The Venice Commission’s decisions are recommendatory in character, but given the institution’s authority and the fact that such a decision hasn’t existed earlier, this is a great shame for the Republic of Moldova, especially for the government, expert in political sciences Igor Volnitski was quoted by IPN as saying in a program on NTV Moldova channel.

“Even if this decision is recommendatory in character, we should look at the moral side of things. From this viewpoint, I think all the judges of the Court should resign. After the Venice Commission published its Opinion, it became clear that the CC pronounced at least incorrect decisions and should thus answer for this,” stated Igor Volnitski.

Political commentator Victor Ciobanu said the Venice Commission’s response was absolutely predictable. The CC’s judgements were anti-constitutional and were passed in breach of the procedures. “The conclusion is absolutely evident: it is inadmissible to discredit the highest court of law to such an extent and to simultaneously show that nothing happened,” he stated.

In its Opinion issued on June 21, the Venice Commission said it considers “unprecedented” the way the Moldova Constitutional Court calculated the three-month time limit for the formation of a government. “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.”

Moldova’s Constitutional Court passed judgements on the dissolution of the Parliament elected on February 24, 2019 based on its own interpretation according to which the three-month period expired on June 7, 2019.