This Romanian Television jury, part of the public broadcaster TVR, has claimed it faced an injustice during the voting process for this year’s Eurovision gala in Turin, Italy. The Romanian team asserts that its vote was canceled by the festival’s organizers over irregularities that Romania says did not actually occur. In a tense turn, the situation prompted questions about the integrity of the final ranking and how results were calculated, casting a shadow over what is traditionally a celebratory moment for the contest and its contestants. These claims were reported after the organizers made no public statement addressing the alleged irregularities, leaving the Romanian delegation with unanswered questions and a sense of being blindsided by the process.
“We were surprised to discover that the Romanian jury’s score was not reflected in the final tally”, a spokesperson for the Romanian Television stated. The claim was reported by Libertatea, a Bucharest daily, which highlighted the tension between the jury’s vote and the announced results. The broadcaster urged transparency and accountability, underscoring that the voting rules should be clear and consistently applied to all participants. The episode has sparked discussion about how vocal the jury’s role should be and how its input is factored into overall outcomes, especially in a competition watched by millions across Europe and beyond (via Libertatea).
Romania also noted the absence of a concrete public explanation from the European Broadcasting Union regarding the alleged changes to the voting sequence. In response to the concerns, TVR confirmed that it had initiated steps to challenge the decision and had filed formal complaints with the festival organizers. The broadcaster emphasized the importance of due process and fair treatment for every member of the participating juries, insisting that contestants deserve to have their votes treated with parity and clarity.
Holy Chanel: Ukraine wins Eurovision, but Spain makes history with best score of 62 years
“Depending on the responses received, TVR reserves the right to take special measures to remedy the situation”, reads a statement attributed to the Romanian state broadcaster. The remarks reflect a broader concern about whether procedures were followed and whether the final result truly reflects the juries’ evaluations across the participating countries. This evolving story continues to be followed by fans and media outlets eager to understand the timeline of events in Turin and the impact on next year’s competition (via Libertatea).
In the end, the Romanian jury’s 12 points, which would have marked a peak moment for the host country’s participation, did not align with the eventual winner announcement. Moldova’s entry had earlier received the top score from the juries, but the European Broadcasting Union ultimately allocated the 12 points to Ukraine, a decision that many Romanian observers judged as lacking transparency. The uproar has dovetailed with Ukraine’s status as the year’s winner and its experience of solidarity from supporters who view the victory through the lens of resilience amid Russia’s ongoing conflict. The controversy has amplified debates about governance, fairness, and how results should be communicated to participating broadcasters and audiences (via Libertatea).
Young people are the architects of Ukraine’s Eurovision victory
The Romanian jury’s experience was not isolated from broader governance concerns within the event. While Moldova, Azerbaijan, Poland, San Marino, and Montenegro faced voting-related questions, Romania also observed that the country’s own host broadcaster, Eda Marcus, experienced significant technical difficulties during the live transmission. Marcus appeared startled as the live link faltered, and a viral clip captured the moment she exclaimed in disbelief while attempting to bring the broadcast to viewers. The sentiment expressed in that moment underscored the real-time pressures behind a live entertainment event of this scale. It served as a reminder that even in highly structured competitions, technical hurdles and communication gaps can influence perceptions of fairness and competence (via Libertatea).
As the debate unfolds, many supporters of Ukraine emphasize the resilience and unity that contributed to this year’s win, especially given the country’s ongoing challenges at home. The episode has prompted ongoing conversations about the integrity of judging, the transparency of procedural steps, and the responsibility of organizers to reassure participating nations that their contributions are treated with respect and fairness. It remains a central topic for fans, broadcasters, and stakeholders who value the contest as a platform for cultural exchange and competitive excellence (via Libertatea).