The High Court rejected Simion's appeal regarding the annulment of the elections

Yesterday, the High Court of Cassation and Justice (ICCJ) ruled on the appeal filed by AUR leader George Simion against the decision of the Constitutional Court of Romania (CCR) on the annulment of the electoral process of the 2024 presidential elections. The High Court decided: "Admits the exception of the general lack of jurisdiction of the courts, invoked ex officio. Rejects the appeal for annulment filed by the appellant Simion George Nicolae against Decision no. 32 of December 6, 2024, pronounced by the Constitutional Court, on the annulment of the electoral process regarding the election of the President of Romania in 2024, as inadmissible. Final".

The ICCJ decision underlines the limits of the competences of the courts, confirming the impossibility of intervening in the decisions of the CCR. The ICCJ invoked the exception of general lack of jurisdiction of the courts, declaring the appeal filed by George Simion inadmissible. The decision is final, closing any possibility of appeal in this case.

In practice, the ICCJ decision brings to the fore the clear separation of institutional powers in Romania. According to constitutional provisions, the decisions of the Constitutional Court are final and binding, and the courts do not have the authority to review or annul them. This position reaffirms the role of the CCR as the supreme guarantor of compliance with the Constitution.

In the document filed with the ICCJ, the leader of the AUR, George Simion, challenged the CCR's decision to annul the electoral process, describing it as "a dangerous precedent". Simion argued that the CCR's decision violates Article 2 of the Constitution, which states that "national sovereignty belongs to the Romanian people and is exercised through its elected representatives". Moreover, he warned that the decision could pave the way for the perpetuation of an irreplaceable political power through elections, which undermines citizens' trust in the democratic process and the rule of law.

The CCR justified the annulment of the entire electoral process of the presidential elections based on information provided by the intelligence services (SRI, SIE) and the Ministry of Interior. These information notes, declassified by the CSAT, were considered sufficient to support the annulment decision. According to the AUR leader, however, this justification is insufficient and leaves room for interpretations that endanger the democratic process.

By rejecting the appeal filed by the AUR leader, the High Court of Cassation and Justice reaffirmed the limits of the jurisdiction of the courts, underlining the supreme status of the CCR's decisions. While this ruling clarifies the relationships between state institutions, numerous questions remain regarding the impact of the CCR's decision on the electoral process and democracy in Romania.

Also yesterday, the ÎCCJ declined jurisdiction in favor of the Bucharest Court of Appeal regarding the appeal filed by the Young People's Party (POT), against decisions 339 (regarding the non-distribution of two senatorial mandates) and 340 (regarding the cessation of the activity of the electoral bureaus established in the parliamentary elections) issued by the Central Electoral Bureau upon the completion of the parliamentary elections.

Reader's Opinion

write your opinion here.

Accord

By writing your opinion here you confirm that you have read the rules below and that you consent to them.

Anti-Romanian comments are prohibited.
- Use decent language.
The editorial team reserves the right to remove incoherent and vulgar opinions, which includes those with anti-social, obscene, and/or insulting content, as well as those that do not pertain to the article in question.
Stupid-aggressive comments are not allowed.
Incitement to social hatred and/or xenophobia, discrimination based on gender, age, or any other nature are not accepted.
Advertising announcements are not permitted.
Do not insert links or email addresses in the text of opinions.
Deliberate repetition of the same message (or variants) can be considered propaganda; propaganda in this form is prohibited.
- Threats of any kind are not accepted.
- Harassment of BURSA's journalists is not allowed.
- Defaming the BURSA Newspaper is prohibited.
- Revealing the identity of any commentator in the opinion section without their written consent filed with the Editorial Office is not accepted.
The use of the names of BURSA's journalists for the falsification of opinion signatures is not allowed.
Name substitution is not accepted.
The editorial team reserves the right to delete opinions and restrict access to posting opinions for those who are deemed to act in bad faith.
Violations of this regulation will result in the removal of posted opinions (an equivalent of self-censorship by the author of the message, rather than censorship practiced by the newspaper).
SPECIFICATIONS:
- All opinions express the views of the authors, not the administrator (except for messages written by the administrator); we do not take responsibility for materials posted on this site by individuals not authorized by the BURSA newspaper.
- Posting a message implies tacit acceptance of this regulation.
- If you request individual responses, please provide your real email address; we will try, within the available time, to answer all your questions.