After analyzing the recent decisions of the Constitutional Court, the Venice Commission experts found that there were no grounds for the dissolution of Parliament in the Republic of Moldova during June 7-8, and that the constitutional judges did not respect their own procedures nor the principle of equality of parties during the political crisis. The conclusions are set out in the Venice Commission opinion adopted today, after being called on by Secretary of the Council of Europe Thorbjorn Jagland on June 9.

The Commission also noted that the deadline for the formation of the new government expired on 9 June, namely, “the investiture of Maia Sandu on June 8 met the legal term.

“The procedural rights of both the President and of parliament were severely affected be the number and the high speed (one day or two days during a weekend) with which the Court decided on very sensitive cases with significant repercussions on state institutions. Neither the president nor the Parliament were represented nor seem to have had the chance of submitting their arguments to the Court,” said the official communiqué of the Venice Court, published shortly after the adoption of the opinion.

Experts in constitutional law add that the situation in the country at the time was not of one of emergency, despite the upcoming expiration of the three-month term. Quite the opposite, developments in Parliament hinted to the possibility of forming a new government if the parties were given more time.

On the method that the Court used to calculate the three-month deadline to form a new Government, experts said it was unprecedented.

According to the accepted calculation of the three months limit foreseen in the Civil Code, which was previously applied by the Constitutional Court, the time frame for forming a new government expired on 9 June, three calendar months after the confirmation of the election results. 9 June being a Sunday, the applicable deadline was possibly 10 June. Therefore, Maia Sandu’s investiture on 8 June met the legal deadline,” the Venice Commission communiqué said.

In the Commission’s opinion, there are serious reasons to claim that the Constitutional Court’s decision to temporarily suspend the President and name the Prime Minister as interim President did not have at its basis the Constitution of the Moldovan Constitution.

Finally, the Venice Commission underlines that in a state governed by the rule of law constitutional bodies deserve institutional respect but it is essential that they decide within the parameters of their authority and responsibility. If this is not respected, the robustness of the state institutions “may be seriously undermined and the democratic functioning of state institutions be irreparably compromised,” constitutional experts of the Venice Court said.

The Commission draws attention to the exceptional nature of the procedure for reviewing Constitutional Court judgements. The full opinion adopted will be published next week on the Venice Commission website.

The Venice Commission was called on to opine on the on June 7-9 decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Moldova by Secretary of the Council of Europe, Thorbjorn Jagland.

Prior to expressing its position, the Venice Commission held talks, including with representatives of the most important parliamentary parties in Moldova and the President of the country. Today’s talks lacked PDM representatives.

Between the 7th and 9th of June, the Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional the election of the Moldovan Parliament’s leadership and the vesting of the new Government, and later instituted the interim presidential post, after having previously decided that the deadline for voting a new Government was June 7, 2019, instead of June 9, as previously mentioned in the public space.

The decisions coincided with the position of the Democratic Party of Moldova (PDM), which declared the votes in the Parliament illegitimate and called for the early elections.

However, the “synchronization” between PDM and CC is not a coincidence. Of the six judges of the Court, three of them were former PDM deputies, and two were included in the CC a short time before the parliamentary elections in February.

CC decisions have raised more criticism and have been questioned by several experts and officials, including international officials.

On June 14, PDM announced that it was withdrawing from Government, and on the second day, Saturday, June 15, the CC decided to revise and cancel the June 7-9 decisions, which were favorable to PDM.

On June 20, the President of the Constitutional Court, Mihai Poalelungi, resigned.