Alexandr Stoianoglo
Despite a counter-petition from the People’s Assembly of Gagauzia requesting that the Constitutional Court postpone its consideration of the Ministry of Justice’s petition—as reported by Logos Press—the Constitutional Court fully granted the Ministry of Justice’s requests. This has further intensified the conflict surrounding Gagauzia, as evidenced by the initial reactions from some Gagauz leaders.
The judges of the Constitutional Court stripped the People’s Assembly of Gagauzia of its authority to approve the composition of the autonomy’s Central Election Commission. They also ruled that the provision granting the People’s Assembly the right to approve the composition of the autonomy’s Central Election Commission for the conduct of elections was inconsistent with the country’s Basic Law.
However, Gagauzia’s legislative body retains the authority to appoint, organize, and conduct elections for deputies to the People’s Assembly, as well as to schedule elections for the autonomous region’s local public administration bodies.
In addition, the Constitutional Court ruled unconstitutional the provisions requiring the inclusion of heads of departments of the Gagauzia Executive Committee in the collegiums of ministries and agencies of the Republic of Moldova. Another decision by the Constitutional Court concerns the appointment of heads of the departments of justice, the Security and Intelligence Service (SIS), and the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Going forward, they will be appointed and dismissed by central government authorities without taking into account the opinions and proposals of the Gagauzia People’s Assembly.
A Political Mistake
One of the first to comment on the decision was Alexander Stoyanoglo, a member of parliament and former Prosecutor General of Moldova.
“As a lawyer, I cannot criticize the Constitutional Court’s decision. But as a citizen of the Republic of Moldova, I believe that the appeal to the Constitutional Court and the decision it rendered are a major political mistake,” he wrote on social media.
Alexander Stoyanoglo emphasized that for more than thirty years, the peaceful resolution of the conflict in the south of the country and the creation of the Gagauz autonomy had been considered one of the few indisputable achievements of the Republic of Moldova. Gagauz autonomy became one of the key elements and symbols of Moldovan statehood. It was precisely this autonomy that was supposed to serve as a model for resolving the Transnistrian conflict.
“I do not think that stripping Gagauzia of some of its powers will strengthen the statehood of the Republic of Moldova or be in keeping with the spirit of our country’s European integration.
But most importantly, this sends an extremely bad signal to Transnistria. Without a resolution to the Transnistrian conflict, the Republic of Moldova’s European integration is impossible,” emphasized the former Prosecutor General of Moldova.
A Threat to Sovereignty?
Alexandru Tănase, former head of the Constitutional Court and two-time Minister of Justice, holds a different view. On social media, he stated that “the Constitutional Court has issued one of the most important rulings in recent years.”
“Beyond the technical aspects of the ruling, its significance is of a highly constitutional nature. The court did not restrict the autonomy of the Gagauz people nor infringe upon their lawful powers. It reaffirmed the fundamental principle of any unitary state: an autonomous region may manage its own interests, but it cannot control the institutions through which the state exercises its sovereignty—this, in essence, is the central argument of the ruling.”
According to Tanase, the question is not whether the autonomous region’s authorities can consult or express their views on appointments. Institutional dialogue is natural. The problem arises when a local authority acquires the right to block, impose conditions on, or censor the appointment of individuals exercising state power.
“From that point on, we are no longer talking about administrative autonomy, but about the division of sovereignty. However, sovereignty belongs exclusively to the Republic of Moldova,” he wrote.
At the same time, the former head of the Constitutional Court did not say a word about why, 22 years after the adoption of the law “On the Special Legal Status of Gagauzia,” all of its provisions were constitutional (including during the time when Alexandru Tănase himself headed the Constitutional Court), but now have suddenly and unexpectedly ceased to comply with the provisions of the country’s Basic Law.
Nor did the former head of the Ministry of Justice offer a legal assessment of the fact that, by its decision, the Constitutional Court ignored another provision of the law “On the Special Legal Status of Gagauzia.” Namely, Article 25, according to which the Republic of Moldova is the guarantor of the full and unconditional exercise of Gagauzia’s powers as defined by this law.
Attack on Gagauzia: PAS Escalates the Situation
Fyodor Gagauz, a former member of the Moldovan Parliament and former head of the Gagauzia Internal Affairs Department, also published a sharply negative reaction to the Constitutional Court’s decision.
“Attack on Gagauzia: PAS has escalated the situation. Today, the Constitutional Court began to undermine the legal foundation of Gagauzia,” he wrote.
The lawyer emphasizes that the ruling PAS party first created the legal crisis surrounding the elections in Gagauzia itself, and is now using it as a pretext to dismantle the region’s autonomy.
“You cannot rewrite the law to suit the interests of the ruling party. The law must work for the people and the country, not serve the political goals of those in power. It is all the more dangerous that provisions with a constitutional basis are under attack. A precedent has been set that paves the way for the repeal of virtually any provision of the Law on the Special Status of Gagauzia,” notes Fyodor Gagauz.
He also points out that the Constitutional Court did not wait for the opinion of the Venice Commission, even though opposition factions had submitted a request to it. According to Gagauz, this rush speaks for itself: a decision against Gagauzia’s status cannot be explained to European partners because it contradicts democracy, European integration, and Moldova’s interests.
“Today, Moldova has taken a big step backward. But I am confident that what the Constitutional Court has destroyed at the behest of PAS will sooner or later be restored by the Moldovan and Gagauz peoples,” states Fyodor Gagauz.
