From December 6th, there have been deliberate manipulations; I don’t think we can talk about errors in the case of experienced lawyers regarding the role of internal and international justice institutions.
Behind these smoke screens meant to keep alive the unrealistic illusion of a second round resumption, what could have been corrected and certainly needed serious discussion remained untouched. The already resumed whining on this topic has no value.
### Nonsense
Călin Georgescu lost successively in all courts appealed to after the annulment of the second round.
[Călin Georgescu definitively loses the case regarding the resumption of elections at the High Court](https://spotmedia.ro/stiri/eveniment/calin-georgescu-pierde-definitiv-procesul-privind-reluarea-alegerilor-la-inalta-curte)
Internally, the High Court of Cassation and Justice and the Constitutional Court of Romania have shown what is known not only by a law student but also by a literate person regarding the functioning of the Romanian state institutions. Namely:
– a decision of the Constitutional Court cannot be overturned by any court because the Constitutional Court decisions are final and generally binding.
– According to the Constitution, the Constitutional Court is, by definition, a body with dual political-judicial valence, the Constitutional Court judges are not magistrates like the judges of the courts, and the procedural rules of common law are not applicable in the electoral process, including the adversarial nature of the parties or the review procedure.
So what the Constitutional Court decided remains so until the Constitutional Court itself says otherwise in another procedure. This means that from the very beginning, all the circus of actions, appeals, and petitions was useless and manipulative.
Just as it was the festival of actions in various international courts. [The EU Tribunal rejected the request to resume the second round](https://spotmedia.ro/stiri/eveniment/infrangere-totala-pentru-calin-georgescu-a-pierdut-si-procesul-de-la-tribunalul-ue) as „clearly inadmissible and partly due to obvious incompetence.”
[The European Court of Human Rights rejected Călin Georgescu’s action as inadmissible](https://spotmedia.ro/stiri/politica/calin-georgescu-pierde-definitiv-procesul-la-cedo-plangerea-impotriva-anularii-alegerilor-a-fost-respinsa), stating that it only has jurisdiction over legislative elections, and the President of Romania does not have such attributions.
The explanations were also for those completely ignorant, such as Elon Musk, who asked X: who is this ECHR that dares to annul elections. [He was explained at the highest level.](https://spotmedia.ro/stiri/eveniment/curtea-europeana-da-detalii-despre-decizia-in-cazul-calin-georgescu)
Some of these manipulations had shockingly ridiculous, anthology accents, launched by Mr. Georgescu’s lawyers: the news about some mediators from Canada who would have forced Romania to organize the second round and about the prosecutors of the International Criminal Court, specialized in genocide and war crimes committed by top state and military leaders, who were on their way to Romania to investigate the Constitutional Court judges.
Instead of these colossal, dead-from-the-start absurdities, energies could have been focused on analyzing a change in the law, invoked since the Șoșoacă case.
More precisely, if the competence in presidential elections should remain with the Constitutional Court or if, at least, the absolutely non-transparent procedure, without the candidate’s right to defense, should not be changed. In the case of other types of ballots, competence belongs to the courts, according to the administrative litigation procedure.
This did not happen, the extremists did not make any effort in this direction, although the Prime Minister had promised a review after eliminating Diana Șoșoacă, and a bill already exists, submitted by USR. So we will move forward with the same rules.
### What’s next?
For any candidacy, including Mr. Georgescu’s, the Central Electoral Bureau (BEC) first pronounces, composed of judges and representatives of political parties, in this case, Sunday at 6:00 p.m.
BEC analyzes the legal conditions of the candidacy – age, citizenship, and the candidate’s criminal record, which must not have restrictions on the right to be elected, validity, and the complete list of documents submitted to the file, with a minimum of 200,000 signatures.
BEC has a maximum of 48 hours for a decision. After that, within 24 hours, appeals can be filed with the Constitutional Court.
The Constitutional Court reanalyzes the BEC decision, but in Șoșoacă’s case, it introduced through Decision no. 2/5.10.2024 verifying the candidate’s adherence to the values of the Romanian Constitution. These are membership in the EU and NATO, multipartism, democracy, and the rule of law. Verification involves analyzing not only the facts but also the candidate’s statements.
Therefore, it is not enough for a candidate to meet formal conditions, but they must also respect these constitutional requirements. Does Călin Georgescu meet them?
Certainly not. And it is not just about the many statements that raise questions:
– the democratic system and the rule of law – Mr. Georgescu has announced several measures that far exceed presidential powers and can only be implemented through unconstitutional actions
– multipartism – parties must be abolished
– Romania’s compliance with the treaties to which it is a party and which, through the Constitution, are mandatory – annexation of parts of Ukraine, questioning the obligations resulting from NATO membership
It is primarily about the official findings of the judicial system. Mr. Georgescu is indicted for acts that attack constitutional order.
And the most serious thing is what the judge noted in the ruling justifying the maintenance of judicial control: „The concrete social danger of the acts results from the manner in which the defendant is accused of acting, from the modality and concrete circumstances of committing the acts, the complexity of the entire criminal activity. (…)
Praising war criminals in public, regardless of the reasons for which the defendant appreciates them, as well as making the Nazi salute in public cannot be seen as mere expressions of opinion but constitute a direct attack on the fundamental values of a democratic society, based on respect, tolerance, and equality.”
Of course, Mr. Georgescu benefits from the presumption of innocence. But at the Constitutional Court, the judgment is not criminal, it is constitutional. The discussion is not whether he should go to jail but whether he is in line with the constitutional profile of a president.
If we do not witness a change in practice, shocking just 6 months after the Șoșoacă case, the Constitutional Court’s decision is not difficult to anticipate.