Moldova’s parliamentary majority risks gaining excessive control over the work of Parliament at the expense of the opposition. The Venice Commission has raised concerns about provisions in the new Code on the Organisation and Functioning of Parliament that could allow the majority to remove opposition representatives from their positions, control the legislative agenda and limit parliamentary oversight of the Government. European experts also regret that the draft was adopted in its second reading before they had presented their recommendations.
The findings are included in two opinions adopted by the Venice Commission on October 9–10, 2026, concerning the draft Code on the Organisation and Functioning of Parliament and the draft law on the status, conduct and ethics of members of Parliament.
Experts from the Council of Europe warn that parliamentary rules must guarantee the rights of all parliamentary factions and prevent the majority from strengthening its control over the legislature at the expense of the parliamentary minority.
The Commission also criticises the haste with which the draft was advanced. Parliament adopted the Code in its second reading on August 24, 2026, before the European experts had issued their opinion. The Commission regrets this decision, given that the document was intended to assess whether the new rules comply with European democratic standards.
Opposition Risks Losing Its Representatives in Parliament’s Leadership
One of the issues highlighted by the Venice Commission is the possibility of removing the opposition’s Deputy Speaker of Parliament and committee chairs appointed by the opposition through a simple majority vote.
The experts warn that, under these circumstances, the majority could remove opposition representatives from their positions even though they were appointed to represent the parliamentary minority. As a result, the opposition’s right to hold these positions risks becoming a mere formality.
The Commission recommends that a motion to remove such representatives should be initiated by the parliamentary faction that nominated them. Exceptions could be made in cases of clearly defined serious disciplinary misconduct. The faction should also have the right to appoint a replacement.
The experts also raise concerns about how Parliament’s agenda is set. If the majority alone decides which issues are discussed, opposition initiatives could be postponed or blocked.
The Commission therefore recommends establishing clear mechanisms allowing the opposition to propose topics for debate without depending exclusively on parliamentary bodies controlled by the majority.
“Government Question Time” Scheduled Once a Month
The Venice Commission also has objections to the mechanisms for parliamentary oversight of the executive branch. Under the draft, “Government Question Time”, during which the Prime Minister or ministers answer MPs’ questions, is generally scheduled once a month.
The experts recommend holding these debates more frequently and involving the opposition in determining the topics discussed. Under the version examined, the agenda for days dedicated to the opposition depends on Parliament’s Standing Bureau, a body in which the majority plays a decisive role.
Another concern relates to parliamentary committees of inquiry. The Venice Commission warns that if their establishment depends on approval by the Standing Bureau, investigations requested by the opposition could be blocked before they even begin.
The experts recommend allowing a qualified minority of MPs — for example, one-third or one-quarter of the total membership — to request the establishment of an inquiry committee without requiring the majority’s approval.
Accelerated Procedures and Insufficient Time for Debate
The Commission also criticises the possibility of using urgent or accelerated legislative procedures without sufficient safeguards. The experts recommend that these procedures be applied only in exceptional circumstances, under clearly defined conditions and with explicit justification.
Each parliamentary faction should also be guaranteed a minimum amount of speaking time that cannot be reduced by a majority vote. Debates should not be closed before all factions that have requested the floor have had an opportunity to speak.
The Commission further recommends that Parliament retain control over its own legislative agenda and that the Government’s budgetary powers should not allow the executive to block MPs’ legislative initiatives.
Commission Recommends Reconsidering the Code
European experts also question the decision to regulate Parliament’s organisation and functioning through a code. The Commission recommends reconsidering this approach and establishing a clearer legal framework for parliamentary rules of procedure.
The adoption and amendment of rules governing the legislature should also involve the opposition and be based on a degree of consensus among parliamentary factions. The experts recommend considering postponement of the new rules’ entry into force.
In its conclusions, the Venice Commission warns that unclear provisions and the extensive powers granted to the majority and the Standing Bureau could systematically disadvantage the opposition or exclude it from certain parliamentary processes.
The recommendations concern not only opposition rights but also the transparency of the legislative process and Parliament’s ability to oversee the Government’s activities. It remains to be seen to what extent the authorities in Chișinău will take these observations into account when finalising the legislative framework.
The two opinions were requested by Parliament Speaker Igor Grosu in May and August 2026.