Civil Liberties Union for Europe report raises concerns over annulled vote, lack of due process, and restrictions on political speech.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
A newly released European watchdog report examining rule-of-law conditions in Romania states that the country’s Constitutional Court “effectively amended the law” when it annulled the 2024 presidential election and excluded candidates from participating, raising concerns about legal standards, due process, and freedom of expression.
The findings are detailed in the Liberties Rule of Law Report 2026, published by the Civil Liberties Union for Europe and available here. The report evaluates democratic institutions across European Union member states and highlights Romania as a case of concern.
Liberties Rule of Law Report 2026(2) by yourNEWS Media
According to the report, Romania’s Constitutional Court excluded candidates, including Călin Georgescu and Diana Șoșoacă, from the presidential race after determining that their public statements reflected insufficient commitment to European Union and NATO values.
The court concluded that criticism of these institutions could amount to a rejection of constitutional principles. However, the report states that Romanian law does not require loyalty to European or Euro-Atlantic organizations as a condition for candidacy. It notes that eligibility requirements are limited to formal criteria such as age, citizenship, and the collection of supporting signatures.
“By introducing an additional, unwritten condition… the Constitutional Court effectively amended the law,” the report states, adding that no judicial ruling had deemed the candidates’ statements unlawful.
The document also raises procedural concerns, stating that the excluded candidates were not afforded standard legal protections. According to the report, they were unable to present evidence, lacked legal representation, and had no avenue for appeal because decisions of the Constitutional Court are final.
“From a procedural perspective… the candidates were denied their right to a defense,” the report states, describing the process as lacking basic safeguards typically associated with judicial proceedings.
The report further suggests institutional reform, including transferring the Constitutional Court’s responsibilities to the High Court of Cassation and Justice. It notes that while Constitutional Court judges have legal qualifications, their political appointment process raises questions about independence compared to career judges.
Beyond the electoral issue, the report identifies broader concerns about Romania’s media environment and freedom of expression. It describes a system marked by political influence, opaque funding, and declining public trust in both public and private media institutions.
According to the findings, leadership at public broadcasters remains tied to political appointments, and changes in government can lead to shifts in management. The report characterizes this structure as contributing to a lack of editorial independence and critical reporting.
The National Audiovisual Council is also cited in the report as a politicized regulatory body. During the 2025 election period, it ordered the removal of online content, including material critical of authorities. These actions, the report notes, were widely criticized as exceeding its legal authority.
The document warns that efforts to combat disinformation, while framed as a priority by Romanian authorities, lack a clear legal framework. It states that the absence of defined standards creates a risk that such measures could evolve into forms of censorship.
“Without clear definitions, procedures or accountability mechanisms, this initiative risks strengthening the power of the executive… without adequate democratic oversight,” the report states, referencing plans to establish a new anti-disinformation unit within the presidential administration.
The report also documents instances in which individuals were contacted by police and asked to remove online content critical of the government, citing concerns about pressure on citizens’ expression.
Romania is categorized as a “stagnator” in the report, indicating that progress on rule-of-law indicators has not improved. The findings highlight ongoing challenges related to judicial independence, media freedom, and the balance of powers within the state.
The Liberties report draws on data from multiple non-governmental organizations across the European Union and is intended to assess adherence to democratic principles, including judicial independence, anti-corruption measures, and protection of fundamental rights.