CĂLIN GEORGESCU v. ROMANIA DECISION intervene with a pure power to legislate, i.e. the power to initiate legislation (Article 74 § 1; see paragraph 16 and compare with Kribovokov (decision cited above)) or adopt laws having supreme legal force, which belongs exclusively to the Parliament. The President cannot issue any decree beyond his or her powers, which therefore excludes decrees of legislative nature or decrees that could contradict or supersede the Parliament’s legislative acts. Accordingly, his or her powers in this respect are essentially confined to the implementation of such legislation (see paragraphs 15 and 19 above). The Constitution of Romania clearly provides for the separation of powers (see paragraph 12 above). It appears to the Court that the President’s power accessory to the Parliament’s legislative power is not a competence pertaining to the proper act of lawmaking, but must be construed as being necessary and strictly limited to the system of the inter-institutional “checks and balances”, common to most European democracies (compare with Guliyev (decision cited above)). 26. In the light of the above, the Court finds no indication that the powers of the President of Romania are such as to make that office part of the “legislature” of the respondent State, within the meaning of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. 27. It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. B. As regards the complaints under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention 28. Invoking Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant complained that the decision no. 32 of 6 December 2024 of the Constitutional Court had been adopted in a non-transparent manner and without a possibility for him to refute the accusations contained therein, and that there was no remedy against it. 29. The Court notes that the proceedings in question concerned the applicant’s right to stand as a candidate in the presidential elections. The dispute in issue, therefore, concerned his political right and did not have any bearing on his “civil rights and obligations” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Mutalibov v. Azerbaijan (dec.), no. 31799/03, 19 February 2004, and, mutatis mutandis, Pierre-Bloch v. France, 21 October 1997, § 50, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VI). Moreover, although the applicant refers in his application to “the accusations” against him, the Court notes that the decision of the Constitutional Court no. 32 of 6 December 2024 did not concern the determination of any “criminal charge” against the applicant within the 7