Moreover, although it did not take a stand on the constitutionality of the contested articles of the Electoral Code, the Court provided in its 2017 decision a number of elements of reasoning, based also on relevant views expressed by the Venice Commission and the Congress, such as:

- that, to guarantee the free exercise of the local elective mandate, in accordance with the European Charter, the legal provisions regulating the termination of mandate must be interpreted in a restrictive manner and only applied to exceptional cases (CDL-AD(2014)022, §27);
- that the mayor, being a publicly elected authority, is not subordinated either to the local council (which cannot dismiss the mayor except by organising a local popular vote), or to any other public authority of another level (see Congress, report on "Local Democracy in the Republic Moldova", CPL (12) 9, § 65);
- that the law provides for guarantees and safeguards in the local recall procedure: the Electoral Code requires that the decision to hold the local recall vote must include in a substantiated manner, for each particular case, the reasons for the mayor’s dismissal; the Central Electoral Commission decision on the date of recall vote needs to contain relevant and sufficient factual arguments to justify the mayor’s dismissal, there is judicial review of these two decisions, enabling the court to verify and rule on the merits of the reasons for the mayor’s recall, in each individual case.