“The President of the Republic (of Moldova) should dissolve Parliament not earlier than a year counting from the last dissolution of Parliament”, concluded the Venice Commission in a brief answering the inquiry of the Moldovan Constitutional Court concerning the interpretation of two constitutional articles, Info-Prim Neo reports. The answer of the Venice Commission refers to the question of how the phrase “in the course of the year” should be interpreted with respect to the dissolution of Parliament – whether as meaning as calendar year, or until December 31, or as meaning 365 days from the last dissolution – and is not an explicit answer to the question whether Parliament must be dissolved, as some media implied. “The Constitution does not fix a precise period of time for the dissolution of Parliament after the one-year period. That does not mean that it is completely free. The date for the dissolution of Parliament has to be fixed in a non-arbitrary way and within a reasonable timeframe”, the brief says. At the same time, the brief concludes that “in the light of the circumstances in Moldova, the Venice Commission is of the opinion that a constitutional reform is needed in order to prevent political stalemates from happening again in Moldova in the future. Frequent dissolutions of Parliament that follow one another at short intervals of only a few months each also create obstacles for political negotiations that are necessary for a successful constitutional reform”. The {amicus curiae} brief of the Venice Commission answers an inquiry by the Moldovan Constitutional Court sent in December 2009. Last week the Alliance for European Integration announced its decision to hold a constitutional referendum in a bid to avoid the dissolution of Parliament and early elections.