While initial consultations and concerns with Moldova’s Law on Public Events were previously analysed within the CSO Meter, the law was recently adopted without proper follow-up consultations. In a context of significant legal and administrative changes affecting the right to freedom of assembly, on 12 December 2025, the Parliament also adopted the ‘Law on the Organisation and Conduct of Certain Public Events’ in the second reading. While the Law aims to regulate commercial, sports, religious, cultural, artistic, and entertainment events, its adoption process and some provisions raise concerns. The parliamentary procedure was largely non-participatory, the Law contains unresolved ambiguities and inconsistent provisions, and it was introduced amid a broader trend of restrictive measures against public assemblies.
Adoption lacked participation
Since 2008, such public events have been governed by the Law on Public Assemblies, which expressly envisaged the adoption of separate normative acts to regulate types of events other than public assemblies. These events will now be governed by Law 294/2025 on the organisation and conduct of certain public events (Law on Public Events).The Law will enter into force six months after its publication in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Moldova, during which period the Government is expected to align its secondary legislation accordingly.
Despite its significant implications for the exercise of freedom of assembly, the parliamentary adoption of this Law was carried out in a non-participatory manner and disregarding statutory deadlines and consultation requirements. The draft law was developed by the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which organised public consultations on the draft in April 2025. However, the subsequent parliamentary procedure failed to ensure transparency and meaningful public participation. The draft was adopted in first reading on 10 July 2025, only three days after it had been approved by the Government and submitted to Parliament on 7 July 2025, leaving no realistic opportunity for parliamentary-level consultations.
Moreover, the mandate of the Parliament expired on 10 July 2025. Following the parliamentary elections held in September, the newly constituted Parliament resumed examination of the draft law. Contrary to legitimate expectations, no public announcements regarding consultations or public hearings were published between the first and second readings. Only ex post facto information appeared on the Parliament’s website, indicating that the draft had been discussed within the Committee on National Security, Defence and Public Order on 26 November 2025, after which it was placed on the agenda of the plenary sitting.
Given the legal and practical consequences of the Law, it was essential that existing ambiguities and regulatory gaps be addressed through inclusive public consultations prior to the second reading. Due to the non-participatory nature of the parliamentary process, these ambiguities remain unresolved and may be exploited in practice to unduly restrict or interfere with the exercise of the freedom of assembly.
Concerning provisions for the exercise of freedom of assembly
The initial draft of the Law, developed by the Ministry of Internal Affairs, was subject to public consultations in April 2025. As a result of public consultation, several problematic provisions were addressed, and the version submitted to Parliament was improved based on received feedback. The prior notification period was reduced from ten to five days. Certain ambiguous formulations that allowed for broad interpretation and potential abuse were removed, such as, vague reasons for prohibiting events that allegedly violate ‘moral standards unanimously accepted in society’ or that ‘defame the country and the nation’ were excluded.
Despite these and other improvements, the draft still contained critical inconsistencies that raise concerns regarding the effective exercise of freedom of assembly. The most significant concern stems from the absence of clear definitions for each category of event regulated by the Law and, more importantly, from the lack of objective criteria distinguishing the types of events covered by the new Law from public assemblies governed by the Law on Public Assemblies. Processions, rallies, flash-mobs, pickets and other forms of public assemblies may include cultural, artistic, religious or sports elements, without affecting their character as expressions of the right to freedom of assembly. The failure to clearly delineate these categories creates a substantial risk of administrative confusion and inconsistent application of the legal framework.
This legal ambiguity opens the door for local public administration to reclassify public assemblies as ‘events’ under the new Law, thereby circumventing the robust safeguards for freedom of assembly embedded in the Law on Assemblies. These safeguards are not replicated in the Law on Public Events, resulting in a lower level of protection.
Furthermore, the Law introduces additional obligations for organisers of events (including CSOs). Notably, organisers are required to contract private security services to ensure order and safety during the public events classified as posing a medium or high level of risk. This requirement entails financial costs that many CSOs may be unable to bear, potentially discouraging or preventing them from organising lawful public activities.
Finally, the Law contains unresolved ambiguities regarding the priority rules applicable for simultaneous events or assemblies. On the one hand, the Law on Public Events establishes a general rule of priority based on the chronological submission of the prior notification, irrespective of whether the activity qualifies as a public assembly or an event. On the other hand, local public authorities are empowered to grant priority to public events organised by public institutions if they pursue an objective of public interest at local, regional or national level and if no reasonable alternatives for relocation exist. The coexistence of these competing rules creates legal uncertainty and may lead to arbitrary decision-making to the detriment of independent assemblies organised by civil society actors.
Broader Context of the Law’s Adoption
The adoption of this Law took place against a particularly sensitive and complex backdrop for the exercise of the right to freedom of assembly in the Republic of Moldova, reflected in the decrease of the CSO Meter score from 5,3 in 2024 to 5,2 in 2025. It follows a year marked by significant legislative decisions affecting the existing legal framework governing public assemblies.
Earlier this year, the Parliament adopted amendments that introduced, inter alia, sanctions
(i) for conducting assemblies ‘contrary’ to prior notification requirements,
(ii) for transporting participants without prior notification, and
(iii) for paid participation in assemblies.
Later the Chișinău Municipal Council adopted a decision banning assemblies aimed at promoting sexual and gender diversity. These legislative changes were accompanied by a growing tendency of law enforcement authorities to apply sanctions related to the exercise of freedom of assembly. Judicial practice reveals serious concerns about the justification and proportionality of these sanctions, as courts dismissed around 72% of assembly-related cases, indicating that most sanctions lacked a sufficient legal or factual basis.
In this context, the adoption of a new law regulating public events without clear safeguards ensuring the primacy of freedom of assembly raises concerns. Rather than consolidating legal certainty and protection for the exercise of freedom of assembly, the Law risks further complicating the regulatory environment, increasing the potential for arbitrary interference with peaceful assemblies.
In light of the non-participatory parliamentary process, the remaining ambiguities in the Law, and the broader restrictive context for the exercise of freedom of assembly in 2025, Law 294/2025 raises concerns for civil society and the general public. The lack of clear definitions and criteria distinguishing regulated events from public assemblies, combined with additional obligations for organisers and unresolved priority rules, creates legal uncertainty and a risk of arbitrary enforcement.