32 TĂNASE v. MOLDOVA JUDGMENT therefore played a greater role in the State today than it did then. Although of the other Council of Europe member States which banned dual nationals from sitting as MPs, Azerbaijan, Lithuania and Malta had not ratified the ECN and Bulgaria had lodged a reservation to Article 17, Moldova could simply denounce the ECN and, if it wished to do so, re-ratify it subject to a reservation in respect of Article 17. This would place it in the same position as Bulgaria. 138. The Government also criticised the Chamber for drawing significance from the fact that Moldova had failed to submit the draft law for consideration by relevant international authorities and had failed to abide by the recommendations of ECRI and the Venice Commission (see paragraphs 40, 45 and 51 above). Referring to Boicenco v. Moldova (no. 41088/05, 11 July 2006), the Government pointed out that the Court had in the past found a violation even where the Law in question had been submitted to Council of Europe experts and had been amended to comply with their recommendations. Conversely, in Yumak and Sadak v. Turkey ([GC], no. 10226/03, ECHR 2008), Turkey’s failure to comply with recommendations of Council of Europe experts did not lead the Court to find a violation of the Convention. The Government also contested the relevance of the report of the Venice Commission, given that it had not been published by the date on which Law no. 273 was adopted. 139. As to the other methods of ensuring loyalty proposed by the Chamber, the Government argued that an oath would be insufficient as any dual national Moldovan would also have sworn an oath to their other State of nationality. Accordingly, an oath was merely declaratory and was ineffective at ensuring loyalty. 140. Finally, the Government noted that 21 out of 101 MPs elected in the April 2009 elections were dual nationals. They argued that this gave rise to serious concerns as far as Moldovan independence, security and statehood were concerned. 141. The Government invited the Court to find that there was no violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 in the present case. 2. The applicant 142. The applicant maintained that the restrictions in Law no. 273 violated his right to stand as a candidate in free elections which ensured the free expression of the people in the choice of the legislature. He argued that the requirement that he initiate a procedure renouncing his Romanian nationality in order to be able to take his seat in Parliament curtailed the rights guaranteed by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to such an extent as to impair their very essence and deprive them of their effectiveness, as the right to stand for election would be rendered meaningless without the right to sit as an MP once elected (referring to M. v. the United Kingdom, no. 10316/83, Commission decision of 7 March 1984, DR 37, p. 129).