According to Parliament Speaker Andrian Candu, the Socialists are playing together with Andrei Năstase. In this context, Andrian Candu came up with some statements:
"In the first year of university, I learned a basic rule which many jurists learned and probably remember it. A decision, a court decision is a law. I might like or dislike this decision but I must respect it as a citizen, as a lawyer, as a Parliament Speaker. I might criticize it, I can comment on it, I can do all kinds of speculation and manipulation, but it's a decision of law.
I've heard a lot that you've changed the legislation over time, you've done so much, you've dealt with justice, or you have not done reforms in justice. Dear colleagues from PLDM and former coalition colleagues, who led the Ministry of Justice from 2009 to 2016? Democratic Party? Are you not ashamed? You are talking about 25 million euros that have not come to Moldova yet, but you forget to read further, for what period? Maybe we should not blame but assume full responsibility?
Colleagues from PSRM, who protested with Năstase between 2016 and 2015? I'm beginning to believe what Reidman was saying in some conspiracy theories. But maybe this is the future you create? You spoke about Năstase who gained more percent in the survey and come to Parliament on a white horse for you probably.
If we think of a logic, let's believe in logic arguments. Democrat Party and Government and colleagues in Government, who were after a period of two years with success and achievement.
Three days before the first installment of micro-financial assistance, a week after the meeting of IMF board of directors in Washington, the court decision came and changed completely everything. Who initiated this? Was not the electoral competitor of the Party of Socialists making the request?
Yes, the request does not invalidate the election. It's true, but what was the demand for? In order to find irregularities of the electoral contestant. And if there is an irregularity that has been detected or committed by an electoral contestant, especially the electoral campaign that is banned on election day, what would you expect, that the court will shut its eyes to a violation of the law? When the law says clearly, Article 2, paragraph 10:
Election agitation is not allowed on election day and the day before election. Do you know why? Because electoral agitation means that you influence the voter and it's forbidden on election day. If you saw and you also heard the court what you expected? Because the court applies the law and says the following:
The court within 10 days must confirm or refute the election. And that elections are declared null as the law, Article 148, if violation detected in election process influenced the electoral results. Electoral agitation influenced the result evidently, then what was the court supposed to do?
I have big questions about action/sanction and its proportionality, but look what the law says. I'm not here to defend the court. There exists court decision which is the third state power. There exists Supreme Court of Magistrates. There exists Supreme Court of Justice.
But I ask you if I can still develop what Reidman said. We're talking about conspiracy theory. Have you, the lawyers seen the appeal request made by Năstase at the Supreme Court?
There was not any motivates for violation and the court could not accept that the request was not written correctly.
Lawyer Năstase whom you will bring on white horse to Parliament, for indeed, on the basis of survey, you forgot that it increases.
What would the Democratic Party want? That Năstase go to the City Hall to prevent all the misery made by other colleagues in the coalition and to remain there a year and not to have results, to unable to come in parliamentary election campaign, and we will show him with finger what he did. Is this what we wanted? That's why we detached ourselves from local elections, we detached and thought they would fight. Let's see. But I had the impression that there were certain agreements, you protested with him, you filed a lawsuit, you are now coming to the Parliament and claim to be innocent.
That is why I have many questions on the court decisions. I have lots of questions about the law.
Perhaps we will probably exclude this restriction - electoral agitation on election day, as at the moment we are on social network and quickly we can make electoral call.
Perhaps we will exclude completely the restriction in everything and the silence day. Then how we should use the social network in electoral campaign?
Do you know that now the Americans are investigating the previous elections, how facebook's presidential elections have influenced them. Many many questions, that's why I want quality answers, legal answers from the commission.
It's not the long period, that you asked when the holiday started, but some people need to work in vacation. Excuse me Mr. Bolea you are a member of the committee, maybe you will have to postpone your vacation so that we can work, because a report will come in September, a report with what happened and analysis, we will evaluate and a answer will come to Parliament.
Perhaps there is a need for improvement, for the improvement of the legislation, so that these things will not happen in the parliamentary elections.
But until now the court decision to exclude ŞOR competitor in electoral campaign was good or bad? I have not heard any criticism. But the exclusion of Usatîi was good or bad? But the cancellation of local election in Comrat was good or bad? The judgments regarding those were good, that we all took advantage of them, it did not affect us, and now that's not good.
Let's be patient, honest and professional in what we do. Let's be aware that we have problem. Let's work", said Andrian Candu, Parliament Speaker.