:: Romanian Version

Alina Matei: Thank you, esteemed Mr. Judge Marian Enache, President of the Constitutional Court, for taking the time to speak with JURIDICE readers. Mr. President, I know that you have been requested for interviews after the Constitutional Court issued the two rulings regarding the presidential elections, but you declined these requests until after the elections were concluded. With your consent, I would like to ask you a few questions regarding the situation generated by these two rulings.

Marian Enache: That is correct, I do not give interviews in the public space because, on the one hand, the Constitutional Court’s rulings have been published, are reasoned, and therefore contain the grounds on which they were issued, and on the other hand, there is the duty of restraint for any judge. I have noticed that public debates contain many speculative interpretations of constitutional provisions and various subjective and eclectic assessments regarding the Constitutional Court’s rulings, as well as the report drafted by a working group of the Venice Commission and published on January 27, 2025 – a report which we will refer to hereinafter as the draft report, since it has not yet been adopted by the Venice Commission.

The reasons I will answer your questions are determined by the legal profile of your publication and the necessity, depending on your questions, to provide some clarifications regarding the activity of the Constitutional Court of Romania (CCR). Categorically, we do not intend to interfere with the partisan political environment and interests during this electoral period, as the CCR is outside the perimeter of the three powers of the state and political parties. The CCR is independent and impartial in the exercise of its duties, as well as in relation to other institutions or the interests of individuals or groups. We remain consistent in our impartial stance as a constitutional arbiter, in accordance with the requirements of the Fundamental Law and the CCR’s organic law. We do not intend to engage in or become involved in the current political-electoral disputes.

I do not expect to convince anyone because, realistically, I do not believe there is a genuine desire for us to listen to each other. Everyone seeks to impose their own impressions as true convictions in a broad, polemical, and partisan framework. I believe that no argument of rationality or legality could stand a chance in an apparent dialogue where each of us “speaks together but understands separately,” in an era where critical and analytical thinking is stifled by destructive criticism.

Alina Matei: I believe that certain explanations can be provided regarding some aspects of the procedure for electing the President of Romania.

Marian Enache: I will try to provide you, as much as possible, with mainly technical answers, accompanied by some personal considerations, evaluations that are more or less subjective. After these elections are concluded, if there is interest from media representatives, we can organize a press conference or conduct a more extensive interview out of respect for the public interest and a sincere desire to establish better communication with citizens.

My responses to your questions are intended for readers who are not “passionately” involved in the controversies surrounding the elections. Additionally, I imagine that, regardless of the explanation provided, both those interested and those caught up in the fervor of the electoral campaign will interpret them pro domo.

Alina Matei: The public space has recently been dominated by topics related to the Constitutional Court and its competencies regarding presidential elections. To begin with, could you outline the main points that should be considered for a correct and objective understanding of the CCR’s role in presidential elections?

Marian Enache: Constitutional courts are not “mere registrars” of presidential elections, party requests, parliamentary activities, or government actions; they cannot be subservient or ancillary to them. Through their role and functions in constitutional review, they are the guarantors of the rule of law as enshrined in the Constitution.

According to Article 82 paragraph (1) and Article 146 letter f) of the Constitution, the Court oversees compliance with the procedure for electing the President of Romania, validates, and confirms the results of the election. This competence of the Court was established in the Romanian Constitution approved by referendum on December 8, 1991, and has not undergone any modification through the 2003 constitutional revision. It was the will of the original constituent legislator to explicitly and exclusively grant the Court the responsibility of overseeing the procedure for electing the President of Romania, and the revising constituent legislator implicitly reinforced this role. This is a domain in which the CCR has full and exclusive competence, with judicial courts lacking functional jurisdiction. In other words, the CCR is the sole electoral judge in the procedure for electing the President of Romania.

The Constitutional Court has the constitutional obligation and responsibility to monitor the conduct of presidential elections within the parameters established by Article 2 paragraph (2) of the Constitution, particularly regarding their free and fair nature. The Constitutional Court’s rulings are not issued against anyone or in favor of any candidate; they are adopted in the interpretation and application of the Constitution.

It must be noted that any electoral operation within the presidential elections can be subject to review by the Court, and acts of the Central Electoral Bureau can be challenged before the Court. This aspect aligns with the Venice Commission’s draft report (paragraph 21), which, in the case of election annulment, states that this competence may belong either to an administrative body – provided that its acts can be challenged before the supreme court, the constitutional court, or specialized electoral courts – or to the constitutional court as a first and last instance, exactly as is the case in Romania.

Thus, the constituent legislator granted the Constitutional Court general competence specifically in consideration of the role of the President of Romania within the Romanian constitutional system. The Court is an electoral judge, a tribunal endowed with prerogatives enabling it to take effective, energetic, and efficient action to ensure the integrity of the entire electoral process in all its stages and components.

Law No. 47/1992 on the organization and functioning of the Constitutional Court and Law No. 370/2004 on the election of the President of Romania regulate the means and modalities through which voters/electoral competitors can access constitutional jurisdiction. These legal provisions do not exclude but rather uphold the CCR’s plenary competence in the sense that they regulate only the initiation of jurisdiction by referral, without addressing the possibility and constitutional competence of the Court to act ex officio in exceptional situations, as was the case with the ruling annulling the electoral process for the election of the President of Romania.

Alina Matei: Do I understand correctly that throughout the electoral process, the Constitutional Court can act ex officio?

Marian Enache: That is correct! But to understand more clearly how this mechanism works, we must first draw a clear distinction between the provisions of Article 146 letter f) of the Constitution and those of Law No. 47/1992 and Law No. 370/2004.

Thus, according to the constitutional text, the Court ensures compliance with the procedure for electing the President of Romania, while the two laws, without being exhaustive, regulate the Court’s competence exercised upon referral, as follows: resolving complaints against the registration or non-registration of candidacies, requests regarding impediments to the conduct of the electoral campaign, as well as requests for election annulment.

Therefore, even in these procedural stages, the Court has the competence to act ex officio regarding any of the three categories of actions mentioned above. This means, for example, that the constitutionality review of a candidacy’s registration or non-registration can be exercised either upon referral – where the Court is obliged to rule on the request – or ex officio, when the Court deems direct intervention necessary to ensure the constitutionality of the electoral process. Clearly, ex officio intervention is exceptional and a measure of ultima ratio. In this regard, I would like to point out that, in the eight electoral cycles, the Court has issued only one ruling as a result of an ex officio referral out of the 426 rulings delivered over more than 32 years since the establishment of the Constitutional Court of Romania (CCR). The fact that, in the past, the Constitutional Court did not exercise its ex officio power provided for in Article 146(f) of the Constitution is due to the absence of an exceptional situation that would have necessitated such intervention, and not to the non-existence of this constitutional possibility.

Alina Matei: Can the Constitutional Court annul an electoral process?

Marian Enache: If a constitutional court has the power to validate and confirm election results, it also has the power to reject, invalidate, or annul them. This competence cannot be merely formal, decorative, or declarative; it is real and effective and can be exercised when an exceptional situation arises that triggers it. Since this constitutional obligation is concretized and objectified through this competence, the Constitutional Court cannot invariably limit itself to confirming election results, regardless of the exceptional circumstances that may arise and compromise the integrity of the electoral process. Instead, it must exercise its competence precisely to fulfill its role and function of active constitutional control established by the Constitution.

It can be observed that, in 2016, the Austrian Constitutional Court invalidated the results of the second round of the presidential elections, applying a very strict standard regarding the enforcement of electoral rules and principles. Although no evidence of manipulated vote counting was found – meaning no electoral fraud was identified – the Austrian Constitutional Court determined that irregularities in the management and counting of postal votes could have affected almost 78,000 votes out of the 117 electoral districts, given that the difference between the two candidates was approximately 31,000 votes. Consequently, the annulment of the elections and the repetition of the second round of voting were natural consequences of the identified irregularities.

Paraphrasing the President of the Austrian Constitutional Court at that time, Mr. G. Holzinger, we can affirm that this decision was a historic one, issued to maintain and strengthen trust in democracy and the rule of law, as only the faithful and complete observance of electoral standards, rules, and principles ensures citizens’ confidence in democracy.

In European states, constitutional courts have the power to overturn election results precisely to protect the integrity of the democratic system.

