The non-final, but enforceable decision of the Ploiești Court of Appeal regarding the annulment and suspension, pending the final decision, of Constitutional Court Decision no. 32/2024, which annulled the presidential elections, is legally inexplicable.
The explanation can be found in all judicial decisions, including those of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, which have so far rejected all actions on this matter by the legal team of Călin Georgescu: it is not within the jurisdiction of the courts to annul or suspend Constitutional Court decisions.
Whether this is good or bad, we can discuss it, but at this moment, this is the situation.
And it is highly unlikely that it will remain final, after the appeal to the High Court of Cassation and Justice is judged, already filed by the Prosecutor's Office of the Ploiești Court of Appeal. However, it might take a while because the trial cannot take place until the judge from Ploiești drafts the reasoning.
What is interesting now is what effects this suspension can have. As legal experts point out, Decision 32 had two elements. On one hand - the annulment of the elections, which has already taken effect, so there is nothing left to suspend. On the other hand, the organization of a new electoral process that is currently underway.
However, the suspension from Ploiești makes no reference to all the regulatory acts governing the organization of the elections in May.
This is why the Central Electoral Bureau (BEC) avoided chaos and stated that it does not suspend the electoral process, the campaign continues. But if by May 4th there is no final decision at the High Court of Cassation and Justice rejecting the suspension, there could be significant legal issues regarding the legality of the elections.
But for now, at least, there will be no legal effects, but certainly political effects. Because this decision has stirred up strong emotions in the extremist camp, the ferment is high, the annulment issue has resurfaced, largely covering the story of the million and a half spent by George Simion for the photos in the USA, which did not sit well with all Georgists.
There is certainly bewilderment in Western embassies in Bucharest, which probably no longer understand anything about what is truly incomprehensible.
It is crucial to understand and hope that at some point, it will be clarified what is behind this judicial decision from Ploiești that blatantly violates the law.
For now, only two possibilities can be considered, and the choice between them depends primarily on the reaction of the Judicial Inspection and the Superior Council of Magistracy.
The first possibility, the simplest one, would be that a judge, possibly sympathetic to certain political currents, made the decision on their own.
In this case, the High Court of Cassation and Justice will resolve the appeal as soon as it has the reasoning, the circus will end, and the judge in question will be investigated by the Judicial Inspection for applying the law in bad faith, after which the Superior Council of Magistracy will impose the appropriate sanction.
However, it cannot be ignored that this decision, the first with this outcome, comes exactly when there is a bill in Parliament amending the magistrates' pensions, fiercely rejected by the system and by the Superior Council of Magistracy.
If the system's reaction to the oddity in Ploiești is lacking, we can consider that the political system has received a signal from the judicial system through it.
Let's not forget that judges have previously used their exceptional power for personal gain, for example, when they increased their salaries through this means.
Regardless of the causes and explanations, one thing is certain: the Romanian state, not yet completely dysfunctional, is extremely fragile, with essential institutions being eroded by incompetence or corruption.