Klaus Iohannis did not lose any house on Wednesday through the decision of the High Court of Cassation and Justice. What happened is the conclusion of a lengthy delay in the process of state enforcement of decisions through which Klaus Iohannis had lost two houses in Sibiu because the acquisition was based on false documents.
Without going into procedural details, the state could not take possession of the houses because an associate of the presidential couple filed lawsuits attempting to undermine the two judgments.
What the High Court of Cassation and Justice's decision on Wednesday does is remove the last procedural obstacle to the execution of final judgments. From now on, the National Agency for Fiscal Administration (ANAF) can request the registration of ownership of the two houses in the state's name and can begin the procedures to recover the rent collected for them by the Iohannis family, approximately 300,000 euros.
Whether what happened at the High Court of Cassation and Justice is related to the end of Klaus Iohannis's term is indeed a discussion. One can consider that in any case, the delay had lasted too long and could no longer continue, or that the loss of power led to the conclusion of the delay.
Surely, coming immediately after the episode of the failure of the law on individual candidacy for the Senate, the appearance is that the High Court of Cassation and Justice's decision is a symptom of collapse and abandonment at the end of an era.
Tests of Power
But the real test of the remaining power of Klaus Iohannis is what will happen next, specifically whether ANAF will take serious actions for the registration of the houses and for the recovery of rent collected unlawfully.
ANAF is an institution of the Romanian state led by a politically appointed president with the rank of state secretary, Nicoleta-Mioara Cîrciumaru. The appointment decision was signed in May 2023 by Prime Minister Nicolae Ciucă.
If ANAF moves very quickly, it will be a clear signal that, as a friend would say, Mr. Iohannis is about to be fined even by the Local Police, in other words, he is worth nothing anymore and has been abandoned by everyone.
Of course, it shouldn't be like that. The execution of a court decision should have no connection to the position of the person affected by it. However, the delay of 8 years in the outcome and the way Mr. Iohannis has unconditionally pursued his personal interest so far suggest the opposite: if the president still had power, he would not be obliged to give back anything.
Let's remember how in the same saga of the houses, which also involved a criminal case, Mrs. Iohannis was secretly interrogated at night, and the one who solved the problem became, with or without connection to this immense service, first an interim Prosecutor General, then a Constitutional Court judge.
Another power test will come on Friday when BEC's response to PNL's request to clarify whether an independent candidate can run on a political party's list is expected.
BEC may evade an answer, citing that it is not within its competence to make such interpretations, may close the candidacy subject, or, following the model of the Legislative Council, may give the green light for party list candidacies for all independents under the current law.
In any case, the High Court of Cassation and Justice's decision on Wednesday sheds a different light on Klaus Iohannis's struggle to gain another position.
In Mr. Iohannis's asset declaration, alongside the still six houses, although two are lost, there is only one bank account with 190,000 lei. That is a small part of what he should give back to the state. He would therefore be obliged to sell two houses. Moreover, the president himself acknowledged that three out of the six family houses were purchased with the rent money that he now has to return.
Another option would be a 1/3 garnishment on his and Mrs. Iohannis's future incomes. Therefore, stark poverty compared to the standard of living Mr. Iohannis has become accustomed to.
The greatest danger for every person, especially a politician, lies in their own weaknesses. Disaster stems from them.
And Mr. Iohannis's major weakness is the costly dependence on luxury.