In the case of Romania, the determining irregularities for the annulment of the electoral process for the election of the President of Romania concerned the equality of candidates’ opportunities, campaign financing, and voter influence – in other words, the fairness of the elections as an expression of sovereignty. Apart from the determining causes, there were also epiphenomena – adjacent elements generated by the conduct of some parties during the electoral campaign, already known to the public, which also contributed to influencing the election results.

Alina Matei: Mr. President, in the same framework, the draft report of the Venice Commission states that a constitutional court has the ex officio competence to invalidate presidential elections.

Marian Enache: Indeed, this draft report explicitly emphasizes that such competence of constitutional courts is part of the European constitutional heritage.

Within this conceptual framework, however, certain clarifications regarding the role and legal status of the Venice Commission, as well as the nature of the documents it issues, are necessary.

First, the Venice Commission is an advisory body of the Council of Europe, established in 1990, and is composed of individuals appointed by the governments of Council of Europe member states. It conducts research on its own initiative, carries out studies, and drafts guidelines, legislative proposals, or international agreements. The Venice Commission may, within its mandate, issue opinions at the request of the Committee of Ministers, the Parliamentary Assembly, the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe, the Secretary General, as well as at the request of a state, an international organization, or an international body participating in the Commission’s work.

Second, it must be emphasized that the Venice Commission does not have the competence to examine cases adjudicated by national courts. In its advisory work, it should act to enhance the understanding of legal systems, promote the rule of law and democracy, and examine issues related to the functioning of democratic institutions and their consolidation and development.

Regarding the draft report you refer to, it should be noted that it explicitly mentions the constitutional courts’ power to invalidate ex officio elections in exceptional situations – which is correct from the perspective of promoting and defending the rule of law. However, regrettably, it fails to make the necessary distinction between presidential elections and other types of elections, mixing them together and ultimately creating a heterogeneous concept. The draft report attempts to identify and standardize solutions for heterogeneous legal situations with different legal regimes. For example, it is incorrect to invoke the First Additional Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms – which applies only to parliamentary elections – when analyzing presidential elections, because this protocol does not cover such elections. This was emphasized by the CCR in Decision No. 2/2024, and I urge you, in this regard, to read paragraph 57 of that decision, which extensively explains that, according to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), the Convention and its First Additional Protocol do not apply ratione materiae to presidential elections. Moreover, the reference made by the draft report (in paragraph 30) to the amicus curiae opinion of the Venice Commission in the ECHR case of Mugemangango v. Belgium is again questionable, as that case concerned, on the one hand, elections for the Parliament of the Walloon Region of Belgium, and on the other hand, the issue raised in that case was that the legislative assembly itself was acting as an electoral judge, with its decisions not being subject to any appeal before a judicial authority.

In Romania’s situation, on the one hand, we are dealing with presidential elections, not parliamentary ones, and on the other hand, appeals against the decisions of the Central Electoral Bureau are adjudicated by a judicial authority – the Constitutional Court – and not by the legislative or executive authority.

Therefore, it can be observed that the draft report attempts to generalize the provisions of the First Additional Protocol to the Convention to presidential elections, which is highly questionable, even inadmissible. Additionally, the invocation of certain ECHR case law precedents is done with evident inaccuracies and inconsistencies.

We appreciate the effort made by the Venice Commission’s working group in drafting this report, but, like any human work produced within a short time frame, it contains certain assertions or imprecise references characteristic of an in abstracto approach.

The draft report is a technical document, a documentary support, that cannot be converted into a concrete decision regarding the specifics of a particular case. Moreover, paragraphs 6 and 66 of the draft report unequivocally state that it does not concern the situation in Romania.

Alina Matei: But if the draft report does not concern the situation in Romania, why was it published/drafted precisely between the two electoral processes – the annulled one and the upcoming one?

Marian Enache: The reasons behind the acceleration of drafting and publishing this draft report at this time escape me. What I can say, however, is that this draft report has created certain conceptual and principled confusions in the Romanian public sphere, particularly concerning the constitutional issues it raises in the context of its interposition between the two electoral processes – the annulled one (held between September and December 2024) and the announced one (scheduled for February–May 2025). Its conclusions do not affect the ruling of the Constitutional Court. The erroneous idea has been spread in the public space that the Venice Commission is a supranational electoral judge. However, in reality, this draft report is a consultative documentary initiative with a general recommendation nature, which does not concern the specific situation in Romania and, evidently, does not challenge the rulings of the CCR.

I emphasize that the opinions and reports of the Venice Commission fall under what we, as legal professionals, call soft law. While they do not have binding legal force for judicial authorities, their contents – expressed as principles, best practices, requirements, and standards in certain areas – can contribute to guiding and influencing the actions of state authorities and institutions and to defending democracy through law.

Alina Matei: How do you assess the draft report prepared by this working group of the Venice Commission?

Marian Enache: Personally, I believe that the entire draft report should be understood in a unified manner and in direct relation to the need for the member states of the Council of Europe to establish legislative rules for conducting electoral campaigns in the sphere of social media. It is undeniable that, unlike traditional electoral campaign channels, which are strictly regulated both in terms of freedom of expression and financial fairness and transparency, the new wave of social media remains a “terra incognita” for governments, requiring legislators to systematically and appropriately regulate this domain.

Thus, we observe that establishing legal rules regarding the operation of digital social media platforms and ensuring the transparency of the algorithms used is becoming imperative for lawmakers. This is necessary to protect the right to vote and the right to run for office – both intrinsic elements of constitutional democracy – from potential interferences and deceptive manipulations of the electoral process itself. Therefore, I consider this draft report to be a wake-up call for national legislators, urging them to identify and regulate the conduct of electoral campaigns, taking into account the risks and particularities of social media campaigns conducted online or on any digital platforms. These platforms can be fraudulently sponsored and financially supported by legal entities from within or outside the state’s borders, which may be difficult to identify. In my opinion, these regulations, both at the European and national levels, are an urgent matter of public interest. They are crucial for achieving a “digital literacy” – a concept highlighted by Ms. Kaja Kallas, the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the European Commission. This literacy aims to prevent the sudden spread of disinformation and manipulation, which has recently intensified and become widespread across all European states. From this perspective, European states must acknowledge that these cyber threats have a negative and unpredictable impact on the protection of citizens’ rights and freedoms. The documentation carried out by the Venice Commission serves as a positive signal that should be incorporated into both national and European regulations.

Alina Matei: Does the draft report in any way affect the concrete competences of European constitutional courts in electoral matters?

Marian Enache: Not at all. It is evident that among the seven recommendations made in the draft report, those concerning constitutional courts are general procedural matters. However, the essential aspect is that the draft report itself acknowledges that international standards neither require nor prohibit, in principle, the ex officio intervention of constitutional courts in electoral matters (paragraph 26).

The most substantial part of the draft report pertains to recommendations whose implementation falls under the responsibility of the legislator. As I have indicated, this includes regulating electoral campaigns conducted on digital platforms and ensuring transparency in their financing. In reality, the core focus of the draft report is on the use of new digital technologies and artificial intelligence, the proliferation of cyber threats in electoral campaigns that could jeopardize state security and fundamental societal interests, and the necessity of regulating the legislative and technical framework governing electoral campaigns.

Alina Matei: Moving forward, Mr. President, I believe it is worth discussing the nature of the control exercised by the Constitutional Court – more precisely, whether it is a legality review or a constitutionality review regarding electoral rulings.

Marian Enache: In Decision No. 2/2024, the Constitutional Court unequivocally states that it ensures the constitutionality of the electoral process, regardless of whether the issues raised are of a legal or constitutional nature. For example, in that decision, the Court indicated that, under this competence, it examines both the legality of candidacies under Law No. 370/2004 and their constitutionality. In this context and within this domain, the Court has the authority to assess constitutional challenges by referencing the values, principles, and procedures established by the Constitution. Consequently, its review of candidate registration is not limited to merely cataloging and examining the formal conditions prescribed by Law No. 370/2004.

Article 1(5) of the Constitution mandates compliance with laws, the Constitution, and its supremacy. This means that an omission in the law cannot override the principle of the direct application of the Constitution – an essential principle that ultimately ensures its supremacy within the legal system.

The Court is the guarantor of the supremacy of the Constitution. Therefore, in exercising its duties, it must uphold the supremacy of the Fundamental Law and the requirements of Romanian constitutionalism, a sine qua non condition of the rule of law.

