The Venice Commission, the Council of Europe’s advisory body on constitutional matters, has raised concerns about the annulment of Romania’s presidential elections last December.
Published on January 28, the Venice Commission report stressed that annulments of elections should only occur as a last resort, backed by solid evidence.
“The cancellation of a part of elections or elections as a whole can be allowed only under very exceptional circumstances as ultima ratio and on the condition that irregularities in the electoral process may have affected the outcome of the vote,” the Commission stated.
The report pointed out that to maintain public trust in democratic processes, decisions to invalidate elections must be well-reasoned, transparent, and based on clear, verifiable evidence.
“The power of constitutional courts to invalidate elections ex officio [by right of office] – if any – should be limited to exceptional circumstances and clearly regulated, in order to preserve voters’ confidence in the legitimacy of elections,” the report said.
The Romanian court’s decision ignited considerable controversy. Pro-Western Candidate Elena Lascorni, who came second overall in the election’s first round, stated earlier in January that the Romanian State owed its people an “explanation”.
The report also insisted that any decision to invalidate an election should not be made on “classified intelligence”.
“In the opinion of the Venice Commission, such decisions should precisely indicate the violations and the evidence, and they must not be based solely on classified intelligence (which may only be used as contextual information), as this would not guarantee the necessary transparency and verifiability,” it said.
The annulment, which disqualified the hard-right candidate Călin Georgescu, was initially based on classified documents submitted on November 28 and then declassified on December 4.
Romanian authorities claimed the annulment was justified due to Russian “influence operations”.
Many have argued that the alleged irregularities did not provide sufficient grounds to annul the election.
Gabriel Elefteriu, deputy director of the Council on Geostrategy, said: “The documents offer no concrete evidence of Russian interference in Romania’s presidential elections, nor any credible links between Călin Georgescu and Russia.”
The Venice Commission’s review was initiated following a December 13 request by Theodoros Rousopoulos, President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
The inquiry aimed to clarify the conditions and legal standards under which constitutional courts could invalidate elections.
This report followed the decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to reject Georgescu’s appeal against the annulment of the presidential ballot.
Speaking to Brussels Signal on January 22, Elefteriu concluded that the cancellation of the election was a serious blow to democracy.
He claimed it reflected a broader trend in the West where basic democratic rights were being undermined by political regimes seeking to maintain power.
The Commission provides legal advice to member states, assisting them in aligning their legal and institutional frameworks with European and international standards in democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.
