Vot Corect / Expert Forum has published the preliminary report on the observation of the first round of the 2025 Romania presidential elections. Access the full report in Romanian here.

Key Takeaways:

The presidential election offered voters a wide range of candidates, and fundamental rights were generally respected. Electoral authorities managed the technical aspects of the process effectively, and Election Day took place without major incidents. However, the decision to cancel the 2024 elections was not sufficiently explained to the public. The lack of a comprehensive report on that failed process and the absence of clear measures to protect electoral integrity have negatively impacted public trust and raised concerns about the resilience of state institutions in the face of hybrid threats. The elections were also held in a climate of public distrust toward the ruling political parties and lingering polarization stemming from the cancelled 2024 process.

Although the electoral legislation allows for democratic elections in general, the amendments introduced by Emergency Ordinance 1/2025 were adopted without transparency, in violation of standard procedures, and far too close to Election Day. Some of these changes — such as adjustments to how political advertising is marked, the composition of electoral bureaus, and reduced voting hours in certain countries — negatively impacted participants’ rights. While some recommendations from the Venice Commission and decisions of the Constitutional Court were taken into account, they were not translated into clear legal provisions.

The electoral administration followed the official calendar and took steps to ensure the proper conduct of the elections. However, the way electoral bureaus were composed gave a clear advantage to two candidates, while eight others had no representation. Additionally, because electoral bureau meetings were not open to the public, transparency was significantly limited.

A total of 17,988,031 voters were registered on the permanent lists in the country, with another 1,016,350 voters registered abroad. The SIMPV system, which verifies voter identity electronically and marks who has voted in real time, helps prevent multiple voting. Voters unable to travel could vote by mail from abroad or request a mobile ballot box within the country.

Of the 25 candidacy submissions, 13 were rejected by the Central Electoral Bureau (BEC), leaving 12 accepted — and ultimately, 11 on the final ballot after one withdrawal. The high number of support signatures required to run for office creates a barrier to entry, while the lack of transparency in signature collection and verification casts doubt on the process’s credibility. Signature verification was not observable, and although BEC issued a methodology, it was not grounded in law and doesn’t set a precedent for future elections. Despite rulings from the Constitutional Court after 2024, no legal updates have clarified candidate eligibility criteria or the standards for disqualifying candidates based on constitutional violations. Short verification deadlines, vague legislation, insufficient investigative tools, and lengthy procedures for criminal cases all reduce the system’s effectiveness and call for urgent reform to rebuild public trust.

During the campaign, freedom of speech and association were mostly upheld. Candidates were able to campaign freely. However, restrictions on public displays of campaign materials led many candidates to begin promotion efforts early, during the support-signature phase, to legally use larger banners and billboards, which are banned during the campaign itself. Much of the campaign unfolded online and was marked by aggressive rhetoric and personal attacks. Several candidates adopted nationalist and conservative tones, echoing narratives from the 2024 campaign of Călin Georgescu. Televised presidential debates played a key role in shaping the campaign and drew significant public interest. Meanwhile, BEC and the Ilfov County Electoral Bureau found that the AUR party violated personal data protection rules during a major campaign event.

Online campaigning — particularly on TikTok — was heavily influenced by coordinated inauthentic behavior. Monitoring revealed a surge in politically driven content masked as organic posts and spread by networks of fake accounts. Without updated regulations for the digital space, third-party campaign financing continues to distort the playing field. Expert Forum identified two main tactics for pushing inauthentic content, especially on TikTok. In addition to domestic manipulation, the campaign was subject to external interference linked to Russian interests. On Election Day, Romania’s National Cyber Security Directorate reported that multiple government websites were targeted by cyberattacks claimed by a pro-Russian group, though all were restored within the same day.

Candidates did not compete on a level financial playing field. The candidate from the “Romania Before” coalition enjoyed a significant financial edge. Despite spending caps, this year’s presidential campaign was the most expensive yet. Public funding — including state subsidies and reimbursements — now dominates political financing, reducing party independence from the state. Most campaign funds came from loans and party-declared private sources, with major spending directed at online promotion and media coverage. While revenue and spending reports are published during the campaign, they lack full transparency, as donor identities are not disclosed. The pre-campaign period remains largely unregulated. Although the Permanent Electoral Authority (AEP) increased oversight during the campaign, its ability to respond promptly is limited by staffing shortages. The auditing of fund sources remains superficial, as the AEP has no authority to investigate beyond declared figures — a major gap that allows potentially illegal money to be laundered through public reimbursements.

The legal framework allows for complaints and appeals, and most deadlines for decisions by electoral authorities and courts are reasonable. BEC decisions can be appealed to the High Court of Cassation and Justice (HCCJ) or the Court of Appeal, but the law lacks clearly defined procedures for most types of court challenges, which falls short of international standards. Fair Vote did not systematically monitor complaint resolution but observed that most court deadlines were brief, at least in cases appealing BEC decisions. The BEC received over 1,700 complaints related to online political advertising; few were appealed in court, and most decisions were upheld. Some BEC rulings were criticized for overstepping legal definitions or applying penalties unevenly. Since January, nearly 150 court cases have challenged or sought to suspend the Constitutional Court’s Decision 32/2024 — an effort seen as undermining the legal finality and authority of the Court. While the right to file complaints must be protected, such maneuvers can undermine the legitimacy of the process and the judicial system.

Election Day itself was generally calm and orderly. Most polling stations opened on time, and the voting process was assessed positively overall. However, observers noted procedural issues with the use of mobile ballot boxes and cases where voters residing in other localities were not allowed to vote. Although some minor procedural errors were observed during vote counting, observers reported that results were accurately recorded in nearly all cases. Voting abroad was well-organized and offered multiple options for participation.

More information on the election campaign available on the Expert Forum website.