Decision No. 2/2024 is not unique in terms of the direct application of the Constitution in electoral matters. In Decision No. 66/2019, the Constitutional Court examined the constitutionality of a provision from Law No. 370/2004 as interpreted by a ruling of the Central Electoral Bureau. A similar situation occurred in 2024 (see Decision No. 21/2024). Although Law No. 47/1992 does not explicitly regulate the Court’s competence to conduct a constitutionality review as part of its duty to oversee the electoral process for the President of Romania, the Constitutional Court observed that such competence inherently derives from Article 146(f) of the Constitution. This is because the Court, by definition, ensures compliance with an electoral procedure conducted under a law that must itself conform to the Constitution. If the very procedure for electing the President of Romania were to be carried out based on a law that contradicts the Constitution, the Court – before exercising its competence under Article 146(f) – must first establish the unconstitutionality of that law. Ensuring the integrity of the entire electoral process necessitates the existence of legislation that aligns with the Fundamental Law. Therefore, under Article 146(f) of the Constitution, the Court must have the power to conduct a constitutionality review not only of the normative act governing elections but also of the electoral operations and processes conducted under that act. Moreover, in its draft report, the Venice Commission explicitly acknowledges the necessity of this approach (paragraph 72), which has already been established in the rulings of the Constitutional Court.

Consequently, the constitutionality of the electoral process for the election of the President of Romania is safeguarded by the CCR on two levels: the ability to review the constitutionality of electoral regulations even during the course of the elections, and the ability to assess electoral acts and operations in direct relation to constitutional requirements. Thus, the CCR is not relegated to the role of an administrative registrar/controller of the presidential election process. Instead, by continuously referring to the full scope of the Constitution’s provisions, the Court upholds its responsibility by maintaining and strengthening its role as the sole judicial authority and guarantor of constitutional supremacy.

Alina Matei: From the perspective of the constitutionality review exercised by the Court under Article 146(f) of the Constitution, how should we interpret the case of a candidate who, through their public discourse and political program, proposes a constitutional revision?

Marian Enache: As long as a candidate runs for office under an existing Constitution, they are bound by the Fundamental Law under which they are seeking election. If the candidate is elected as President of Romania, they may pursue a constitutional revision program, but only in compliance with the procedures and limitations on constitutional revision established by the current Constitution. However, such an endeavor must remain within the general requirements of the rule of law. The President of Romania cannot initiate a constitutional revision at will. They must adhere to democratic standards and the limits of revision set out in Article 152 of the Fundamental Law. No constitutional amendment can alter the democratic regime or undermine citizens’ rights and freedoms, which constitute the core of the rule of law. Any other “wishes” of various candidates aimed at changing the fundamental elements of the democratic constitutional model, as well as the public promotion of ideas and ideologies of totalitarian origin, should be viewed with caution and skepticism not only by state institutions but also by Romanian society as a whole. These are in direct contradiction to the fundamental choices of the Romanian people, enshrined in the supreme values guaranteed by the Constitution itself – values interpreted in the spirit of Romania’s democratic traditions and the ideals of the December 1989 Revolution.

A constitutional revision initiative within the constitutional system may propose aspects concerning the rationalization and functioning of state authorities, as well as their relationship with society, but must always respect the democratic paradigm and the limits of revision set by the original constituent legislator.

Alina Matei: Has any candidate been sanctioned by the Constitutional Court for exercising their freedom of expression?

Marian Enache: Not at all. The Constitution of Romania and the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court fully guarantee freedom of expression, but not in absolute terms. Freedom of expression is inherently limited by law when it promotes xenophobic, anti-Semitic, Legionnaire, Nazi, totalitarian ideas, or national hatred, incitement to discrimination, public violence, and defamation of the values of the democratic system and the constitutional order.

Every freedom is defined by its limits, not by its absolute nature, as it is exercised within society, where freedoms coexist and must be protected against the abuse of rights by those who seek to exercise their freedom to the detriment of and in violation of the freedom of others. At the same time, fundamental rights and freedoms must be exercised in good faith, in accordance with Article 57 of the Constitution. The limits of exercising rights make the difference between anarchy and democracy. Otherwise, we would live in a society akin to that described by Thomas Hobbes – homo homini lupus.

Alina Matei: Must the Constitutional Court’s decisions to exclude a candidate from the electoral race or to annul elections be based on prior court convictions?

Marian Enache: The Constitutional Court takes into account prior court convictions in criminal matters concerning candidates. However, this is not an exclusive condition in a constitutional dispute, as the Court conducts its own evaluation of the case in the sphere of constitutionality. Thus, even in the absence of a prior court conviction, the constitutional court may determine that a candidate does not meet the constitutional eligibility requirements, which are distinct from strict legal requirements. The inaction or passivity of competent authorities or the length of judicial proceedings cannot be used against the Constitutional Court, which has the exclusive competence to analyze the constitutional criteria that candidates must meet.

Alina Matei: Who bears the burden of proof in the case of an election annulment decision?

Marian Enache: The draft report of the Venice Commission distinguishes between cases where a decision is made upon request or ex officio regarding the burden of proof – an aspect that, in my opinion, is not relevant. In constitutional litigation, this principle, which applies in civil or criminal matters, has its limitations, as I will explain.

Article 52(2) of Law No. 370/2004 states that an application for the annulment of elections, submitted by electoral competitors, must be substantiated and accompanied by evidence. Once notified, the Constitutional Court examines the contesting party’s arguments and requests information from the relevant authorities and institutions. Thus, it is understandable that the Constitutional Court has the authority to request the Central Electoral Bureau to recount the votes cast. In this regard, I refer to two precedents: the Decision of December 6, 2009, unpublished[1], and the Ruling of November 28, 2024[2], part of the Constitutional Court Case No. 3671F/2024, resolved by Decision No. 30/2024. In other words, the Court rules within the limits of the notification and the arguments invoked by the challenger, and its verifications aim to confirm or refute these claims. This is not an evidentiary administration process in the common law sense, where the Constitutional Court hears or interrogates individuals, but rather a verification of the correctness of various segments of the presidential election procedure conducted by the public authorities responsible for ensuring the fairness of the electoral process. Therefore, the Constitutional Court relies on the findings of state institutions tasked with providing conclusions regarding violations of electoral process rules. In essence, the Court does not directly and independently assess the evidence submitted by the challenger but instructs state authorities to provide the necessary information to ensure the electoral process was conducted within legal and constitutional parameters. Based on the records held by state institutions, the Court evaluates them and, accordingly, either invalidates or upholds the election results.

It can be observed that, in its jurisprudence, the Court has established that aspects not substantiated by the applicant for annulment cannot be analyzed in this procedural framework (Decision No. 30/2024, paragraph 31). Thus, substantiating the request and presenting evidence are prerequisites for initiating the procedure and do not signify a burden of proof or an adversarial debate between the applicant and the authority that reviewed/re-verified a particular aspect of the electoral procedure.

Alina Matei: What about when the Constitutional Court initiates proceedings ex officio?

Marian Enache: On the other hand, when the Court acts ex officio, it means that an exceptional situation exists in which state authorities with competence in the matter have already signaled violations of electoral legislation with a certain degree of severity. In this case, the Constitutional Court assesses whether these violations are serious enough to warrant the annulment of the presidential election process.

Elections, regardless of their type, cannot be considered free unless they are fair. Therefore, we can affirm that the premise for the free expression of voters’ political will is the fairness of the electoral process. Consequently, in assessing the constitutionality of the electoral process in terms of ensuring free and fair elections, the Constitutional Court relies on official information provided directly by state institutions or through official public channels. The documents containing this information are presumed to be legal and truthful. The Court lacks the constitutional competence to dismiss them and is not required to subject these findings to electoral competitors for debate, as it has discretion in evaluating and interpreting them within its proceedings. The discretion to assess information, data, and conclusions falls exclusively within the competence of the adjudicating judge.

Thus, the Court cannot question the factual findings of specialized public authorities that impacted the electoral process. However, it does have the authority to decide whether the irregularities identified were severe enough to justify annulling the presidential election process.

In both cases (upon request or ex officio), the Constitutional Court has specified the information and documents it examined and on which it based its ruling. Furthermore, in Decision No. 32/2024, it justified that the irregularities identified had a significant and decisive impact on the election outcome. Indeed, the Venice Commission’s draft report (paragraphs 43, 59, and 77) confirms that an electoral process can only be annulled under the stringent conditions outlined above, which have been duly considered by the Constitutional Court. The Court’s reasoning upholds the principle of transparency and verifiability of the information used in its argumentation by clearly identifying and properly evaluating the documents provided by specialized public authorities.

