The applicant is a Moldovan politician and is ethnically Romanian. He relied on Article 3 of Protocol n. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides for free elections, and complained that his right to stand as candidate for the Parliamentary elections was violated by the new electoral law (April 2008) that prevented individuals holding dual or multiple nationalities from becoming Members of Parliament if elected. He also relied on Article 14 of the Convention, which prohibits discrimination, and argued that he was victim of discrimination in comparison with Moldovan nationals holding multiple nationalities and living in Transnistria. Soon after the referral of the case to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, the Moldovan Constitutional Court found the law of 7 December 2007 to be constitutional because it protects the value of loyalty to the State as well as the constitutional principles of the independence of the mandate of Members of Parliament, state sovereignty, national security and the non-disclosure of confidential information. The ECtHR found that a ban on dual nationals sitting as MPs must be assessed in light of special historical-political factors and the state’s wide margin of appreciation in this area. However, it considered significant in this particular case that the ban was only put in place shortly before the new elections, 17 years after Moldova gained its independence and five years after dual citizenship was allowed. It also took into account Moldova’s obligations under several international instruments, including the European Convention on Nationality. The measure was therefore judged disproportionate and in violation of Article 3 of Protocol n. 1. Concerning the discrimination argument, the Court decided that it was not necessary to address it, also considering that it involved an issue of interpretation of domestic legislation, which is left to national courts.

 

Citizenship policy in Moldova: 2009 in a nutshell

The most salient debate on citizenship issues in the Republic of Moldova in the year 2009 concerned the issue of dual or multiple citizenship. Amending several earlier legal acts, Law No. 273-XVI of 07 December 2007 prohibited Moldovan citizens with dual or multiple citizenship from holding public positions. The law came into force on 13 May 2008. In May 26, 2009 the Constitutional Court of Moldova ruled that the recently adopted prohibition to hold another citizenship for a series of public officials is consistent with the Moldovan Constitution (see link).

In June, the Constitutional Court reinforced its position on multiple citizenship, declaring constitutional the provision of the Law on Customs Service that obliges customs officials to hold only the Moldovan citizenship. The issue was raised at the request of the Moldovan Supreme Court of Justice during its proceedings regarding the case filed by Vasile Sbarciog. Sbarciog had been dismissed from office in the Customs Service for holding dual citizenship. The ruling of the Constitutional Court paved the way for Sbarciog to address the ECtHR. In the earlier Tanase and Chirtoaca v. Moldova case decided in November 2008, the ECtHR recommended that Moldova ought to review the legal provisions restricting the rights of public officials holding dual citizenship. The Moldovan Government challenged the ECtHR decision. The Grand Chamber of the ECtHR held its hearing on the case Tanase v. Moldova on 16 September 2009.

The citizenship debate in Moldova is closely connected to developments in Romania. Due to special and simplified conditions for Moldovans acquiring the Romanian citizenship, Romanian-Moldovans represent the largest group of dual nationals in Moldova. As a result of increasing numbers of applications submitted by Moldovans to acquire Romanian citizenship, the High Court of Cassation and Justice of Romania requested the Constitutional Court of Romania to deal with an exception in the Law on Romanian Nationality No. 21/1991 (article 12, paragraph 4, chapter III), which limits to 30,000 the number of applications for acquiring Romanian citizenship submitted in a calendar year to a consular office. This legal aspect was raised by a Moldovan national dissatisfied with a delay in dealing with his application for regaining Romanian nationality by the Romanian Consulate in Chisinau, arguing that it is unconstitutional to be obliged to wait about twelve years to register a simple application. In a communiqué, the Bucharest Institute for European Civil Rights argued that, according to the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, there are more than 360,000 pending applications by Romanian ethnics from Moldova. Doing a simple calculation, it results that one should wait minimum twelve years to register a simple application for regaining Romanian nationality (see link). This case against the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is currently being examined by the Romanian High Court of Cassation and Justice.

In an attempt to efficiently and effectively manage the increasing number of applications for reacquisition of Romanian citizenship due to the special treatment of Moldovans acquiring Romanian citizenship the Romanian government decided on 10 November 2009 that individuals who submitted their applications during the years 2002 to 2004 can speed up the process of reacquisition of Romanian citizenship with a letter addressed to the Citizenship Directorate of the Ministry of Justice of Romania. The Directorate will deal with the applications and is obliged to give an answer to their request within a period of two months.

 

July 13, 2010: Read the article “Romanian Passports For Moldovans. Entering the EU Through the Back Door” by Der Spiegel International (English)