Moldova’s parliamentary majority has once again shown that it is prepared to wait for the Venice Commission’s opinion only when that opinion is already likely to match its decisions.
This time, the accelerated procedure concerns the law on the “voluntary merger” of localities, part of the government’s administrative-territorial reform, which has been widely criticised by opposition circles.
Moldova village merger reform accelerated
In second reading, the PAS parliamentary majority rushed through amendments that significantly simplify the procedure for merging villages and communes.
Under the new rules, eliminating a locality as a separate administrative unit will no longer require broad consensus among local elected officials and residents. In practice, the will of the centre will be enough.
Notably, the bill was approved without waiting for the Venice Commission’s verdict, even though it had previously been sent there for review.
PAS MP Larisa Voloh offered a brief explanation:
“When we receive the opinion, we can return to specific articles.”
According to her, no one knows what the response will be. Perhaps nothing will have to be repealed, she suggested.
PAS also rejected amendments that would have enshrined the geographic principle in law. The idea was simple: the centre of a merged locality should be determined so that schools, hospitals and other basic services are at roughly equal distance for all residents, including those living on the periphery.
Judging by the logic of the ruling party’s vote, access to services for residents of remote villages is not something worth delaying a process that the authorities want to accelerate.
Speed over procedure: déjà vu with von Hebel
What is happening closely resembles the recent case involving the appointment of foreign experts to the Prosecutor Vetting Commission. Then, too, the PAS majority did not wait for advice from Venice, but simply changed the rules of the game.
At the end of February, parliament failed to appoint two foreign experts to the commission — Herman von Hebel and Bernard Lavigne. They did not receive the required 61 votes.
So what did the majority do? Propose other candidates? No. It rewrote the law.
On the night of March 5, PAS deputies adopted an amendment lowering the voting threshold for appointing international experts from 61 to 51. President Maia Sandu promulgated the law the same day. On March 6, von Hebel and Lavigne were appointed.
All this happened before the Venice Commission had time to give its opinion.
“We do not have the luxury of sitting, waiting and asking,” Speaker Igor Grosu said at the time, acknowledging that the authorities understood the risk of a negative opinion but were deliberately moving ahead to “unlock” an institutional and legal deadlock.
The Legal Resources Centre from Moldova (LRCM) said then that the haste with which the draft was adopted ran counter to Venice Commission principles, which emphasise transparency and broad consensus.
Opposition Opinion
The opposition was no less outraged.
“For the first time, I see in the text of a law that parliament can return to these candidates with 51 votes if it failed to gather 61. Parliament rejected these two candidates – the procedure is over,” said PSRM MP Vlad Batrîncea.
Political analyst Corneliu Ciurea later warned that the authorities’ approach to Venice Commission opinions is “rather risky and dangerous,” especially in light of criticism of the June 2025 amendments to the Law on Political Parties.
European partners, he said, have clear “red lines” on democracy. When those lines are crossed, consequences are inevitable.
Yet another law has now been adopted. The Venice Commission has once again been left playing catch-up.
Meanwhile, in Gagauzia, as reported recently, local deputies appear to have few illusions left after meeting with the president about the centre’s willingness to compromise.
The principle of “act first, ask Venice later” seems to be becoming systemic. And it applies not only to village mergers and the appointment of European experts.
