"The conditions for the dissolution of parliament clearly did not exist in the Republic of Moldova on 7 or 8 June 2019", said the Council of Europe's Venice Commission in an opinion adopted on Friday 21 June (see EUROPE 12272/17).
According to the international organisation's constitutional law experts, the Moldovan "Constitutional Court did not respect its own procedures nor the principle of equality of the parties when dealing with the recent political crisis", whereas its role is precisely to "act as an impartial arbiter" in the event of a conflict between the branches of power.
The procedural rights of the Moldovan President and those of the Parliament were seriously affected by the speed with which the Court ruled, according to the opinion of the Venice Commission, for whom this urgency was not justified, despite the imminent expiry of the three-month deadline for the formation of a government after the parliamentary elections last February.
According to experts, Maia Sandu's inauguration as Prime Minister on 8 June respects this legal deadline and there are "good reasons to conclude that the Constitutional Court's decision to temporarily suspend President [Igor Modon] and appoint former Prime Minister [Pavel Filip] to the interim presidency was not based on the Moldovan Constitution".
Urgently requested by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Thorbjørn Jagland, on 9 June, this opinion is of an exceptional nature, says the Venice Commission, which generally does not agree to evaluate the judgments of the Constitutional Courts. (Original version in French by Véronique Leblanc)