Alina Matei: You mentioned specialized state authorities. Which ones are you referring to?

Marian Enache: I am referring to the Supreme Council of National Defense (CSAT). This public authority is enshrined in the Constitution and plays a crucial role in the organization and coordination of activities related to national defense and security (Article 119 of the Constitution). CSAT was the authority that concluded that there were interferences in the electoral process through a public statement summarizing the information received in the Informative Notes issued by the state’s security services.

Alina Matei: Many argue that declassified documents do not constitute sufficient evidence. Additionally, some political actors publicly claim that the Constitutional Court needs to better explain its decision to annul the election.

Marian Enache: Unfortunately, I observe a widespread and obsessive confusion within society regarding the distinction between constitutional justice and the justice administered by judicial courts. Constitutional justice and the justice system are fundamentally different. They have distinct roles, competences, procedures, and objectives.

Moreover, I notice in public discourse that there is a demand for the Constitutional Court to function as a trial court and for judicial courts to assume the role of the Constitutional Court. This manipulation of the constitutional roles of judicial institutions must be countered by democratic society and clarified to prevent the delegitimization and destabilization of both forms of justice (constitutional and judicial).

The Constitutional Court’s competence to oversee the presidential election process establishes a form of constitutional justice with a strong preventive dimension and a duty to protect national sovereignty. The Court has the obligation, established directly by the Constitution, to protect the constitutional order when it determines that there is a flawed electoral process for the election of the President of Romania, one that affects the legality and fairness of the results of the vote cast by citizens. The Court’s role is to prevent a situation in which an electoral competitor could take the oath as President of Romania following a flawed electoral process.

The Constitutional Court is the only jurisdictional authority established by the Constitution to safeguard national sovereignty in the component concerning free, fair, and periodic elections for the President of Romania.

The Court’s competence to oversee compliance with the procedure for electing the President of Romania derives directly from Article 2(1) of the Constitution, which refers to national sovereignty and its exercise through the state’s representative bodies, legitimized by the electoral process. Therefore, if the electoral process for the election of the President of Romania has been fundamentally compromised, the Court has the obligation to intervene to protect national sovereignty itself, a fundamental component of the constitutional order.

The Court does not judge the emotional aspect of the right to vote but is obliged to verify the fairness of the electoral process in terms of the concrete ways in which the vote was exercised. The very competence of the Court, as provided in Article 146(f) of the Constitution, refers to the procedure for electing the President of Romania, not to the votes cast by citizens. This must be clearly understood. The Court’s ruling does not penalize or annul the citizens’ right to vote, as is artificially and tendentiously suggested by certain messages in the public electoral discourse, but rather protects it from any interference to ensure its full freedom of expression and constitutional fulfillment.

The insinuations currently being propagated through the specific rhetoric of electoral propaganda campaigns suggest that the Constitutional Court has annulled the right of Romanians to vote and, by doing so, has prohibited or penalized their freedom to choose. Nothing could be further from the truth. By annulling the electoral process concerning the election of the President of Romania, the Constitutional Court has undertaken a preventive measure of constitutional justice. It has not sanctioned one or more competitors, nor has it sanctioned the voters who cast their ballots for one candidate or another. The Court has penalized, within the limits of its constitutional obligation, the electoral procedure itself, which was conducted under conditions of unfairness, as determined based on official documents from institutions legally responsible for protecting national security and which confirmed that there were major irregularities in the electoral process. Simply put, the harm has been objectively established.

The fact that those responsible for this harm have not been identified – actors who typically operate through sophisticated, sometimes imperceptible means – does not mean that the harm does not exist objectively and should be ignored or underestimated. On the contrary, the Court has precisely determined that the election results were compromised due to legal violations.

In a state governed by the rule of law, we begin our legal assessments with the presumption of legality and veracity of the acts and documents issued by state institutions. Thus, within an abstract electoral dispute, these declassified documents – again, declassified – formed the unanimous conviction among the constitutional judges that the electoral process was so compromised that the electoral results and candidate rankings were significantly affected. Each judge’s vote adhered to the principle of independence, and the decision to annul the electoral process was made unanimously.

There was only one rational and constitutional solution: the annulment of the electoral process concerning the election of the President of Romania, both to penalize the flawed electoral process and to offer all citizens the opportunity to participate in a new, fair electoral process that adheres to constitutional and legal requirements. Citizens must be guaranteed the freedom to choose within a fair electoral process. Therefore, the Court adopts a zero-tolerance policy towards any interference or influence that distorts electoral results. Only in this way can the citizens’ freedom to vote freely and fairly be guaranteed.

Alina Matei: Do you believe that social media platforms, through artificial intelligence algorithms, can play a decisive role in influencing elections or other types of activities?

Marian Enache: Certainly, if they are not legally regulated and do not meet the condition of transparency, which is an intrinsic characteristic of any democratic society. These means, which are part of the next wave of technology, involve a series of risks and unpredictabilities which, if not legally controlled, can cause significant damage that is difficult to identify in terms of their origin. However, when used correctly, from an algorithmic perspective, they can also generate benefits for society.

Social media platforms, being underregulated, exist in a volatile space that can facilitate massive manipulation of information and disinformation, which is difficult to decipher in record time or within a relatively short period. First, we encounter the effects of the phenomenon, we assess its real existence, and consequently, we determine that the results – in our case, the elections – have been altered. By their nature and mode of operation, these activities are not carried out in the open, as they would then be easily detectable. The causes and perpetrators of such phenomena can only be identified through specialized institutional research, requiring time and specific technical expertise to determine who, how, and through what means the actions that led to these tangible consequences were carried out and constitutionally sanctioned. Experts are well aware of these issues, which are of global concern and ultimately involve cybersecurity, sovereignty protection, and the defense of citizens’ rights and freedoms.

Alina Matei: Mr. President, some voices in the public sphere have argued that the annulment of the elections was too severe a sanction for candidates who complied with the legal rules. Could the Constitutional Court have considered a partial invalidation of the elections, targeting only the candidate who violated the rules of fairness in their conduct?

Marian Enache: Absolutely not. The Court found that, in the procedure for electing the President of Romania, two fundamental and interrelated rights – the right to vote and the right to be elected – were compromised due to the conduct of one of the candidates. This demonstrated that the elections failed to meet the constitutional requirements that are the very foundation of a democratic state. A flawed electoral procedure in its essential aspects – and here I am referring specifically to the requirement of fairness in elections, commonly referred to as “clean elections” – cannot be considered partially valid. Such violations are irreparable and affect the process as a whole.

The irregularities were of such magnitude and scope that the only possible solution was to annul the entire electoral process. It was not feasible to selectively reposition the candidates ranked immediately after the disqualified one. To illustrate this more clearly: if you had a glass of water that you knew contained poison, would you attempt to extract the poison and drink the “purified” water, or would you choose a different glass of water altogether?

Alina Matei: The draft report of the Venice Commission states that an election cannot be annulled solely based on classified intelligence reports.

Marian Enache: Here we encounter yet another misleading notion being propagated in the public space. It is evident that we fully agree with the idea that the annulment of the electoral process concerning the election of the President of Romania represents an exceptional measure, adopted as a result of the conclusions drawn from an official meeting of the Supreme Council of National Defense (CSAT). During this extraordinary session, documents from specialized institutions that are, by law, part of this fundamental body of the Romanian state (CSAT) were presented. These institutions have clearly defined responsibilities, and the content of their reports includes direct findings regarding situations and circumstances that led to the alteration of the fairness and legality of the electoral process. Given the gravity of the situation, for the first time since its establishment, the CSAT decided to declassify these documents, which reveal violations of electoral procedures and interference in the electoral process. At the risk of repeating myself, I emphasize that the Constitutional Court did not decide to annul the electoral process concerning the election of the President of Romania based on classified documents, but rather on declassified documents – accessible to the general public in accordance with the principle of transparency and the necessity for citizens to be informed of these findings.

Therefore, the Constitutional Court’s decision is not based on classified information. In this regard, paragraphs 59 and 77 of the Venice Commission’s draft report (which refer to the impossibility of annulling elections based on classified information) are irrelevant in relation to the Constitutional Court’s decision to annul the electoral process. Any claim to the contrary is counterfactual and devoid of any real basis.

