecessary.
What specialists consulted by SpotMedia.ro note when analyzing the ECHR response is the amateurish way in which the case was handled by Mr. Georgescu's team. Any lawyer should know that requests must be sent to the ECHR in the original, an email does not have legal value. And we observe in the published response that the ECHR set a deadline for sending the original, which, obviously, it had not received.