Former president of the Constitutional Court, Augustin Zegrean, stated that the decision of the Constitutional Court regarding the invalidation of Diana Șoșoacă’s candidacy is „excessive,” arguing that it is a „pity that it was made,” because „whenever the issue of analyzing someone’s candidacy arises, this decision will be invoked, either from one side or the other.”
Zegrean argues that some of the arguments put forth by the Constitutional Court are even „ridiculous.” „None of the reasons provided in the Constitution and laws that could prevent her candidacy have been violated or there is no evidence that they have been violated,” said the former president of the Constitutional Court.
"It is an excessive decision, they went too far with the assessments. The Court's decisions must be strictly constitutional and must take into account the Constitution, because in Romania, respecting the Constitution, its supremacy, and the laws is mandatory. This means that both those who enact the laws and those who must apply them must respect them, including the judges of the Constitutional Court," stated Augustin Zegrean, on Tuesday evening, in an intervention on TVR Info.
The former constitutional judge said that the reasoning of the Constitutional Court is excessive.
"The reasoning is excessive, because you cannot stop a person's candidacy just because they are, let's say, eurosceptic. This lady represents a part of Romania's population. There are 30-40% of Romanians who in all surveys about Europe vote that they do not trust Europe, they are eurosceptic. Even in the European Parliament, there are 70-80 eurosceptics who, when the European anthem is sung, turn their backs to the platform and stomp their feet, so you can't kick them out.
She represents a segment of Romania's population, which voted for her to reach the European Parliament, the same population would have voted for her for the presidency, so she was not such a great danger to democracy as claimed in the Court's decision, and that danger should not be taken into account. The Constitution specifies in which situations a Romanian citizen cannot run for a position in the state," Zegrean argued.
He argued that, apart from the Constitution, there are other laws that regulate the conditions under which a person can run for the highest position in the state.
"None of the reasons provided in the Constitution and laws that could prevent her candidacy have been violated or there is no evidence that they have been violated. She has not been convicted for advocating Legionarism or fascism, or whatever else is reproached there. There are some ridiculous arguments, like meeting with some Italian journalists and speaking rudely to them. Well, that has nothing to do with what she wants to do, to become the president of Romania.
So, this decision is excessive and it's a pity that it was made, because it enters the history of the Constitutional Court, it becomes part of the Constitutional Court's heritage, and whenever the issue of analyzing someone's candidacy arises, this decision will be invoked from one side or the other," added the former judge.