Alina Matei: The main criticism in society is that the annulment of the elections was not a fair or just decision. Why were the results of the first round validated, only to have the entire election annulled a few days later?

Marian Enache: The decision to annul the electoral process regarding the election of the President of Romania was not a revision of the decision that validated the results of the first round. I have also noticed that this issue was included in the consultative draft report of the Venice Commission, and we will take the necessary steps to communicate these clarifications to the Venice Commission.

Thus, after the first round of the presidential elections, we were notified, in accordance with the law on the election of the President of Romania, of two requests for the annulment of the elections, submitted by two candidates. One was rejected because it was filed after the deadline. The second, since it was submitted within the deadline and met the admissibility conditions, was examined, and the Court unanimously decided that, in light of all the contested aspects, the ballots had to be recounted to eliminate any doubt regarding the results of the first round of voting, thereby ensuring the necessary transparency in determining the outcome of the electoral process.

Therefore, in response to a request submitted by a presidential candidate within the legal framework and within the prescribed timeframe, the Court ordered the recounting of the ballots. Since, following the recount of ballots in the country, the Constitutional Court found that the arguments invoked by the contesting party were unjustified, the only possible and obligatory solution at that moment, taking into account the timeframe in which the ruling had to be issued, was to validate the results of the first round in accordance with Article 146, letter f), second clause of the Constitution.

Subsequent to this validation, security service reports presented at the CSAT meeting were declassified. This decision to declassify represented a historic and significant moment for the entire society. In light of these documents and the realities recorded in them – documents that were made accessible to all citizens and institutions in the country – the Court exercised its mandatory constitutional competence, as provided by Article 146, letter f), first clause of the Constitution, and annulled the electoral process regarding the election of the President of Romania in accordance with constitutional provisions.

Thus, the Court did not revise its decision to validate the results of the first round of the presidential elections. The institution of revision is not applicable in the constitutional procedure, given that electoral litigation is adjudicated in abstracto and not in concreto.

Therefore, the decision to annul the electoral process is the result of the Court’s constitutional competence to oversee the proper conduct of the procedure for electing the President of Romania, rather than a result of its competence to confirm and validate the election results.

Article 146, letter f) of the Fundamental Law includes two interrelated but distinct responsibilities of the Constitutional Court. The first is to oversee the proper conduct of the procedure for electing the President of Romania, while the second is to confirm the results of the vote. The decision to confirm and validate the results of the first round of the presidential elections is an expression of the second clause of Article 146, letter f), whereas the decision to annul the electoral process regarding the election of the President of Romania, following the declassification of the documents presented in CSAT, is an expression of the first clause of Article 146, letter f).

Thus, from a constitutional legal perspective, the decision to annul the electoral process regarding the election of the President of Romania cannot be considered a revision of the decision confirming the results of the first round, as the two decisions are expressions of different competencies.

The parties or interested individuals in a case cannot substitute the evaluation of the judge. If, for every judicial decision, the dissatisfied party were to subject the ruling to a public trial of intent based on their own subjective assessment of the evidence upon which the judge based their decision – thereby attempting to substitute or override the judge’s discretion – what would be the rationale for the existence of the judicial system? The parties or interested individuals cannot take justice into their own hands, as they would then become the judges of their own cases. If we were to evaluate matters through this subjective lens, we would find ourselves in a situation of complete arbitrariness concerning compliance with the rulings of judicial or constitutional courts.

Alina Matei: I understand, in this context, that the requests for revision of Decision No. 32/2024 are inadmissible.

Marian Enache: The decisions of the Constitutional Court are final and generally binding, and as I previously stated, “requests for revision” of these decisions are made outside any procedural framework and, consequently, no judicial cases can be constituted based on them. Their legal status is similar to that of petitions, and they have been addressed within this legal framework.

Alina Matei: Is there a possibility of issuing an erratum to resume the second round of the presidential elections?

Marian Enache: Absolutely not. An erratum only serves to correct a material error in a decision and does not in any way change or modify the ruling issued by a judicial authority. To claim that such an erratum is possible constitutes a gross error and a misleading of the electorate.

Alina Matei: Many voices have argued that the draft report of the Venice Commission is critical of the Constitutional Court’s decision to annul the elections. Do you share this view?

Marian Enache: I have carefully read the Venice Commission’s draft report and consider it to be a welcome and highly useful document. Of course, it should be examined in light of the Venice Commission’s role and its long-standing relationship with constitutional courts in general.

As I have pointed out, it is not a specific report on the Constitutional Court’s decision to annul the electoral process concerning the election of the President of Romania. The decision of the Constitutional Court served as an occasion for the drafting of such a document, which aims to outline general standards regarding the possibility of annulment of elections by any constitutional court with jurisdiction over electoral disputes. The viability of these recommendations will need to be established by constitutional courts in their judicial activity, in conjunction with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

The reports and opinions of the Venice Commission are intellectual works that include possible solutions, alternatives, nuances, regulatory and resolution options in specific areas. Any report or opinion of the Venice Commission establishes certain guiding standards intended to reflect a shared constitutional culture of constitutional democracy, without imposing uniform and rigid measures – hence their advisory nature. In fact, the Constitutional Court of Romania has incorporated some recommendations of the Venice Commission into its jurisprudence, particularly referring to the Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters.

When faced with such a document, the key is to read and understand it in its entirety, rather than fragmenting it to fit one’s own interests. Moreover, constitutional judges are concerned with the fundamental principles of the functioning of the constitutional regime established by the Fundamental Law and, most importantly, with the protection of the national constitutional order within the limits of the role defined by the Constitution. The Court is not a judge of political opinions and choices, from which we clearly and consistently distance ourselves.

Therefore, even though the Venice Commission’s draft report did not have as its direct objective the evaluation of the Constitutional Court’s ruling, I can tell you that the substantive standards developed by the Constitutional Court are reflected in the Venice Commission’s draft report.

It should be noted that the Constitutional Court’s rulings, issued under the exceptional circumstances of the October–December 2024 period, provided the Venice Commission with a valuable opportunity to compile a collection of constitutional texts and practices in electoral matters to enhance the work of constitutional courts in this area. The report’s value as an expert and advisory document is undeniable, and the Venice Commission’s concern with this matter is, in our view, well-suited to the new challenges of the digital era. Without well-crafted and rigorous regulations, electoral processes in any country can be affected, as demonstrated for the first time by the rulings issued by the Constitutional Court during the electoral period in question. Consequently, the draft report has a forward-looking, prospective value and aims to strengthen the competence of constitutional courts in electoral matters.

I believe that regarding procedural standards, the Venice Commission should make a distinction between presidential elections and other types of elections, to ensure that similar standards are not suggested for situations that are not analogous.

We remain open to dialogue and collaboration with the Venice Commission to clarify all necessary aspects in a matter so important to European constitutional democracy, particularly in the years to come, as we have consistently done in past years. In fact, the most recent meeting we had with representatives of the Venice Commission was in March 2023, with the President of the Commission, Ms. Claire Bazy Malaurie, where we had constructive discussions and a fruitful exchange of experiences and best practices in European constitutional law.

In this context, allow me to also recall my meeting, during the drafting and writing of the 1991 Romanian Constitution, with Mr. Antonio La Pergola, the first President of the Venice Commission (1990–2007). As an expert of the Council of Europe, he recommended and supported the introduction of the constitutional court institution in the provisions of the 1991 Constitution, telling us that establishing this institution would be “the key to the rule of law that will open Europe’s sympathy for Romania.”

Alina Matei: How do you assess the Constitutional Court’s decision to annul the presidential elections from the perspective of international legal principles?

Marian Enache: One of the fundamental principles of international law is that of state sovereignty and the respect due to it, and the electoral system and the organization of elections are, by their very nature, domains reserved for the state and a condition of its sovereignty. The Constitution establishes that sovereignty belongs to the Romanian people, who exercise it through their representative bodies, constituted by free, periodic, and fair elections, as well as through referenda. An electoral process that has been diverted from its democratic purpose through the proliferation of large-scale disinformation has prevented the state and public authorities from organizing democratic elections, thereby affecting the institutional capacity of the state itself. We should not view the violation of the principle of sovereignty solely through the lens of direct harm to the state’s authority in protecting its citizens but also consider the hybrid challenges in the world that lead to an equivalent effect[3] and represent an informational threat to democratic regimes, with a negative impact on the rights and freedoms of citizens. The classic concepts of constitutional law remain constant in legal science, but the challenges and threats to the functioning of the state under these concepts are in continuous evolution and dynamism, necessitating constant knowledge and deeper understanding to avoid neglecting the risks they pose to state sovereignty.

