Romanian presidential candidate Calin Georgescu loses bid at European Human Rights Court to halt annulment of Romanian presidential elections

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled today, in a Chamber formation and by unanimous vote, that no interim measures should be indicated in the case of Călin Georgescu v. Romania (application no. 37327/24), according to a court statement. The case concerns the annulment of Romania’s presidential elections by the Constitutional Court of Romania (CCR), in which Mr. Georgescu was a candidate.

Georgescu had requested interim measures, specifically that the Constitutional Court’s decision be suspended and the electoral process resumed. However, the court dismissed his request as falling outside the scope of Article 39 of the ECHR Rules of Court (interim measures).

Interim Measures Request – ECHR Statement

The applicant, Călin Georgescu, is a Romanian citizen, born in 1962, and resides in Mogoșoaia, Romania.

On November 24, 2024, the first round of Romania’s presidential elections took place, with the second round scheduled for December 8, 2024. Mr. Georgescu was a candidate and had qualified for the runoff. However, on December 6, the Constitutional Court of Romania, acting under Article 146(f) of the Romanian Constitution, annulled the entire electoral process (Decision No. 32 of December 6, 2024).

The court ruled that the presidential elections must be entirely redone and reorganized by the government at a later date. This ruling is final.

On December 16, 2024, citing violations of his rights under Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (right to free elections), Mr. Georgescu requested interim measures under Article 39 of the Rules of Court against the December 6 decision that had annulled the ongoing electoral process.

He specifically requested:

• The suspension of the Constitutional Court’s decision until the ECHR rules on his case, arguing that it caused irreparable harm to both his democratic rights and those of Romanian citizens;
• That the Romanian government be required to resume the electoral process, maintaining the results of the first round and proceeding with the scheduled runoff;
• That Romania take measures to restore democratic trust in the electoral process.

Court’s Decision

The decision was made unanimously by a Chamber of seven judges.

In its ruling, the ECHR reiterated that, under Article 39 of the Rules of Court, interim measures apply only in cases of imminent risk of irreparable harm to a right guaranteed by the Convention that, due to its nature, cannot be remedied—where the affected individual cannot be restored to their previous situation or adequately compensated. Additionally, such measures are only granted in exceptional circumstances, when necessary in the interest of the parties or for the proper conduct of proceedings.

The court dismissed Mr. Georgescu’s request as being outside the scope of Article 39. After reviewing his application and its legal basis, the court determined, in accordance with its well-established practice, that his claim did not demonstrate an irreparable harm as defined by Article 39.

Consequently, the ECHR ruled that the case does not fall within the purview of Article 39 and decided not to impose any of the interim measures requested on the Romanian government.

Context

The request for interim measures is being handled separately from the broader case of Călin Georgescu at the ECHR, as it constitutes a distinct legal proceeding. In his main complaint, Georgescu argues that his right to free elections under Article 3, Protocol No. 1 of the Convention has been violated, stating that:

“The suspension of the electoral process and the invalidation of votes irreparably affect both my rights and those of Romanian citizens, as guaranteed by Article 3, Protocol No. 1 of the Convention.”

He also claims that his right to appeal has been infringed upon, noting that:

“The Constitutional Court’s decisions are final and universally binding, and Romanian law provides no internal mechanism for challenging them.”

On these grounds, Georgescu asserts that Article 13 of the Convention (right to an effective remedy) has been violated. He further argues that the annulment of the ongoing electoral process violated fundamental rights of voters and candidates, including his right to run for office.

The former candidate urged the ECHR to review his case urgently, contending that:

“The indefinite postponement of the electoral process undermines citizens’ democratic rights and raises the risk of perpetuating undemocratic practices.”

Georgescu also warned of a ‘constitutional crisis’, arguing that:

“The absence of a democratically elected president creates a legitimacy vacuum, jeopardizing institutional stability and the principles of the rule of law.”

Additionally, he cautioned against setting a ‘dangerous undemocratic precedent’, stating in his submission to the ECHR that:

“Delays in resolving this case could allow similar practices to persist, potentially lowering democratic standards in other member states.”