While the Venice Commission fully understands the background of the reform and the need to protect electoral processes in Moldova against multiple, complex and unprecedented attacks, there is a concern stemming from the interaction between broad legal definitions, preventive administrative powers, and compressed procedural timelines. In particular, several key terms used in the Law on Counteracting Extremist Activity need to be defined more precisely in order to avoid abuse or arbitrary application of the law. This is all the more important as under the amended regulation, listing mechanisms, activity restrictions, employment exclusions in sensitive sectors, and enhanced financial monitoring operate cumulatively and may extend well beyond the immediate sphere of extremist conduct. Moreover, the tightening of political party regulation, including determinations concerning the existence of “successor” parties and the imposition of sanctions must rely on compelling evidence and individualised assessments, subject to effective judicial review. The compatibility of such measures with the right to freedom of association hinges on strict adherence to principles of necessity and proportionality, the existence of clear and foreseeable legal criteria, and the availability of robust judicial guarantees.