In other words, disinformation cannot and must not weaken the authorities’ prerogatives to exercise public power in the electoral domain. However, disinformation can influence the electorate in order to achieve a certain outcome through their vote. The corruption of the electoral process requires the legal intervention of public authorities with jurisdiction in the field to restore legality and constitutionality.

The Court, in Decision No. 32/2024 (paragraph 9), explicitly and unequivocally states that the fairness of elections is an indispensable expression of sovereignty and a fundamental principle of the Romanian state, which underpins the determination of the election results for the office of President of Romania. As such, the state has a positive obligation to ensure a transparent electoral process in all its components to guarantee the integrity and impartiality of elections – these being the premises of constitutional democracy and the existence of the rule of law. Thus, in the view of the constitutional court as well, unfair elections pose a major risk to the very sovereignty of the state, which concerns not only the state but also society as a whole. Consequently, from the perspective of international law, the decision of the Constitutional Court is not only correct but also legitimate, as it was issued in relation to the core of the Constitution – namely, the protection of state sovereignty in the face of hybrid threats against it. Therefore, within this framework, constitutional courts must be diligent, exercise their stabilizing force in exceptional situations, and intervene as ultima ratio in defending the constitutional principle of national sovereignty – a principle that is also fundamental in international law and in protecting the state as a subject of international law. Thus, in consideration of the principle of sovereignty, the national constitutional system must take action in all its components.

Alina Matei: How do you respond to the statements made by U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance, according to which the elections in Romania were annulled “based on fragile suspicions from an intelligence agency and under enormous pressure from its continental neighbors” and that “if a democracy can be destroyed with a few hundred thousand dollars in digital advertising from a foreign country, then it was not strong enough to begin with”?

Marian Enache: I believe it is not honest to distort, through selective interpretation and other speculations for electoral purposes, the speech and messages of an official of the rank of U.S. Vice President. It is necessary to consider the accuracy of these messages and the general context in which this political manifesto-like speech was delivered by the high-ranking American official.

Paraphrasing from the speech of the U.S. Vice President, he essentially states that the annulment of the electoral process was the consequence of the existence of a weak democratic society – he does not say that, in issuing such a decision, the Constitutional Court of Romania exceeded its competencies. I interpret this message as one directed at European society as a whole, highlighting that democracy and the rule of law must be strengthened to protect citizens and fundamental values shared at the international level. In this context, fairness and transparency in elections are central values of democratic voting, which must be upheld by the state, the voting citizens, and the candidates alike. Achieving these standards can only be accomplished through the promotion of a genuine dialogue, free from preconceived opinions, sine ira et studio.

Sometimes we are too quick to condemn and even punish rather than to discern the real causes of the “phenomenon” – elections – which is a very important topic for society as a whole in order to gain a better understanding of the events that can determine or amplify electoral results in one direction or another. Understanding these causes enables society to become aware and prevent the recurrence of unnoticed manipulation tactics in electoral processes. That is why I believe this issue should not be confined solely to those who participated in the elections – candidates and voters – but should be debated at the level of the entire society.

The annulment of the electoral process is not solely a matter for the Constitutional Court but a matter for society as a whole, as it serves as an indicator of how democracy functions within that society. Through its decisions, the Constitutional Court has sounded the alarm in this regard by activating the “red code,” but it has not resolved the underlying issue of the state of Romanian democracy, because understanding the premises for the occurrence of such effects must be a concern and responsibility of the collective social consciousness, not just of state institutions. This attitude must demonstrate the strength and functionality of a democratic society, which must remain vigilant when it comes to its electoral consciousness – a consciousness that must be fundamentally free and exercised under fair conditions.

International officials also express this view, rightly warning us that the annulment of an electoral process is also caused by the fact that we do not have strong and consolidated democratic institutions that prevent intrusions into the country’s political and constitutional system. Following these pertinent observations, per a contrario, there is a need for both societal awareness of the existing risks and vulnerabilities and for effective measures and decisions by specialized institutions to protect the rule of law and functional democracy in line with the requirements arising from Romania’s status as a member state of Euro-Atlantic structures.

Romania must first prove to itself and then to its international partners that it is a stable country, that its commitment to Western democratic values is irreversible, and that, based on this, it is a respectable and secure nation within its geopolitical and strategic space. In my strictly personal opinion, Romania is an important country that matters in all its dimensions, even if it is not classified as a global power, and under these conditions, it cannot afford mistakes and inconsistencies that would create a setback for democracy. Romania needs to send a serious message of unity, stability, and uprightness to the world, inspiring confidence. I believe that Romania’s position of integrity – its uprightness – is the very essence of our national dignity, which we must preserve regardless of the ever-changing turmoil and circumstances of the international world. In this sense, constitutionalism is merely the barometer that measures the level of democracy in a society, and constitutional courts, while having both a preventive and sanctioning role, cannot alone build and consolidate the democratic life of a country.

Alina Matei: From the content of Mr. J.D. Vance’s speech, it appears that Romanian democracy “was not strong enough to begin with.” How do you comment on this aspect?

Marian Enache: In my opinion, the key conclusion of Vice President J.D. Vance’s speech is the idea of fragility he evoked regarding democracy – an issue that the Constitutional Court itself has identified in its rulings. I believe that this state of democracy is reflected in the very fragility of the fundamental social structures of our society. Due to both objective and subjective reasons, the emergence of elements of division and social disintegration that tend to destabilize the organization of the constitutional state must be addressed by Romania’s fundamental institutions.

If we refer to Western democracy, it represents a model of civilization that is fundamentally based on continuous learning and education. Understanding democratic values and exercising them require knowledge, standards, and rules. Institutions are organic to society. When there are vulnerabilities within society, these are also felt in the broader institutional framework of the state, which has the role of preventing and remedying imbalances. The fragility of democracy must be acknowledged by society as a whole so that, together with specialized institutions, we can discern the causes and identify solutions. A healthy political system and democracy must be governed by the rule of law, not by the law of force – only in this way can we speak of strengthening democracy, respecting the rule of law, and ensuring the existence of a robust democracy that is resilient to any internal and external threats.

Despite the principled nature and clarity of the U.S. Vice President’s speech, some in our country have suggested in the public sphere that this speech could be interpreted as a concession, support, or preference for certain candidates in Romania. I do not believe it is appropriate to make such tendentious “translations” of this political statement, interpreting it as a kind of “pre-warning” to national justice by those looking for opportunistic advantages and favoritism.

Alina Matei: What is your personal perspective on the annulment of the elections?

Marian Enache: I consider that the annulment of the electoral process for the election of the President of Romania was a decision to protect the Romanian state and constitutional democracy, as well as to preserve the achievements that Romania has attained through the efforts of all Romanians, both at home and abroad, since gaining freedom and democracy in 1989. If you will, this ruling was more than an ordinary case decision – it aimed to consolidate and guarantee the aspirations and achievements of the Romanian Revolution of December 1989. You see, Romania has traveled a difficult road, with sacrifices made by Romanians to align with the values of free societies, and it would be a mistake to turn back from this path.

In the electoral competition, candidates present program proposals for the development of democracy and the enhancement of the country’s prestige. However, one cannot propose reconsidering the political regime of the constitutional system established by the 1991 Constitution – founded on multiparty democracy and parliamentarism – in order to gain access to the highest office in the state. Nor can one conduct a campaign of obstruction and denial of the state’s institutions, as all these actions conflict with the principle of respecting the Constitution, the democratic regime, and its laws, as well as the rule of law. Naturally, each candidate proposes objectives within the framework and limits of the constitutional order. Any democracy, even the most fragile and emerging one, is established through the separation of powers, the affirmation of political pluralism, multipartism, parliamentarism, and the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms for all citizens. These are the structural elements of even the most basic democracy. In contrast, totalitarian regimes establish a single-party state and so-called “people’s democracy,” claiming that governance belongs to the people for the benefit of the people. However, history has exposed this ideology as a deception that, due to its falsity, has fallen into disrepute.

Alina Matei: What were the considerations taken into account by the Constitutional Court regarding the extension of the Romanian President’s mandate?

