Irina Vlah, leader of the Republican Party Inima Moldovei, stated that the Republic of Moldova has taken “another step backward in terms of democracy” after the Constitutional Court (CC) upheld provisions allowing a political party to be excluded from elections and its activity restricted based on unproven suspicions. She noted that “this is a dangerous precedent for the entire political system. Today, this scenario was applied against Inima Moldovei. Tomorrow, it may be used against any inconvenient voice.”

“The decision of the Constitutional Court, which left in force the provisions of the Law on Political Parties allowing the exclusion of political parties from elections and the limitation of their activity solely on the basis of suspicions, is strange.

Beyond the clearly anti‑democratic and unconstitutional nature of these provisions — which the Constitutional Court completely disregarded — the Court also ignored the opinion issued by the Venice Commission in March of this year. The Venice Commission stated clearly that a party cannot be excluded from elections nor have its activity restricted solely on the basis of suspicions.

Ignoring the Venice Commission’s opinion places the Republic of Moldova in a poor light in the eyes of European partners, and we should not be surprised if next year the country is downgraded in the Democracy Index from a hybrid regime to an authoritarian one. Maintaining such clearly abusive and anti‑democratic provisions in the Law on Political Parties poses serious risks for political pluralism, for the fairness of future electoral processes, and for the overall fate of democracy in the Republic of Moldova.

Today, Moldova has taken a major step backward in terms of democracy, and the negative effects will be felt for a long time,” the political leader said.

The politician also noted that it is regrettable that the Constitutional Court ignored the Republican Party Inima Moldovei’s request to examine the party’s constitutional challenge separately from the issue of successor parties to those declared unconstitutional.

“We have sufficient reason to believe that this was done intentionally, in order to create certain confusions and associations. And this raises serious questions about the real independence of the Constitutional Court and its role as an impartial arbiter in a democratic society,” Irina Vlah added.