The Venice Commission, the Council of Europe’s constitutional advisory body, has cast serious doubt on Romania’s decision to annul its December presidential election, emphasizing that such actions should only happen in rare, extreme cases backed by undeniable proof.
In a report released on January 28, the Commission made its stance clear: “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.”
Transparency and trust in democracy, the report stressed, must be preserved. Any move to nullify an election should be well-justified, publicly accountable, and based on verifiable evidence. Furthermore, constitutional courts should not have unchecked authority to overturn elections without strict legal limitations.
Romania’s election annulment sparked a heated debate, particularly after pro-Brussels candidate Elena Lascorni—who placed second in the first round—demanded that the government provide an explanation. Adding to the controversy, the Commission insisted that such decisions cannot rely solely on classified intelligence. “These 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,” the report stated.
The election was overturned on allegations that anti-globalist candidate Călin Georgescu was connected to Russian influence operations—a claim initially supported by classified documents from November 28, which were later declassified on December 4. However, critics, including Gabriel Elefteriu, deputy director of the Council on Geostrategy, argue that there is no concrete proof of Russian interference or any credible link between Georgescu and Moscow.
The Venice Commission’s review followed a December 13 request by Theodoros Rousopoulos, head of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, aiming to clarify the legal standards under which elections can be invalidated. Meanwhile, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) recently rejected Georgescu’s appeal against the annulment, further fueling debates over the legitimacy of the decision.
Elefteriu didn’t mince words, warning that this move dealt a major blow to democracy. In a January 22 interview with European media, he argued that the situation reflected a troubling trend in the West, where governments are increasingly using political maneuvers to cling to power at the expense of fundamental democratic rights.
As a key legal advisory body, the Venice Commission assists European states in upholding democratic principles, human rights, and the rule of law. Whether Romania’s election annulment withstands scrutiny remains an open question, but the controversy surrounding it is far from over.