Marian Enache: According to Article 83(2) of the Constitution, the President of Romania exercises their mandate until the swearing-in of the newly elected President. Thus, in the Constitution’s design, presidential terms are exercised successively, with no interruptions in the continuity between the conclusion of one mandate and the assumption of the next. A presidential vacancy presupposes the existence of an ongoing mandate. Therefore, Article 97(1) of the Constitution states that the office of President of Romania becomes vacant in cases of resignation, dismissal, permanent inability to exercise duties, or death. Consequently, a vacancy occurs only in the event of an objective inability to exercise the mandate. As such, as of December 21, 2024, there was no basis to claim the existence of an interregnum in the exercise of presidential power that would lead to a discontinuity in the succession of mandates. Therefore, interim leadership applies only to the incumbent President’s mandate, and there is no provision for an interim presidential mandate. Thus, although the duration of the presidential mandate is five years, it is exercised until the swearing-in of the newly elected President. This is a transitional measure designed to ensure the uninterrupted continuity of presidential mandates. It is inconceivable to have a scenario where the supreme institution of the Romanian state lacks continuity. This solution ensured the stability of the state in the context of the annulment of the electoral process for the election of the President of Romania.

Alina Matei: Were there any external interventions in the context of the presidential elections regarding Constitutional Court Decisions No. 2/2024 and No. 32/2024?

Marian Enache: I have noticed that after these rulings were issued, some “conspiratorial” scenarios were launched, culminating in the electoral campaign slogan that “justice is served on command.” In fact, the same slogan was also directed at the rulings issued by judicial courts regarding the requests to annul the decision to cancel the electoral process for the election of the President of Romania.

In exercising their mandate and ensuring the independence of their decision-making, under a non-renewable mandate, constitutional judges adhere to two major obligations: the first is the obligation of ingratitude towards the authorities that appointed them, and the second is the obligation of loyalty to the Constitution, assumed through the oath of allegiance regarding its observance. The CCR is neither subordinate to nor under the influence of political parties or other public authorities, and it cannot allow its activity and decision-making to be carried out under pressure from these institutions or other pressure groups and influencers within society. The Court made its decisions under conditions of full judicial independence.

Alina Matei: But have there been such influences regarding other decisions?

Marian Enache: I want to counter such speculations that have surfaced whenever some of the Court’s rulings were unfavorable to certain authorities or individuals. In this regard, I would mention Decision No. 358/2018 regarding the constitutional legal conflict caused by the President of Romania’s refusal to comply with the proposal to dismiss the Chief Prosecutor of the National Anticorruption Directorate, Decision No. 26/2019 regarding the constitutional legal conflict generated by collaboration protocols between the Public Ministry and state security services, a case in which I was the reporting judge, as well as other decisions in which the Court found a considerable number of laws passed by Parliament or government ordinances to be unconstitutional.

Following these rulings, there were likely instances of dissatisfaction among the affected authorities; however, the Court’s decisions were respected – an imperative of the rule of law. The Constitutional Court has been impartial and fair in adjudicating the cases within its jurisdiction. At that time as well, we faced negative media reactions, harsh language, and even personal attacks, with criticism being directed at how the Court’s judges voted on these rulings. We observe these varying perceptions and contradictory reactions to certain Court decisions whenever they prove inconvenient to their recipients.

The Court thus firmly rejects any vile attacks or attempts at intimidation, regardless of their source. Whenever such intentions or actions attempt to interfere with the Court’s activity, we will publicly denounce them.

Alina Matei: There have been criticisms and accusations against the CCR regarding the issuance of Rulings No. 2/2024 and No. 32/2024.

Marian Enache: When a judicial authority issues a ruling that does not align with the expectations, objectives, or desires of an individual or group, it is natural to see a reaction of dissatisfaction. During the presidential election campaign, this reaction was amplified and extended to the supporters of various candidates. The contestation of the Court’s ruling transformed into a veritable movement, accompanied by criticism and protests against the Constitutional Court and the judicial courts that ruled on cases brought by certain candidates. Furthermore, in an attempt to gain electoral capital, some candidates initiated a concerted effort to discredit institutions and their judges. It is self-evident that any judicial decision can be subjected to critical and rational evaluation – nor does the Constitutional Court claim infallibility in its rulings – but the attitude of certain candidates who openly defy the authorities that issued these decisions and incite public opposition against them creates a risk to the stability of Romanian state institutions and weakens democracy. The consequences of such behavior could negatively impact Romania’s standing within Euro-Atlantic structures.

The electorate expects state institutions to guarantee a fair and transparent electoral process, while candidates are expected to present solid and viable solutions and programs, as well as to possess the experience and maturity necessary to lead a country – a responsibility of immense magnitude. In the absence of real proposals and objectives for Romania’s development and modernization, campaign scandals serve only as substitutes for genuine electoral objectives, given the country’s situation and geopolitical challenges.

This is an insidious campaign strategy whereby state institutions are turned into targets, while the promotion of policies for the electorate’s interests is pushed into the background.

Alina Matei: Even political parties have contested the rulings of the Constitutional Court…

Marian Enache: I do not believe that political parties as a whole contested the two rulings, but rather certain representatives, factions, interest groups, or influence groups within them. With all due respect, these individuals did not understand the requirements of the rule of law, constitutional democracy, and adherence to the Constitution. They were more preoccupied with their electoral stakes and narrow interests. Respect for the Constitution, the rule of law, and constitutional democracy is not optional and should not be confused with temporary party interests. Those who have scoffed at the CCR’s rulings should adopt an attitude within the coordinates of constitutional democracy and recognize that the Court’s decisions were issued with full constitutional legitimacy.

Alina Matei: Yes, but they claim to represent the people…

Marian Enache: Loyalty to the will of the people and to the country is sacred. We all respect this principle of legitimacy in representing the people in Parliament. However, the representative mandate of elected officials must be exercised in good faith, aiming at the fundamental interests of the entire community of citizens, not just those who voted for them or the political parties they represent, while ignoring the national interest. This is the rigor and spirit of the Constitution and the rule of law, which we cannot negotiate or compromise according to fluctuating party objectives. As Corneliu Coposu, a leader of the PNȚCD, once said, the principles and values of the rule of law are not negotiable – they must be applied.

From a constitutional perspective, neither political groups nor other groups promoting various interests in society can fully identify with the general will and ethos of a people, nor with national identity, national specificity, or the organic essence of a nation. This is because a people represents the living component of a nation, which has formed throughout history and includes both past and future generations, while also expressing a cultural, ethnic, historical, and political community that cannot be “claimed” by any group or individual who cannot exercise sovereignty in their own name [Article 2(2) of the Constitution]. I believe that present generations cannot stand in opposition to the fundamental aspirations of past generations, whose achievements together form our national identity and shape the horizon towards which we must advance. This is not merely about a responsibility of the moment, but about a responsibility towards all generations before us and those to come. It is about the very responsibility of the Romanian nation, about its future, and its endurance in history. Faced with these imperatives of national history, we cannot adopt an abdicationist or vengeful attitude in pursuit of selfish group objectives. Party politics must serve the historical imperatives of the Romanian nation and its future aspirations, rather than subordinating them to partisan goals.

In my opinion, invoking the interest of the people to justify personal or group interests is an abusive and hypocritical attitude, if not outright sacrilegious. The idea of the people, as the sole holder of national sovereignty, necessitates profound respect and reverence and cannot be conflated with the temporary interests of groups or individuals, regardless of the ideologies they claim to represent.

Alina Matei: In a previous speech at a conference organized by the National Institute of Magistracy (2022), you spoke about the resurgence of “isms.” What effect can these “isms” have on the activities and decisions of state institutions?

Marian Enache: The state is founded on the unity of the Romanian people and the solidarity of its citizens. Therefore, the state has the obligation to address the general interests of society and to ensure the fundamental rights and freedoms of its citizens. To achieve this objective, there must be a balance between the functions and obligations of the state and the rights and freedoms of citizens, which form the social contract. When contradictions and imbalances accumulate in this relationship, there are risks of atomized interests, fractures, and political disintegration, which may necessitate urgent legislative and governmental measures to address the incongruities emerging from this dynamic. For a society to function properly, it must develop both competitive and cooperative relationships. The necessary methods to resolve these inherent societal issues are implemented within a democratic framework, in Parliament, where political parties – within the framework of multiparty democracy – bring together different ideological currents from Romanian society, enabling debates, the adoption of laws, and other measures. Furthermore, there must be comprehensive and effective parliamentary oversight of the executive branch, which is responsible for implementing the laws passed by Parliament.

