CĂLIN GEORGESCU v. ROMANIA DECISION resumed in full, with the Government setting a new date for the elections and a new calendar programme for the necessary actions. The decision was final. 7. The Constitutional Court underlined that it had the power, under Article 146 (f) of the Constitution, to ensure the compliance with the procedure for the presidential elections and confirm its results, which was to be considered in the light of its role to safeguard the supremacy of the Constitution, provided by Article 142 of the Constitution and Article 1 of Law no. 47/1992. Referring to the declassified Information Notes (see paragraph 5 above), the Constitutional Court noted that the presidential electoral process had been vitiated throughout its duration. The discovered irregularities had distorted the free and correct character of the citizens’ vote, had affected the fair and transparent electoral campaign, and had violated the rules on the latter’s financing. In that connection, the Constitutional Court pointed to the close relationship between democracy and the rule of law, to the necessity that the electoral process complied with the Constitution and the relevant legislation, as well as to the State’s positive obligation and also duty of neutrality, referring in that respect to the Venice Commission’s “Interpretative declaration of good practice in electoral matters as concerns digital technologies and artificial technologies” (adopted at its Plenary session on 6-7 December 2024; hereinafter “the Interpretative declaration”). 8. The Constitutional Court further highlighted that the voters’ right to create an opinion included both the right to obtain an accurate information about the candidates and the electoral process, from all sources, including online, as well as to be protected from unjustified impact on the voting behaviour based on unlawful and disproportionate acts. It pointed out that one of the candidates had benefited from an aggressive promotion of his messages through mass-media platforms’ algorithms, which had circumvented the electoral legislation and led to misinformation and manipulation of the vote, given that the electoral materials promoting that candidate had not bore the specific signs of electoral advertising in accordance with Law no. 370/2004 on the election of the President of Romania (“Law no. 370/2004”). Moreover, as regards the principles of neutrality and equal opportunities to all candidates and referring to Article 37 of the Constitution, the non-transparent and manipulatory use by one candidate of digital technologies and artificial intelligence generated a clear inequality between that candidate and the other candidates, and called for the competent authorities to intervene, investigate and, as appropriate, impose lawful sanctions. 9. Referring to the electoral campaign financing and the Venice Commission’s “Interpretative declaration” (see paragraph 7 above), the Constitutional Court noted that, while social media platforms should be obliged to disclose data on political advertising and election sponsors on a continuing basis, one candidate had declared to the Permanent Electoral Authority that he had not spent any funds in his campaign, which was contradicted by the data presented in the Information notes (see paragraph 5 3