The Moldova Mare, Inima Moldovei and Alternative and Salvation Force of Moldova (FASM) parties have jointly challenged amendments to Moldova’s political party legislation before the Constitutional Court.
The hearing began at 10:00 on June 29 and covers constitutional referrals Nos. 194g/2025, 252g/2025 and 69g/2026. The cases concern provisions of Law No. 294 of December 21, 2007 on political parties that were amended shortly before Moldova’s 2025 parliamentary election. The parties argue that the changes allowed state institutions to restrict their activities or remove them from the electoral contest shortly before voting. Their leaders maintain that the measures were politically motivated and used administrative mechanisms to weaken the opposition.
Moldova party law challenge reaches Constitutional Court
The disputed provisions include amendments to Articles 3 and 21 of the Law on Political Parties. According to the plaintiffs, the changes adopted by the PAS parliamentary majority significantly expanded the powers of the Ministry of Justice and the courts, enabling them to restrict political parties during an active election campaign.
Earlier legislation contained stronger protections against applying such sanctions during an electoral period. Moldova Mare, Inima Moldovei and FASM argue that the revised rules violate constitutional guarantees governing political pluralism, legal certainty and participation in elections.
“The Constitutional Court must prove today whether it remains the guarantor that state institutions comply with the Constitution, or whether it will continue serving as PAS’s protective shield,” Moldova Mare leader Victoria Furtună wrote on Telegram.
Furtună raises separate case involving Domnica Manole
Before the hearing, Furtună told reporters that the conduct of Constitutional Court President Domnica Manole should be examined by prosecutors.
She said she had submitted a complaint to the Prosecutor General’s Office requesting a review of actions taken by Manole and several former judges of the Chișinău Court of Appeal in litigation involving Seksimp Group SRL.
The complaint followed a June 4, 2026 judgment by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The Strasbourg court found violations of the company’s right to a fair hearing and protection of property, awarding €560,000 in pecuniary damages.
Furtună asked prosecutors to examine whether the judges’ conduct could fall under Articles 307 and 328 of Moldova’s Criminal Code, concerning the alleged issuance of a knowingly unlawful judicial decision and abuse of office.
The filing represents a request for an investigation and does not establish criminal wrongdoing by any of the judges concerned.
Court rejects request to remove Manole
Moldova Mare lawyer Igor Hlopețchi subsequently asked for Manole to be removed from the panel hearing the party-law case. After deliberations, the judges rejected the application, citing Articles 34 and 35 of the Law on the Constitutional Court.
While explaining the decision, Manole acknowledged that a ruling in which she had participated formed part of the proceedings that eventually resulted in Moldova losing the Seksimp Group case at the ECtHR.
“The damage established by the ECtHR was not caused by the judgment ordering recovery of the debt, but by the way in which the company’s property was sold during the enforcement stage,” she said. “The European Court noted that the domestic courts had not provided sufficient reasoning for their decisions, although the judgment itself ran to nine pages. Looking at it now from today’s perspective, perhaps it could have contained more.”
Manole rejected suggestions that the earlier case called her impartiality into question.
“The media coverage of this case has an exclusively political purpose aimed at discrediting my reputation,” she said.
Request also filed against Sergiu Litvinenco
Furtună later requested the recusal of Constitutional Court judge Sergiu Litvinenco. The Court postponed its decision on that application until 10:00 on June 30. Following the hearing, Furtună accused representatives of the Ministry of Justice and the government of disregarding the presumption of innocence when defending the amended legislation.
“What I understood is that the Ministry of Justice and government representatives do not know what the presumption of innocence means,” she said. “They maintain that a party may be restricted or excluded merely on the basis of reasonable suspicion, without any person necessarily being found administratively, civilly or criminally liable.”
She also criticised the potential use of classified intelligence reports in proceedings against political parties.
“A secret report from the Intelligence and Security Service is enough. We all know very well how the Intelligence and Security Service is subordinated, allowing them to continue eliminating parties that are inconvenient for those in power, parties that represent the people and defend sovereignty,” Furtună said.
The allegation that the intelligence service is politically controlled reflects Furtună’s position and has not been established by the Court.
“We are waiting for tomorrow’s decision and, depending on the outcome, we will challenge it before the European Court of Human Rights,” she added.
The Moldova party law challenge could determine how far state institutions may go in restricting political organisations during election campaigns and what evidentiary standard must be met before such measures are imposed.
The case also raises a broader question over whether confidential intelligence and reasonable suspicion alone can justify excluding parties from an election before any final finding of legal responsibility.