To preserve the spirit of the Constitution, we cannot allow these “isms” to infiltrate state institutions’ decisions, as they are tasked with protecting both minorities and the majority. It is widely understood that a democratic society cannot achieve its objectives under such conditions. We all recognize that power cannot be confused with brute force; rather, it must be exercised within specific legal conditions and limitations.

Alina Matei: Parliamentary political parties have also organized protests…

Marian Enache: Protests are democratic forms of expression. However, some propaganda techniques are empty gestures designed to persuade the electorate by creating false representations of reality – convenient for their authors but detrimental to the interests of the broader society. These efforts to pit some against others under the guise of “saving everyone” represent a method specific to totalitarian ideologies, which is unacceptable. Such maneuvers of captatio benevolentiae aimed at the electorate apply the well-known strategy of divide et impera. All of these tactics run counter to the pragmatism and natural objectives of any electoral campaign, where candidates should be uniting people around ideas, solutions, and programs that improve the country’s development and citizens’ living conditions. When partisan goals are overemphasized, they lead to division and hatred.

I believe that reconciliation-based actions align more closely with the nature of the Romanian people and its deeply Christian values than those of violence, hate speech, revenge, the spread of false news, and the promotion of ominous scenarios filled with metaphors of impending doom concerning hunger and war. “Distinguishing who is right and who is wrong is not the same as exalting hatred and violence.”

Alina Matei: How do these messages and narratives manage to infiltrate the deepest layers of society?

Marian Enache: On one hand, “disinformation is generally carried out within the broader framework of information,” and on the other hand, old methods and techniques of mass propaganda are used, aiming to subliminally influence voters with information lacking any real foundation, being purely declarative in nature. In one perspective, for example, it is believed that “the most effective lie is the one mixed with truth. A 100% lie is easily detectable and convinces no one. However, a 50% lie is infinitely more credible when cleverly hidden behind the other 50% of truth.” This is the mechanism of any propaganda: a lie persistently repeated can be received in the collective subconscious as a truth, even though, in essence, it is false! There is also the well-known saying, “slander, slander, because something always sticks”; the same applies to disinformation and manipulation. With its inherent exaggerations and inflamed rhetoric, propaganda has always had a superficially fascinating effect, but one that is fundamentally false.

Alina Matei: After the annulment of the elections, some individuals, including candidates, claimed that the Constitutional Court judges had carried out a “coup d’état”…

Marian Enache: Of course, this was an exaggeration based on emotional reactions from those dissatisfied with the Court’s ruling. In reality, the CCR issued its ruling within the framework and limits of the Constitution’s provisions, in full institutional legitimacy. The Court did nothing more than apply the constitutional regulations in relation to the exceptional circumstances that arose during the presidential elections. Nothing more.

Paradoxically, after validating the first round, we received messages accusing us of an alleged “coup d’état,” and later, after annulling the electoral process, we again received messages accusing us of an alleged “coup d’état.” It is important to remain calm and balanced in the face of such disproportionate attacks, as everyone judges and expresses themselves based on their own individual subjectivity, interests, and perceptions.

Alina Matei: In a recent press statement, one of the candidates threatened the Constitutional Court judges with being tried for high treason.

Marian Enache: What is this, the times of Ivan the Terrible? The civilized states of Europe and the U.S. should acknowledge the existence of such outbursts, precisely to repudiate them, and to defend democratic values and constitutional justice. People’s votes in any country cannot be appropriated through manipulations that violate the law, deceptive promises, and shocking threats of revenge against state institutions and anyone who does not align with someone’s desires. Such manifestations of “electoral virility,” which are profoundly undemocratic and dangerous, could tomorrow be directed against any citizen who dares to oppose or refuses to “compulsorily” become a follower. Will everyone be punished for nonconformity and deviation from a candidate’s demands?! This is not about individuals, as it might appear at first glance, but about a clear opposition between democratic ideology and totalitarian tendencies that issue ultimatums.

Alina Matei: Various threats, accusations, and other incriminations have been made against Constitutional Court judges, including death threats, threats of arrests, and long prison sentences.

Marian Enache: The virulence of these accusations has been an unusual phenomenon. I am certain that the competent public institutions are monitoring these attacks, which go beyond normal criticism of the Court’s rulings.

We have felt this pressure, but we are accustomed to such tensions, which we have also experienced in the past when issuing other decisions. Even though judges, by the nature of their work, have a higher level of endurance, it is still unacceptable for such actions to exceed a certain level of intensity. I assure you that the Constitutional Court judges exercise their competences within the parameters established by the Constitution and the law.

At the same time, we denounce the coordinated attacks and intrusions into institutions, the aggressive and vindictive manifestations that flagrantly violate the law, as well as the presence of party leaders who, despite claiming to be candidates, resort to intimidation, aggression, and obstruction of institutional activities. These individuals seek to obtain favorable decisions from institutions through the language of violence and force. This is an extremely dangerous phenomenon that society must recognize and reject to prevent its spread, as Romania must not become a “battlefield of everyone against everyone,” where power is seized through any means and at any cost by those who desire it solely for themselves. Such a state of affairs and the methods used could turn society into an anarchy that contradicts constitutional order. For example, in this context, Member of the European Parliament Diana Iovanovici Șoșoacă has repeatedly entered the Constitutional Court’s working spaces without authorization, creating scandal and inadmissible disruptions to the institution’s activities, invoking her “universal immunity” as a shield against any institution, person, or situation. In her view, this grants her the right to commit any abuse and violate any law. “Armed” with a contingent of cheerful SOS Party parliamentarians – equipped with the latest smartphones and complicit in their leader’s main actions – MEP D. Iovanovici Șoșoacă hurled insults, accusations, and threats, engaged in physical altercations, and committed actual offenses against the judges and staff of the Constitutional Court, acting as if she were above the laws of the country. This leads to the absurd notion of violating the law in the name of the law, which she abundantly invokes. I do not believe that our citizens can accept such behavior, as it would ultimately affect each of them if they were to vote such individuals into public office. I have always observed that citizens have been wiser than those who have sought to govern them.

All these actions constitute incitement to disregard the Constitution and laws and to destabilize democratic state institutions. This relates directly to the accurate conclusions of the U.S. Vice President, who pointed to the fragility of Romanian democracy – something we see manifesting in the very actions of certain leaders of parties that claim to be “democratic.” In reality, we are witnessing a simulation of democracy through seemingly democratic means and procedures. This, in itself, is a risk to the fragility of Romanian democracy, aimed at seizing power in the state by invoking the people’s “justice” as a pretext for their supposed sacrifices, when in reality, they are dismantling Romanian society through these easily recognizable “electoral tricks.”

We all – institutions, candidates, and voters – must reflect on what could happen if individuals dominated by extreme radicalism were to gain political power in the state… In truth, we see that such deliberate behavior leads to the perversion of the values of justice, patriotism, and national pride into empty slogans, exploiting the deep and intrinsic sensitivities of the Romanian people. These demagogic and populist actions expose the lack of real solutions to the problems facing individuals and society.

Alina Matei: Mr. President, from your perspective, do you believe the world we live in has changed?

Marian Enache: If you had asked me 20 years ago about the changing world we lived in, I might have been tempted to say, “old mentalities in new clothes” or “different masks, same stage.” Today, however, if you ask me about the transformation of the world on a global scale, I inevitably have to refer to complexity and to the process of confrontation, adaptation, and coexistence of humans with the unstoppable artificial intelligence – a process whose evolution and future I, as a fleeting being, cannot anticipate. The adventure of the future in the universe of artificial intelligence belongs to the generations that will come after us. What is certain, however, is that artificial intelligence is revolutionizing the world.

Alina Matei: Thank you for taking the time to speak with me!

Marian Enache: Thank you as well!

---

[1] By which the reexamination of null ballots and their recount by the Central Electoral Bureau was ordered to determine whether there were differences between the recorded data in the minutes and the actual findings.
[2] By which the re-verification and recounting of all ballots, including valid votes and null votes, in the Romanian Presidential elections of November 24, 2024, was ordered.
[3] See also the report Manipulation d’algorithmes et instrumentalisation d’influenceurs – Enseignements de l’élection présidentielle en Roumanie & risques pour la France, prepared by the General Secretariat for Defense and National Security of France (February 2025), available here.

---

:: Romanian Version