Check against delivery
26 March 2025
Dear colleagues,
In my capacity as co-rapporteur, I am pleased to present the conclusions of the Congress fact-finding mission to Bucharest and I would like to first of all thank the Permanent Representation of Romania, which provided valuable assistance to ensure the smooth organisation of this mission.
As you know, the Congress Monitoring Committee decided on 2 July to undertake this mission after receiving a letter of complaint alleging irregularities in the June 2024 elections, which the Congress had not been invited to observe.
These irregularities, mainly in Sector 1 and 2 of Bucharest, consisted mostly of delays during counting and discrepancies between protocols filed in polling stations and protocols published online. The regrettable lack of an invitation prevented us from conducting direct election observation, but this visit still allowed us to clarify some of the elements raised in the letter.
The mission was carried out on 23 October 2024, and we met a large range of stakeholders, including the acting Head of delegation of Romania, representatives of the opposition and ruling parties, the election administration and NGOs involved in election observation. We welcomed their willingness to engage and openly reflect on their electoral practice.
We found that while the 2024 local elections were overwhelmingly well-organised, they remained significantly impacted by the introduction of an emergency ordinance to hold local and European Parliament elections on the same day issued just months before the election day. While the Constitutional Court upheld this decision, its rushed implementation led to significant administrative challenges, societal dissatisfaction, and inconsistencies that required later clarification.
In the report, we reaffirm the importance of electoral stability and found that the decision to resort to this emergency ordinance could have been avoided since it had long been foreseen that four elections would be held in 2024. Adopting an emergency ordinance at such short notice could only undermine legislative quality and certainty and weaken external oversight of the Government - all without requiring authorities to clearly justify what constituted an emergency. The use of emergency ordinances should remain exceptional, in particular on electoral matters. Indeed, the stability of electoral law is essential to maintaining trust in the process and should not be overlooked, particularly in the context of the exceptional cancellation of the presidential elections six months later in Romania.
While holding multiple elections on the same day is common practice in some European countries, in this case, the timing of the decision placed an undue burden on electoral administrators, candidates, and voters alike, especially during counting and tabulation procedures in Bucharest. In addition, limited education and training were provided on the changes.
We therefore strongly recommend refraining from making any further substantial changes to the legal framework shortly before elections or resorting to emergency ordinances to tackle politically sensitive subjects. We were pleased to see that the Venice Commission’s opinion on this merger published on 14 March shared these recommendations.
While it is clear that the emergency ordinance created confusion, we also noted that the electoral framework was already complex and fragmented, leading to inconsistencies in interpretation and implementation. We were informed that political negotiations on electoral reform are underway and we encourage the authorities to develop comprehensive and simplified legislation, in the form of a unified electoral code, to be adopted following open and extensive consultations in parliament and with a broad range of stakeholders.
Thank you for your attention and my colleague Jorge will present our other key findings and areas for improvement.