Călin Georgescu’s strange departure from the country on the very eve of the major protest he called at the CCR is, at best, just symptomatic of the candidate’s aversion to contact with the people.
Mr. Georgescu doesn’t really like to be among the common people. It happened, as far as I remember, only once, quickly, in Victory Square.
Otherwise, he circulates flanked by bodyguards from the Foreign Legion and sends recorded messages with a library in the background, spoken with a messianic tone, full of slogans and implicit incitements to violence behind the completely contradictory pacifist discourse typical of populist dictators and a bit eccentric.
Mr. Georgescu was photographed on Wednesday at the airport, leaving the country, still flanked by guards, of course, paid with money we don't know, just as we don't know from what source he lived for 10 years in Vienna, where he had no declared official source of income, but pranced between expensive real estate properties. He explained on Facebook how he is leaving "to the highest courts (...) to submit legal actions to the highest European institutions."
So, the number 1 sovereigntist, the fearless dac, the Trump of Romania, goes hat in hand to the decadent West, which sucks the blood of the people and asks international courts to intervene in the affairs of the sovereign country?
It shouldn't surprise those who have noticed how he tries to attach himself to the future American president, to absorb his power, to look in the mirror to see the face of Washington, although so far Trump's team has not sent him any sign of sympathy. And even if they did, how could his eyes be drawn to such a thing by the first sovereigntist of the country?
In the worst case, "pacifist" Georgescu has planted, through his peaceful legionaries, some of whom are under investigation for beating their parents until they broke ribs, the outbreak of provocative violence at the protest at the CCR, counting on a reaction from the gendarmes that he can quickly turn into victimization. Violence from which, however, he must remain geographically distant.
Manipulative struggle in justice
The fact is that all the internal and external legal struggles of Călin Georgescu's team have no legal value and are strictly intended to maintain and amplify agitation. A move with modest results so far, because no matter how skillfully Realitatea TV films, the few hundred, at most thousand people who come out in the city squares have not multiplied.
And since he has nothing else to offer but scandal, incitement, manipulation, it is obvious that the large masses are a strong argument that he could be tempted to mobilize through the extreme emotion of violence.
As I was saying, from a legal point of view, nothing that Mr. Georgescu does stands a chance, because it is outside any legal provisions.
The reasoning with which the CAB rejected his action against the BEC decision to stop the second round is impeccable and indisputable for anyone with minimal understanding of Romanian laws: CCR decisions cannot be overturned by any court in this country, so Decision no. 32/6.12.2024 of the CCR cannot be subject to judicial review. Undoubtedly, the High Court of Cassation and Justice will give the same answer.
The spectacle of hypocrisy in these times is grandiose. A true masterpiece
There was a time when the CCR, with the same absolute power as now, demolished justice, its laws, and institutions in Romania.
Abuse of office was shattered, leading to thousands of acquittals. Final decisions of the High Court of Cassation and Justice were annulled, which allowed numerous convicted criminals to escape, as their retrial was either barred by the statute of limitations or by a decriminalization decided by the CCR.
When the CCR decided to revoke Mrs. Kovesi from the leadership of the DNA, the judges were eroded. When the CJEU established that Romanian judges can disregard a decision of the CCR if it contradicts EU law, there were howls of outrage from thousands of chests for this violation of the sovereign supremacy of the CCR in a sovereign country.
And - what do you know? - exactly the same voices, some directly benefiting from acquittals based on CCR actions, discover with proletarian rage that the CCR is not necessarily composed of magistrates, not even of eminent professionals, as they claimed until now, that CCR decisions should not be sacrosanct, as they claimed until now, that judges should be criminally investigated for the decisions made, and the CCR should be abolished.
Ingrid Mocanu, Liviu Pleșoianu, Gelu Vișan, and many others have completely changed their tune and attack the CCR from all angles.
When Tudorel Toader said something sensible and consistent, that CCR decisions are final and generally binding, he was not only insulted by Ms. Ingrid Mocanu, who at the time urged Senator Șerban Nicolae to suspend Klaus Iohannis for delaying the decree to dismiss Mrs. Kovesi, thus violating a CCR decision that is generally binding.
Regarding the petitions with which Călin Georgescu urges his supporters to flood the CCR on Friday, they are extremely valuable, in case the employees of that institution run out of toilet paper. The CCR has no obligation to bring them into the courtroom.
What and when he can obtain at the ECHR
The action at the ECHR is another manipulation starting with the information that it is supposed to pronounce by the end of January. No one has seen any official document confirming this statement by Mr. Georgescu's lawyer.
But even if there were, the ECHR can only rule in the first instance on the admissibility of an action within a filter procedure. And Mr. Georgescu's action is doubly inadmissible.
On the one hand, because in accordance with Protocol no. 1 art.3, the ECHR has judicial competence only in the case of legislative elections, and on the other hand, because he initiated a process that has not reached a final decision in Romania.
Let's say that miraculously it is declared admissible, the judgment of the action cannot last less than 2 years and cannot begin without the Romanian state being asked, in a reasonable time, for its point of view through Romania's agent at the ECHR. And Mr. Georgescu can only win potential damages at the ECHR, in no case a rerun of an election round.
It remains, of course, part of the anthology of the ridiculous that the number 1 sovereigntist is asking a foreign court to set things right in the sovereign country.
What Mr. Georgescu is trying to use to compensate for this total lack of legal basis is the argument of force. Calling people to the steps of the CAB, to the CCR, with the risk, perhaps even anticipated, of violence, is a way to exert popular pressure on the administrative and constitutional litigation.
I am the last one to claim that the CCR is a benchmark institution. When all those who now would set it on fire were worshiping it for destroying Justice, I was contesting the CCR and thanks to lawyer Elenina Nicuț, I sued and won a case against the CCR. Certainly, the courts do not always function at the highest level.
But even so, the solution is not a trial under such pressure, essentially political, because, no matter how it is painted, Mr. Georgescu is a political figure who is running in an electoral, hence political, process for a political position.
If he is willing to engage in this type of abuse now, what would he be willing to do in a position where, fortunately, his chances of reaching it are diminishing day by day?