European Court of Justice Inquiry on the Nov/Dec Commission Elections
-
The Chief Justice has asked me to open a public forum for various parties to introduce arguments, evidence, and constitutional reasoning as to what decisions the Court should take into consideration before posting their decision.
The issue the Court shall be debating upon shall be the constitutionality of write-in nominees/candidates/votes and their validity within the context of European Commission elections. This previous commission election saw a massive amount of write-in voting. Due to no petitioned case being submitted by any party, this shall be an open-forum not a regular trial. If a proper petition is submitted by affected parties the Court shall be beholden to its procedures under the European Court of Justice Case Procedures Act 2013.
The deadline for such information to be submitted to the court is 1200 GMT December 15th, 2022. Please use the below form to submit your information. Each submitting party shall be allotted one "rebuttal" application to argue against other parties if they find reason to do so. The Court has a self-imposed deadline of December 17th to submit its final decisions on the election.
Any applications submitted after the deadline shall not be considered.
Application
NATION:
NAME OF PERSON/ORGANISATION:
ARGUEMENTS:
EVIDENCE: (PLEASE PROVIDE LINKS/LIST OF EVIDENCE)
OTHER COMMENTS: -
NATION: Republic of Istkalen
NAME OF PERSON/ORGANISATION: Annelise Bauer
ARGUEMENTS: The European Constitution, under Article III, section III, clause III implicitly places write-in candidates outside of the law. Past elections also appear to have treated write-in votes as invalid in nature.
EVIDENCE: (PLEASE PROVIDE LINKS/LIST OF EVIDENCE):
Text of the clause of the European Constitution in question:
III. Any nation may put forward as many candidates as it wishes for each office, but only one may be elected to the Commission.The elections of February 2021
OTHER COMMENTS: None.
-
After much deliberation, the European Court of Justice has decided on the validity of the last European Commission elections.
It should be understood that while The Constitution of the European Union does not set a clear precedent for write-in candidates, it has set very clear boundaries on certain aspects of commission elections in Article III, Section II. I would like to quote Clause II from the aforementioned article:
The nomination period for each Office shall run for seven days, to be followed by a seven-day debate period, in turn, followed by a seven-day voting period.
Following the precedent established in previous court decisions, including one where an election was cancelled due to the debate period not being up to standards, The Court is concerned about the fact that both gentlemen, Kevin Cotilla and Jean-Claude Juncker, who were elected using write-in votes, could not participate in the seven-day debate period, as they did not nominate themselves in the seven-day nomination period.
Both of these periods are very clearly set by the Constitution, which is the paramount law of the European Union, and the European Court of Justice is responsible for ensuring that the political activities of the European Union are not conflicting with the Constitution, as mentioned in Article IV, Section II, Clause I:
The European Court of Justice is responsible for determining whether an Act or Amendment of the European Council is in line with the Constitution.
Therefore, The Court unanimously finds that:
A) Write-in notes can not be used in European elections, as they are incompatible with the precedents set by the Constitution,
B) The non-proper execution of the periods clearly set by the Constitution in the last elections is problematic.
Therefore, to ensure that these elections do not erode the validity of the succeeding elections made by the European Union as a whole, The European Court of Justice orders a new election under this legal understanding.
——
Dayo Faith Mwangi
Chief Justice of the European Court of Justice
