Аналитический обзор заключений в отношении Молдовы и Венгрии, принятых на 111-й пленарной сессии Венецианской комиссии

Abstract

This article is an analytic review of the most significant opinions adopted within the framework of the 111th Plenary Session of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), which was held in Venice on 16—17 June 2017. The authors clarify the conclusions of the Venice Commission regarding the Proposal by the President of the Republic of Moldova to supplement the Constitution in order to enlarge powers of the President to dissolve Parliament, which may lead to a gradual change in the form of government from the parliamentary one to the mixed or presidential one. In particular, it was noted that the first form of government is traditionally considered preferable, but the Venice Commission believes that any form of government can meet democratic standards, if the law provides an effective system of checks and balances.
 The article also considers recommendations made by the Commission on the Draft law relating to the electoral system for the election of the Parliament. The authors highlighted similar legislative provisions in countries which are on transition stage after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
 Further the conclusions of the Commission on the Draft Law on the Transparency of Organisations Receiving Foreign Funds were analyzed. It is noted, that recommendations made by the experts of the Venice Commission are relevant not only within the legal systems of these countries, but also are important for understanding the legal changes taking place in our country.