TĂNASE v. MOLDOVA JUDGMENT 11 32. Moreover, this restriction could be a violation of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Articles 3 of [Protocol No. 1] and 14 of the Convention.” 5. Other international criticism 52. On 27 May 2008, at a meeting of the European Union-Moldova Cooperation Council in Brussels, the Slovenian Minister for Foreign Affairs, the then President of the European Union General Affairs and External Relations Council, stated that it was important that Moldova conduct its parliamentary elections in 2009 in line with international standards and expressed concern at the latest amendments to the electoral law, which increased the electoral threshold to 6%. 53. Concerns about the electoral reform were also raised on 9 July 2008 by the President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in a speech to the Moldovan Parliament: “... I strongly encourage you to obtain the approval by the Venice Commission in respect of the recent amendments to the legislation which will apply in the next elections, namely in what concerns the electoral threshold, the electoral blocs and the dual nationality. These are delicate problems and it is necessary to find the right balance between the preoccupations which guided you to make these amendments and the concern of the international community that these amendments are compatible with the principles of the Council of Europe.” F. Challenge before the Constitutional Court 54. On 9 December 2008, Mr Vlad Filat, President of the Liberal Democratic Party, addressed a complaint to the Constitutional Court alleging that Law no. 273 was unconstitutional. 55. On 26 May 2009 the Constitutional Court delivered a judgment on the constitutionality of Law no. 273. It found the Law to be constitutional and valid in its entirety. It held that the provisions of the Law were clear and unambiguous, that they were accessible in that they were published in the Official Gazette and that they were foreseeable as they enabled, with sufficient precision, Moldovan citizens wishing to stand for Parliament but holding another nationality to adopt appropriate social-minded conduct to ensure that their rights were not curtailed. It emphasised that Law no. 273 did not prevent dual nationals from becoming MPs as it offered them the possibility of complying with the law. It further considered the provisions of the Law to be in conformity with norms of international law, concluding that the various international instruments permitted States to stipulate incompatibilities relating to the holding of multiple nationalities by public officials. 56. The court also found Law no. 273 to be in pursuit of a legitimate aim, namely loyalty to the Moldovan State, in the light of the importance of