CCR: BEC complied with the law when it rejected Călin Georgescu's candidacy

The Central Electoral Bureau correctly applied the provisions and principles set out in CCR Decision no. 2 of October 5, 2024 and CCR Decision no. 32 of December 6, 2024, which, although they do not explicitly prohibit Călin Georgescu's candidacy, establish principles applicable to the verification of the eligibility of candidates for the presidential elections, the Constitutional Court of Romania states in the motivation of Decision no. 7 of March 11, 2025, by which it rejected the appeal filed by Călin Georgescu, as well as other appeals regarding the BEC's decision not to register the candidacy file submitted by him for the May 4 election.

The reasoning of the CCR decision states: "The Court notes that, within the electoral litigation, both the BEC and the Constitutional Court verify the candidates' fulfillment of the formal and substantive eligibility conditions, with the specifications mentioned in the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court and, in particular, in Constitutional Court Decisions no. 2 of October 5, 2024 and no. 32 of December 6, 2024. (...) The Court emphasized that, by carrying out this constitutional and democratic control over the electoral process, it fulfills its duty to ensure compliance with the procedure for electing the President of Romania, the ultimate purpose of which is to restore citizens' trust in the democratic legitimacy of public authorities, in the legality and fairness of the elections, as well as to remove any suspicions of the nature of those found in the case. Thus, both the electoral rights of citizens (the right to vote and the right to be elected) and the foundations of the constitutional order are protected, essential premises for maintaining the democratic character and rule of law of Romania (...) The Court notes that the BEC is not a judicial body, but an electoral administrative body with temporary prerogatives of public power, and its acts are administrative or administrative-jurisdictional acts, but they belong to the subject matter of electoral litigation."

The Court noted that the very principle of loyalty to the Constitution and democracy represents a fundamental condition for candidacy for the position of President of Romania. However, in the case of Călin Georgescu, the CCR shows that there were aspects that called into question the respect of these principles, thus justifying the BEC's decision. Although the verification of the eligibility conditions normally falls to the Constitutional Court, it emphasized that the BEC cannot ignore relevant information from the public space and that it has the duty to take measures to protect the integrity of the electoral process.

In the motivation of its decision, the CCR states: "According to art.17 paragraph (1) letter b) of Law no. 370/2004, the BEC has the task of ascertaining the fulfillment of the substantive and formal conditions provided for by Law no. 370/2004, respectively of the formal and substantive conditions of a special nature established by the Constitution and developed within the content of Law no. 370/2004. The substantive conditions of a general nature are constitutional in nature and are provided for in Title I of the Constitution. By Decision no. 2 of October 5, 2024, paragraph 48, the Court ruled that the elements contained in the oath of allegiance are substantive eligibility conditions to run for the position of President of Romania, which the candidate must meet at the time of submitting his candidacy, and the examination of these conditions can only be carried out by the Constitutional Court. 119. Subsequently, by Decision no. 32 of 6 December 2024, paragraph 20, final thesis, the Court ruled that the resumption of the electoral process also implies the establishment of new electoral offices, the re-submission of candidacies to be evaluated by the new Central Electoral Office and the conduct of a new fair and transparent electoral campaign, in relation to constitutional principles and values. As such, taking into account the particular situation caused by the cancellation of the electoral process for the election of the President of Romania in 2024, the Court, in the coordinates of the same existing premise situation, namely ensuring the succession of presidential mandates and guaranteeing the periodicity of elections, assessed that for this electoral process - which has the same object, namely the election of the President of Romania for a 5-year mandate, consecutive to the one obtained following the 2019 elections - it is necessary for the BEC to directly apply the constitutional provisions relating to the substantive eligibility conditions established in Title I of the Constitution. Such an investiture of the BEC by the Constitutional Court results from the use of the phrase "by reference to constitutional principles and values" in the context of the new BEC's assessment of the submitted candidacies. In its jurisprudence, the Court has emphasized that it has the power to establish the direct application of the Constitution by public authorities and institutions, for example, in situations determined by the finding of unconstitutionality of normative acts "in the absence of a legal regulation of the legal situation created following the decision to admit the exception of unconstitutionality in the hypothesis and terms established by the decision to find unconstitutionality pronounced by the Constitutional Court"".

The CCR also considered that the annulment of the 2024 electoral process was based on serious violations of democratic rules, and this context cannot be ignored when resuming the elections. Thus, the CCR validated the BEC position according to which the same persons involved in these irregularities cannot be automatically accepted in the new electoral process.

"As such, even if it is a new electoral process, it falls within the same coordinates and the same paradigm of ensuring the succession of the presidential mandate acquired in 2019. Therefore, the Court allowed the direct application by the BEC of the Constitution only for this electoral process carried out in the exceptional circumstances determined by the annulment of the 2024 electoral process. Consequently, the BEC, taking into account the constitutional and legal provisions relating to the effects of the jurisdictional acts of the Constitutional Court, gave efficiency to the generally binding nature of the Court's decision, a nature that concerns not only the solution, but also the considerations that are directly related to it," the CCR's reasoning for its decision states.

The Court argued that the right to be elected, although fundamental, is not absolute and can be limited by legitimate and foreseeable conditions established by law and by the Court's jurisprudence. In this case, the BEC's decision was considered justified in the context of protecting the constitutional order.