Informare pentru europarlamentari, Comisia Europeana si ambasade

UP-date: raspunsul preliminar al Comisiei Europene

Towards Commissioner Juncker and all Commissioners of UE,

The political party Civic Alternative: Attitude, Solidarity, Action – A.C.A.S.A., headquartered in Căminului Street, no. 5, 1st floor, apartment 2, district 2, Bucharest, certificated in the Romanian Register of Political Parties at position 130, we address you in this way to inform about a serious illegality that occurred during the parliamentary elections in Romania which took place in December 11, 2016, with direct implications on the lawfulness functionality of Romanian Parliament and by default of the Government.

In fact, the electoral law No 208/2015 provides that each political party that wants to participate in the elections must go through the following main steps:

  1. Establishing own lists of candidates.
  2. Collecting supporting signatures for the lists of candidates – at least 1% of the total number of citizens eligible at national level (approx. 200 000 signatures).
  3. Submission of candidacy file.

The obligation of gathering signatures in support of candidates list is a new provision in the electoral law for political parties, until 2016 it  was only applied to independent candidates. Until 2016, the Political Parties had participating with candidates at elections if they presented in the pre-election year, lists of members required to set up a political party, at least 25 000 members. The Political Parties that have members in Parliament today could not establish lists of candidates and they collected signatures in support of the party, and the lists of candidates were established long after the submission of signatures lists to the Central Election Bureau. Practically, the citizens have not known the candidates but signed for their application. This contradicts the Constitutional Court Decision and the electoral law.

Taking note of this flagrant illegality, we contested the legality of the signatures lists, at the Central Electoral Bureau but also in court, both at central level and in each county. In court, at the High Court of Cassation and Justice, we had the surprise, contrary to all legal provisions to be stucked in a hallucinatory sentence: the Central Electoral Bureau is above the law and its activity cannot be contested by anyone. This inability to subject the judicial control the documents issued by a state institution creates a perfect mechanism for parliamentary election fraud. Virtually, we found out that the signatures files submitted by the political parties at the Central Electoral Bureau to validate their participation in elections are not verified or even verifiable by none, a person or a control entity.

The consequence of this institutionalized fraud was the emergence of a Parliament formed of politicians who do not represent the citizens, they represent the party, which is prohibited by Article 2 of the Constitution. Citizens with criminal cases, or being in the state of incompatibility, or without competent or outstanding qualities have been promoted fraudulent on the candidates list without the reservation that will be rejected by the electorate. The election fraud was possible with the Central Electoral Bureau complicity, who gave juridical force for a grossly false. The Supreme Court made up of colleagues of the judges designated in the Central Electoral Bureau covered by this fraud sentence. The Parliamentary elections from December 11, 2016 were not fair nor free.

In support of all the above, we present you the following legal arguments and Supreme Court decision:

  1. Electoral Law No 208/2015 establishes explicit in attribution of Central Electoral Bureau at Art.12 (1), that the Central Electoral Bureau: ‘d) retrieves the lists of supporters signatures of the candidates lists proposed by the political parties, … ‘

This is reinforced by the provisions of Art.54 (7) of Law No 208/2015 which defines the supporter: ‘Supporters can only be eligible citizens with right to vote and residing in the constituency for which candidates are nominated. A voter may support several lists of candidates or independent candidates.’

Therefore it can be noted unequivocally that signatures of support are given to candidates, independent or on lists, nowise to the party.

  1. Upon filing at Central Electoral Bureau the support signatures list of candidates lists, proof of submission lists by law are issued to the party representatives. The centralizing forms of signatures refers to supporters list of candidates lists.
  1. Constitutional Court jurisprudence – CCR Decision no. 354/2016

‘ 26. With regard to reason of establishing the threshold for representation, the Court held, in its jurisprudence in matters, that… the national electoral system provides essentially the same condition: submission of a list of signatures of adhesions. … The establishment of legal requirements for submitting the signatures list is a way for a candidate to a public office proving its representativity potential and proves at the same time, the concern of the legislature to prevent the abusive exercise of the right to be elected on one hand, and to ensure, on the other hand, effective access to exercise this right for eligible persons […] who really benefit from the credibility and the support of the electorate, so that there is a real chance of representing it.’ (See Decision No 782 of 12 May, 2009 published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no 406 of 15 June, 2009)

This position is consistent with Decision no. 288/2016 CCR.

The explosive situation in Romania at this moment, legalizing corruption through non-parliamentary methods, is the consequence of the lack of legitimacy of the government born of an illegal Parliament. Hundreds of thousands of people in the streets do not know this truth, the press hid this information. If they had respected the electoral law, the results would have been definitely another.

We kindly ask you to analyze the situation and take attitude shown by all your available means to limit the effects of the illegal government from Romania.

The actions in Court were the subject of case 39819/3/2016 and the sentence given in the first court was FINAL. The appeal does not have yet a term; no. 3696/1/2016. We attach the civil sentence pronounced by the High Court of Cassation and Justice.

truly and respectfully,

Civic Alternative: Attitude, Solidarity, Action – A.C.A.S.A.


George Epurescu