The  election was effectively organized and voters’ fundamental rights were generally respected. However, the electoral competition was fundamentally affected by the results of the first round of the presidential elections. The process took place in a context of numerous disinformation or negative campaigns, which had a negative impact on the outcome of the parliamentary elections. The overlap of the elections and the decision of the Constitutional Court to recount the votes from the presidential elections distracted the public from the parliamentary elections and affected public confidence in the electoral process.

The transparency of the electoral process was reduced by the fact that the meetings of the Central Electoral Bureau (BEC) were not public. Its decisions (decizii/hotărâri) were generally published in due time, but, regrettably, the minutes of the meetings remained secret, and their publication was explicitly prohibited. Some of the decisions issued by the BEC, including the one related to the interpretation of the phrase parliamentary party, were contested, including by Vot Correct. The electoral administration generally managed the electoral process effectively.

The number of candidates increased compared to the previous elections. More than 50 lists were rejected by various constituency commissions because the candidates did not follow the administrative procedures or did not ensure the presence of both sexes on the candidate lists, as the law requires. The absence of some of the parties, including currently parliamentary ones, on the ballots in certain constituencies, as a result of the rejection of the candidacies, created confusion among some voters. The number of women on the lists increased compared to the previous elections, but few were placed in eligible positions. Data published by BEC about candidates is limited. The support signature verification process could not be observed, which limits transparency. The collection of signatures in electronic format was limited and only a few parties used this option. The lists of some parties, such as Noua Romania (for the out of country constituency), were rejected due to irregularities regarding the collected signatures. The integrity of the signature collection process remains in question, especially in the context where some competitors did not have any kind of visible signature collection campaign.

The overlapping of the two electoral campaigns and the results of the first round of voting significantly limited the visibility of the campaign for the parliamentary elections. This lacked visibility, and the conduct of the presidential elections confiscated the relevance of the debates for the parliamentary ones. Online campaigning continued to be intense and numerous cases where electoral propaganda was not declared as such were identified. The methods of outdoor promotion are very limited, which affects the voters’ right to information, and numerous violations of the legislation regarding the use of the electoral boards have been noted. Numerous actions to continue the electoral campaign were observed on the voting days and before the elections, including by candidates or their supporters with visibility, a fact that affected the integrity of the organization of the election day.

The transparency of campaign financing was reduced by the intermittent publication of data by the Permanent Electoral Authority (AEP), a fact criticized also in the case of the presidential elections. The lack of consistency in the publication of data denotes a lack of institutional transparency and limits the public’s understanding of how the electoral process was financed. Revenues of 250 million lei and expenses of 210 million lei were recorded, most of the funds (40%) being allocated for online promotion services. In addition to the officially declared expenses, indirect promotion through third parties was observed, such as Facebook pages close to parties that define themselves as publications. A small part of the parties’ contributions come from subsidies, i.e. 6.9 million lei, which indicates that they preferred to declare private funds that they can get reimbursed if they get 3% of the votes. It is unclear what the parties spend the subsidies on, which have reached a historic high this year, if they do not invest in political promotion in the middle of the election year. Between August and October, the parties spent 71 million lei on media and propaganda, which represents a third of the total campaign costs for the parliamentary elections. In fact, campaign costs are much higher than those formally declared for a campaign month, and political parties spend high sums of money in the months before the campaign on less transparent rules.

Election days were conducted in an orderly and calm manner, with few incidents reported by observers, and the turnout was 52.50%. The process was assessed positively by Vot Corect observers in almost 97% of the polling stations observed during the opening and voting and almost 95% of the polling stations observed during the vote counting. Observers reported a tense atmosphere during voting in 4.8% of cases and crowding in 15%. The polling station commissions did not understand well where voters can vote according to their domicile and residence in a worrying percentage of approximately 14%. When counting the votes, polling station commission presidents had difficulties filling in the protocols in 19.2% of the observed sections; in 14% the counting took place in a tense atmosphere. In a few cases observers were unjustifiably removed from polling stations, and some polling station commission took the abusive decision to allow observation only during voting and not during the counting of votes. The opening procedure was observed by Vot Corect in 183 precincts, the voting in 737, and the counting of votes in 204. Due to the fact that in some cases the observers did not answer all the questions on the forms, the statistical data do not always refer to the total number of sections observed.