The signatory organisations request the inclusion, in the draft Law on Public Participation in Decision-Making, of a judicial review mechanism, as well as other accountability measures to ensure the implementation of public participation standards.
The signatory organisations note that, following the consultation and endorsement process of the draft Law on Public Participation in Decision-Making, the authors of the draft substantially reduced the chapter on legal liability for violations of the law and excluded the provisions concerning the possibility to challenge, through administrative litigation, actions and omissions of authorities that affect public participation.
We consider that this makes the new law remain, de facto, only a set of recommendations and good practices, as authorities will continue to be able to ignore consultation requirements with minimal consequences. The current draft provides only for individual disciplinary and contravention liability, without institutional accountability. Therefore, we believe that the absence of accountability and appeal mechanisms for violations will significantly reduce the effectiveness of the new law.
We recall that both the recent history of our state and the experience of other countries show that public participation is one of the key democratic safeguards against abuses of power, while the degradation of democracy and the rule of law begins with the circumvention of mechanisms for consulting citizens. Strengthening citizens’ ability to demand transparency through an effective mechanism for challenging such violations reinforces society’s democratic resilience.
At the consultation stage of the initial draft, several civil society representatives pointed out that the appeal mechanism was necessary but incomplete. The recommendations focused on extending the right to challenge violations to all interested persons, introducing clear consequences for acts adopted in breach of the procedure, such as suspension, annulment or the obligation to conduct consultations, and amending the Contravention Code with applicable rules for breaches of public participation obligations. Civil society organisations also requested the repeal of the provisions of the Administrative Code that exclude the procedure for drafting and adopting normative acts from its scope.
According to the synthesis of recommendations published in May 2026, the authors of the draft fully excluded Articles 22 and 23. Article 22 provided that any person who considered that their rights under the law had been violated could challenge before a court any action of a public authority that breached the provisions of the law, with the case to be examined under administrative litigation. The exclusion was justified on the grounds that the appeal procedure is already regulated by the applicable general framework. At the same time, it is mentioned that amendments to the Contravention Code will be proposed “to regulate contravention liability related to breaches of public participation obligations, including in terms of defining the offence, the sanction and the competent authority”. The current version of the draft law provides that violations of citizens’ right to participate in the administration of public affairs entail only disciplinary and contravention liability, in accordance with the law.
In 2025, the CPR/INSPIRED/Promo-LEX analysis on the monitoring and control mechanism showed that one of the problems of Law No. 239/2008 on transparency in decision-making is that it provides for disciplinary or contravention liability but does not establish an appeal mechanism. Moreover, the Contravention Code limits liability to a narrow case: local public authorities and only the approval of a normative act whose draft was not published for public consultation.
Therefore, a general reference to contravention liability “in accordance with the law” is not sufficient. The authors of the draft maintain the obligations of authorities and list certain violations, but remove the mechanisms through which such violations can be corrected in due time. As a result, the focus shifts from remedying the flawed procedure to a possible subsequent sanction. In the synthesis, the authors of the draft merely indicate that amendments to the Contravention Code “will be proposed”. These amendments are not presented together with the draft law, have no clear deadline for adoption and there is no guarantee that they will enter into force at the same time as the law.
Disciplinary liability is also insufficient. Violations of public participation are often institutional in nature: failure to publish draft acts, excessively short deadlines, lack of synthesis of recommendations, or consultations organised formally or without real access for those affected. In such cases, sanctioning one individual does not remedy the exclusion of the public from the decision-making process.
The CPR/INSPIRED/Promo-LEX analysis also shows that Law No. 148/2023 on access to information of public interest provides clearer safeguards than the framework on transparency in decision-making. It allows decisions of authorities regarding the release of information to be challenged in administrative litigation and provides for the application of a fine to the information provider, including for failure to publish data concerning the conduct of the decision-making process. This model is also relevant for public participation, where breaches of obligations often relate to institutional practice, not only to the conduct of a civil servant.
The same research notes that the provisions of the Administrative Code do not apply to the procedure for drafting and adopting normative acts. This calls into question the existence of judicial remedies for violations of decision-making transparency rules.
International standards follow the same approach. The Council of Europe Guidelines for Civil Participation provide that participation must be guaranteed through appropriate, structured and transparent means, including, where necessary, through provisions on remedies or compensation in cases of non-compliance.
Therefore, we request:
- The reintroduction of a special mechanism for challenging violations of public participation procedures;
- The introduction of the possibility to suspend the effects of an act or annul an act adopted in breach of these procedures, as well as to oblige the authority or institution to conduct consultations;
- The simultaneous presentation of amendments to the Contravention Code, or the inclusion of an express guarantee that such amendments will be adopted and will enter into force at the same time as the law. The amendments must define the contravention offences, the sanctions, the subject of liability and the authority competent to establish the contravention;
- The examination of measures applicable to the institution, not only to the responsible person, following the model of Law No. 148/2023 on access to information of public interest.
- In the absence of these safeguards, the draft risks introducing new obligations for authorities without real consequences for non-compliance.
Signatories:
- CPR Moldova
- IDIS Viitorul
- Association of Entrepreneurs with Disabilities of Moldova “European Abilities Without Limits”
- (AEFL Moldova)
- Gender Equality Platform
- Amnesty International Moldova
- Promo-LEX Association
- Primăria Mea
- Foundation for Advancement from Moldova
- Centre for Entrepreneurship and Economic Policies
- Public Association “Eco-Răzeni”
- Business and Professional Women’s Association of Moldova (BPW Moldova)
- Public Association “Association for Transparency and Human Rights Defence ‘Active Citizen’”
- Public Association “Lex XXI Human Rights Association”
- National Youth Platform for Active Participation
- Public Association “Partnerships for the New Economy”
- Public Association “Institute for Public Policy”
- Public Association “EcoContact”
- National Youth Council of Moldova (CNTM)
- Young European Federalists Moldova (JEF Moldova)
- CONTACT Centre
- Public Association “Părinți Solidari”
- Public Association “Centre for Sustainable Development and Civic Innovation”
- Foundation for Education and Development – Moldova (FED Moldova)
