Report Warns Election Annulments Only Justified in ‘Exceptional Circumstances’

Independent candidate for presidency Calin Georgescu speaks after an interview with The Associated Press in Izvorani, Romania, on Dec. 4, 2024. Vadim Ghirda/AP Photo

The Venice Commission, an advisory body of the Council of Europe, has said in a report that the annulment of election results such as Calin Georgescu’s first-round lead in Romania can only be justified in “exceptional circumstances.”

On Jan. 27, the Venice Commission posted an “urgent” report detailing the conditions and legal standards under which a constitutional court could invalidate elections, in light of Georgescu, who emerged as the frontrunner in Romania’s canceled presidential election.

The Venice Commission warned that election annulments should occur only under “very exceptional circumstances” that must follow strict legal guidelines to maintain public trust.

Georgescu, an independent populist candidate who campaigned primarily on TikTok, won the first round of Romania’s presidential election on Nov. 25, 2024.

However, on Dec. 6, 2024, Romania’s Constitutional Court annulled the first-round results.

European Union officials issued a “retention order” under the EU’s Digital Services Act after declassified documents claimed Georgescu had been promoted on TikTok through a series of coordinated accounts, recommendation algorithms, and paid promotion.

Declassified intelligence alleged Russia organized a sprawling campaign across social media to promote Georgescu.

The request for the report came on Dec. 13, 2024, from the president of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Theodoros Roussopoulos.

The Venice Commission said it is not its role to examine the facts of the case or the decision by the Romanian Constitutional Court.

However, it said that only under certain circumstances, and if multiple conditions and safeguards are met, can a constitutional court invalidate an election.

“The cancellation of a part of elections or elections as a whole can be allowed only under very exceptional circumstances ... and on the condition that irregularities in the electoral process may have affected the outcome of the vote,” the commission said.

“The power of constitutional courts to invalidate elections ex officio [by right of office] ... should be limited to exceptional circumstances and clearly regulated, in order to preserve voters’ confidence in the legitimacy of elections.”

The Venice Commission said such decisions must not be based solely 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 added.

‘Internal Coup’

On Jan. 22, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) rejected an appeal to overturn the election annulment.

In its ruling, the ECHR said the appeal, filed by Georgescu, fell outside its jurisdiction.

Georgescu had campaigned against NATO and the European Union.

In a 2021 interview, he referred to NATO’s ballistic missile defense shield, located in the Romanian town of Deveselu, as a “shame of diplomacy.”

Moscow has rejected allegations that it interfered in the election.

TikTok has denied reports that its algorithms gave Georgescu an unfair advantage. On Jan. 9, the company said it took further action against the network of 4,453 inauthentic accounts that targeted Romanian audiences.

It said this network attempted to promote the nationalist political alliance AUR political party and, “to a smaller extent, the independent candidate Calin Georgescu.”

Frank Furedi, executive director of MCC Brussels, a Belgium-based think tank that is frequently critical of EU policy, previously told The Epoch Times that he saw it as “an internal coup.”

“It’s very much an expression of the politicization of the judiciary, where the courts are used as a political weapon to isolate opponents,” Furedi said.

Cem Karadeli, a Turkish political analyst and a professor of international relations at Ankara’s Ufuk University, agreed.

“Romania had a very interesting populist candidate who was likely to win the elections,” Karadeli previously told The Epoch Times. “But then we saw that it was prevented by the country’s Supreme Court.”

‘Historic’

Others have taken the opposite view, stressing the court’s constitutional duty to safeguard elections from malign foreign influences.

Writing for the Atlantic Council on Dec. 6, 2024, Anca Agachi, a defense policy analyst at the RAND Corporation, described the court decision as “historic and unprecedented.”

She said Romania’s Constitutional Court unanimously decided on the basis of Article 146 (f) of the constitution concerning the legality and correctness of the presidential electoral process.

According to Article 146, the court is obliged to protect “the observance of the procedure for the election of the president of Romania and to confirm the ballot returns.”

Adam Morrow and Reuters contributed to this report.