On Means and Ends
During the 2024 presidential elections, the Romanian Constitutional Court has assumed a surprisingly militant stance, ultimately granting it an unexpected leading role in the outcome (disruption) of the elections. Alas, the outcome, which at the moment seems an acceptable political result for the pro-European parties, i.e. preventing a possible victory of a far-right, pro-Russian candidate, was achieved through a series of unfortunate decisions. They were at odds with constitutional order, principles of the rule of law, or the idea of democracy.
Continue reading >>
A Troubling Triumph in Romania
The annulment of Romania’s presidential election results by its Constitutional Court is, at first glance, a triumph for democracy. By nullifying the first round – narrowly won by far-right candidate Calin Georgescu amid allegations of Russian-backed interference – the Court sent a clear message: electoral integrity is not up for debate. But is this really a victory? In truth, this decision reflects a troubling pattern in how democracies respond to crises: after the fact. The annulment is not so much a defence of democracy as a stark reminder of the limits of judicial power.
Continue reading >>
The Second Round that Wasn’t
On 6 December 2024, the final day of Romania’s most turbulent presidential election campaign in the last 25 years, the Constitutional Court issued a ruling that was unprecedented not only in recent Romanian, but also in European constitutional history: it annulled the first round of the elections, held on 24 November, and ordered the entire electoral process to restart. Only 4 days earlier, on 2 December 2024, the same Court had ruled not to annul the first round of the elections. What led to this dramatic shift between those two dates?
Continue reading >>