MCC Brussels has submitted a formal complaint to the European Ombudsman, accusing the European Commission of unjustifiably withholding documents tied to Digital Services Act (DSA) enforcement in Romania’s high-stakes presidential election—a vote marred by alleged foreign interference, irregularities, and the controversial annulment of its first round.
The complaint challenges the Commission’s refusal to disclose information concerning two active DSA proceedings related to the election, despite repeated requests under EU access-to-documents laws. The Commission has cited the exemption for ongoing investigations, but MCC Brussels argues that this exemption cannot apply when public interest and electoral integrity are at risk.
“There is no such thing as true disclosure in the Commission’s vocabulary,” said Frank Furedi, Executive Director of MCC Brussels. “They demand transparency from others while shielding their own activities from scrutiny. The opportunistic use of the DSA in Romania—behind closed doors—is unacceptable. The Commission’s attempt to create a transparency-free zone for itself must be challenged.”
Romania’s 2024 presidential election was thrown into turmoil when its Constitutional Court annulled the first round of voting, citing grave irregularities. These included violations of electoral law, misuse of digital platforms, and suspicious financial flows—particularly on TikTok, where one candidate, Călin Georgescu, widely viewed as pro-Russian, received disproportionately favorable algorithmic exposure.
Romania’s intelligence and national security bodies later confirmed that Russian actors had orchestrated a coordinated hybrid campaign involving:
These allegations were severe enough for Romania’s Supreme Council of National Defense to declassify intelligence reports outlining what it called an “aggressive hybrid Russian action.”
In response to the chaos, the European Commission invoked the Digital Services Act (DSA)—a new regulatory regime for large online platforms. As part of this, the Commission ordered TikTok to freeze relevant data, aiming to preserve evidence of systemic risks to democratic processes. This marked one of the DSA’s first real-world tests, applying its provisions to a live case of digital election interference.
Yet even as the Commission took these enforcement actions, it refused to provide transparency about its decision-making. While acknowledging the existence of two proceedings under the DSA framework, it denied access to all documentation—an approach MCC Brussels says is legally questionable and democratically dangerous.
“The Romanian people deserve to know what role the EU is playing in their democratic process,” Furedi added. “The Commission’s refusal to answer before the next round of elections is particularly suspicious.”
MCC Brussels argues that the lack of transparency risks undermining public trust not just in Romania, but across the EU. Former Commissioner Thierry Breton had publicly vowed that the DSA would be robustly enforced during national elections to counter foreign manipulation. Some observers—and critics within Romania—believe EU pressure may have influenced the Constitutional Court’s decision to annul the first round, especially after Georgescu’s initial victory.
The timing of the Commission’s silence—with Romania’s second round just days away—is raising eyebrows. While legal exemptions can shield ongoing investigations, case law and regulation stress that this cannot override overriding public interest, especially when issues of democratic integrity and foreign interference are involved.
The European Ombudsman has accepted MCC Brussels’ complaint and launched an official case. However, the investigation will not begin until after the second round of elections on 4 May, meaning that the Commission’s refusal to disclose key information will go unchallenged in real time.
“Europe’s democratic institutions must not allow the Commission to operate in the shadows during an election year,” Furedi said. “We welcome the Ombudsman’s involvement, but this can only be the beginning. The media, the public, and elected officials must demand real accountability.”
This controversy strikes at the heart of Europe’s ambitions to lead globally in digital regulation. The DSA is designed to protect democratic processes, but the Romanian case reveals the tension between urgent enforcement and procedural transparency.
With more national elections looming in Europe in 2025, the handling of this case will likely influence how the DSA is perceived and whether it is seen as a shield for democracy—or a tool of opaque executive power.
