The presidential election offered voters a variety of choices and fundamental rights were generally respected. The election administration organized efficiently the technical aspects of the process and election day was orderly, without significant incidents. The fact that the decision to annul the November elections was insufficiently explained to the voters, combined with the lack of a full account of the failed election and the measures that should have been taken to ensure the integrity of the process negatively affected public confidence in the process and cast doubt on the state institutions’ resilience against hybrid attacks. The elections were held against a backdrop of distrust in the ruling political parties and polarization brought on by the annulled election.
The election legislation is generally adequate for organising democratic elections; however, changes by government emergency ordinance 1/2025 were adopted non-transparently, in violation of procedures and far too soon before the elections. Moreover, some of the amendments, including those related to the marking of political advertisements, changes in the composition of election commissions and shorter hours for some polling stations abroad affected stakeholders’ rights. The elections were organized taking into account several decisions of the Constitutional Court and recommendations of the Venice Commission related to the 2024 electoral process, which were not, however, transposed into law for greater clarity.
The election administration respected the election calendar and took the necessary measures for the good conduct of the elections, but the election commission composition clearly favoured two of the candidates, while in most commissions eight others were not represented at all. Election commission sessions are not public at any level, which reduced transparency.
A total of 17,988,031 voters were registered on the permanent lists in the country; the voter register also includes 1,016,350 voters residing abroad. The electronic verification of voter identity and marking in real time those who have voted through the SIMPV allows the identification of multiple voting attempts. Voters who cannot reach polling stations can opt for postal voting, if abroad, or for mobile voting in the country.
Out of 25 nominees, the Central Election Bureau registered 12 candidates and rejected 13; 11 candidates remained on the ballot after one withdrew. The high number of supporting signatures required to file a candidacy limits access to the electoral competition, and the lack of visibility of the signature collection campaigns, combined with the non-transparent verification process, raised questions about their veracity. The signature verification process could not be observed, and although the BEC regulated the methodology in a decision, the regulation is not part of the law and does not have an effect on future elections. Although the Constitutional Court issued several rulings after the 2024 annulled election, the law has not been amended to clearly define eligibility criteria and standards related to observing constitutional principles. The short deadlines for vetting, unclear legislation, lack of investigative tools in case of suspicions and the very long timeframes for the resolution of criminal cases reduce the efficiency of this system, which needs significant reform to increase public confidence.
During the campaign the right to free speech and freedom of association were generally respected and candidates were able to organize their campaign and deliver their message to voters without restrictions. Restrictive outdoor campaigning regulations, which reduce campaign visibility, prompted several candidates to start campaigning during support signature collection in order to be able to use large billboards and banners, which are banned during the campaign. Most of the campaign was conducted online and the overall tone of the campaign was rather aggressive and dominated by attacks between candidates. Several candidates took on a conservative and nationalist rhetoric, partly continuing the narratives launched by Călin Georgescu in 2024. The presidential debates added vitality to the campaign and attracted public interest. The CEB and the Ilfov county election commission noted the illegality of an extensive campaign carried out by the AUR party in violation of personal data protection regulations.
Online campaigning, especially on Tik Tok, continued to be contaminated by coordinated inauthentic behavior, which was noted by several electoral competitors. Expert Forum social media monitoring identified a significant increase in coordinated, politically motivated content, disguised as organic content and generated by networks of inauthentic accounts. In the absence of regulatory mechanisms adapted for digital content, third-party campaign financing continues to have a significant impact. Expert Forum identified two strategies to promote inauthentic content, both predominantly found on TikTok. In addition to internal inauthentic behavior, the campaign was also affected by foreign interference attempts associated with Russian Federation interests. On election day, the National Cyber Security Directorate (DNSC) reported that numerous websites of public interest had been the target of cyber-attacks claimed by a pro-Russian group; all affected websites were functional during the same day.
Competitors did not have equitable access to resources, with the Romania Forward coalition candidate enjoying a visible financial advantage. Limits on income and expenditure are high and this presidential election campaign was the most expensive so far. Political financing relies primarily on public resources, subsidies and reimbursements from public funds, which reduces the parties’ independence from the state. The campaign was mostly financed by loans and private funding declared by the parties, and spending most prominently included costs for online and media promotion. Campaign finance transparency remains limited even if revenues and expenditures are disclosed during the campaign, as the donors are not disclosed. Pre-campaigning is not effectively regulated. Although the PEA initiated more checks during the campaign, staff shortage limits the institution’s ability to act at short notice. Auditing financial sources beyond the submitted reports is limited and not within AEP’s attributions, which significantly limits transparency and allows illegally obtained funds to be reimbursed from public money.
The legal framework allows stakeholders to file complaints and appeals, and the deadlines for both the election administration and the courts are mostly reasonable. BEC decisions can be appealed to the High Court or the Court of Appeal, but the election law does not define the procedures for appealing decisions to the courts, with certain exceptions, contrary to international standards. Although Vot Corect has not observed the resolution of complaints in a systematic manner, we consider that in general the deadlines given by the courts were short, at least for appeals related to BEC decisions. The BEC received a significant number of complaints related to online political advertising; of more than 1,700 decisions, few were challenged, and were upheld by the court in most cases. Some of the BEC decisions were criticized, including for considering criteria beyond the legal definitions and for unfair penalties. Since January, almost 150 cases related to the annulment or suspension of the Constitutional Court decision to annul the November election were registered with the courts, eventually finding one judge to decide in favour of the petitioner, even though Constitutional Court decisions are final and binding. While the right of petitioners to lodge complaints is essential and should not be limited, such rulings undermine the integrity and credibility of the process and the appeal mechanisms.
Election day was generally calm and orderly. Opening and voting were assessed positively in the overwhelming majority of observed polling stations, but observers also noted cases where the mobile ballot box procedures were not respected and cases where voters residing in another locality were not allowed to vote. Although several procedural omissions were observed during the vote count, observers also assessed the counting generally positively and noted that in almost all observed polling stations results were correctly recorded. Voting abroad was efficiently organized with multiple options for exercising the right to vote.
Vot Corect is a civil society coalition formed by Expert Forum, the Civic Resource Centre, Civica, the Center for the Study of Democracy, the Civic Rădăuți Association, the Electoral Observatory, the Federation of Law Students’ Associations of Romania and Code for Romania. For election observation in the Republic of Moldova we cooperate with the Promo-Lex Association.
Contact: observare@votcorect.ro.