CĂLIN GEORGESCU v. ROMANIA DECISION there was no remedy against it. Relying on Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, the applicant alleged that this decision was the result of political interference by “the ruling party” in charge of the electoral process and that it undermined the freedom to participate in democratic process, particularly the freedom of political association. A. As regards the complaint under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention 21. The applicant complained that the annulment by the decision no. 32 of 6 December 2024 of the Constitutional Court of the entire electoral process with regards to the election of the President of Romania infringed his right to free elections under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. 22. The Court reiterates that the obligations imposed on the Contracting States by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 are limited to “the choice of legislature” and do not normally apply to the election of a Head of State, unless it is established in the light of the constitutional structure of the State in question – which the Court hasn’t yet concluded in any previous case – that the latter could arguably be considered to be a “legislature”, being given the power to initiate and adopt legislation or to enjoy wide powers to control the passage of legislation or the power to censure the principal lawmaking authorities (see Boškoski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 11676/04, 2 September 2004, and, mutatis mutandis, Guliyev v. Azerbaijan (dec.), no. 35584/02, 27 May 2004, and Kribovokov v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 38707/04, 19 February 2013). 23. Turning to the present case, the Court observes at the outset that the Constitution of Romania expressly states that the Parliament is the sole legislative authority in the country (Article 61 § 1 of the Constitution; see paragraph 13 above). 24. The President’s role as defined by the Constitution is centred around the function of representation of the State, observance of the Constitution and the proper functioning of the public authorities, as well as mediation between different powers in the State, as well as between the State and society (Article 80; see paragraph 14 above). 25. The Court further observes that it follows from the applicable provisions of domestic law that the President of Romania is vested with few powers that could be construed, to a limited extent, as an institutional interaction with the legislature, while not being part of it. In particular, he or she is empowered to sign and temporarily delay the promulgation of laws passed by the Parliament, but under strictly limited conditions (Article 77; see paragraph 15 above). The exercise of that power creates a simple procedural obligation on the Parliament to re-examine the law (either entirely or a particular provision thereof), but the latter retains unfettered discretion as to the substantive outcome of such re-examination. The President cannot 6