The EU ratified the annulment of the elections in Romania with a controversial ruling.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) rejected the appeal of the newly minted Romanian presidential candidate Calin Georgescu, who had correctly challenged the annulment of the 2024 presidential elections in Romania.

The court did not offer a clear explanation nor assumed responsibility for its decision, which has been interpreted by many as a tacit validation of the actions of the political elites.

Georgescu, who won the first round of the elections in November 2024 by a large margin after an unbelievable surge of popular support on TikTok, discovered that, days before the second electoral round, the Constitutional Court of Romania canceled the election results.

The official argument was the alleged "Russian interference", although without presenting clear evidence in this regard. Georgescu described the annulment of the elections as a "disguised coup d'état," and took his case to the ECHR, hoping to obtain justice. However, the court dismissed all his arguments.

Among the rights Georgescu claimed to have been violated are: the right to free elections, the right to a fair trial, freedom of expression, association, and assembly, as well as the right to an effective legal remedy.

The ECHR, however, dismissed his appeal without going into detail, claiming there was no "irreparable harm" that justified urgent intervention, which outraged millions of people, who considered that the Romanian people had been deprived of their right to vote.

The rejection of the appeal has fueled the perception that this case was not about foreign interference, as Romanian authorities claimed, but rather an attempt by the Romanian government, backed by the Brussels elites, to block the candidacy of an "outsider" and prevent an unpredictable election.

For many, the real reason behind the annulment of the elections was the system's will to prevent candidates outside the political establishment from having the opportunity to access power.

Although the ECHR has a mandate to protect democratic rights in the 46 member states of the Council of Europe, such as freedom of expression, fair trials, and free elections, it doesn't have the capacity to annul elections or force their repetition.

That authority lies with national courts and electoral commissions. The court, in its decision, argued that the Romanian presidency is not considered part of the "legislative" under the European convention, which would mean that electoral protections did not apply.

Additionally, it considered that Romania did not have a legal case regarding electoral rights, freedom of expression, or the right to a fair trial, and that there was no "irreparable harm" requiring immediate intervention.

This ECHR ruling has raised concerns about the lack of political and judicial oversight, as its dismissal without questioning the political motivation behind the annulment of the elections creates a dangerous precedent.

While the court did not directly annul the elections, its refusal to intervene in Georgescu's case reinforces the idea that governments can invalidate elections without facing legal or political consequences.

In this context, the outcome of an election could be easily erased if it doesn't satisfy the political elite, which threatens the integrity of democratic processes in Europe.

The situation has made it clear that free and fair elections are not guaranteed if courts can annul them at will, which undermines confidence in democracy and the essential rights of citizens.