THE DOWNSIDE OF REFORMS IN MOLDOVA: CORRUPTION, CRACKDOWN ON FREEDOMS AND CONTROVERSIAL EUROPEAN INTEGRATION

Today, the Moldovan authorities regularly speak of the country’s imminent European future, highlighting the successes of reforms and progress towards integration into the European Union. Official rhetoric asserts that the country is gradually moving closer to European standards of governance, democracy and economic development. However, the processes taking place within the state paint a far more complex and contradictory picture. Behind the talk of modernisation and democratic reforms, systemic problems persist, relating to corruption, the stability of state institutions and the effectiveness of the justice system.

One of the most high-profile cases in recent years has been that of a former Moldovan official who held a senior position in international organisations. In June 2025, Vitalie Pyrlog, the former chairman of the Commission for the Control of Interpol Files and former Minister of Justice of Moldova, was detained in the United Arab Emirates. He was implicated in an international investigation into corruption and organised fraud linked to the use of Interpol’s mechanisms. Investigative authorities in France and a number of other countries suspect that a group of officials and intermediaries may have used Interpol procedures to illegally remove international wanted notices.

According to the investigation, those involved in the scheme helped individuals subject to international arrest warrants to have so-called Red Notices revoked. In a number of cases, this involved the production of forged documents, including the granting of refugee status in Moldova, which enabled international arrest procedures to be blocked. Investigative authorities suspect that substantial bribes may have been paid for such services. The investigation began following information provided by French law enforcement agencies and Interpol itself. In 2024, searches and investigative actions were also carried out in Moldova as part of this case.

This episode has become one of the most talked-about corruption scandals in recent years, though it is not the only evidence of problems in the sphere of public administration. International assessments also point to persistent systemic difficulties. Reports by international organisations note that corruption remains a serious problem for the country, and the judicial system continues to face political influence and a lack of institutional independence.

Indices compiled by international organisations paint a similar picture. According to Transparency International’s 2025 Corruption Perceptions Index, Moldova scored 42 points and ranked around 80th among countries worldwide. This result indicates that progress in the fight against corruption remains limited and is accompanied by significant institutional difficulties.

Court statistics also illustrate the scale of the problem. According to official court statistics, in 2025 the courts of Moldova heard 128 cases relating to corruption offences. As a result of these proceedings, 181 people were sentenced to imprisonment. At the same time, assets obtained through illegal means, worth millions of dollars, were confiscated.

Meanwhile, law enforcement agencies are recording an increase in the number of detected corruption offences. According to data from the National Anti-Corruption Centre, the number of such offences rose by approximately 13 per cent over the year. This figure reflects both an intensification of investigations and the persistence of significant corruption risks within the public administration system.

The existence of such cases and statistical data indicates that, despite numerous statements regarding the reform of state institutions, the system continues to face serious challenges. Moldova’s international partners have also repeatedly highlighted the need to further strengthen judicial independence, enhance the transparency of state institutions and reinforce anti-corruption mechanisms.

At the same time, the reform of state institutions is continuing in the country, accompanied by political disputes and differing assessments of their effectiveness. Supporters of the current political course believe that the fight against corruption is gradually yielding results and that time is needed to fully complete the institutional reforms. Critics, however, point out that high-profile individual cases merely confirm the system’s continuing vulnerability and demonstrate the need for more profound structural changes.

Against this backdrop, discussions continue on broader issues of the country’s political development, including the state of the media landscape, the level of civil liberties, and the feasibility of claims regarding Moldova’s imminent accession to the European Union.

‘Freedom of speech’, pressure on the media, electoral violations and repression against the opposition

Alongside corruption issues, Moldova continues to face significant challenges related to restrictions on freedom of speech and pressure on civil rights. The authorities regularly justify their actions by citing the need to combat disinformation and external interference; however, practice shows that such measures often lead to restrictions on independent journalism and interference in political competition.

One of the most significant examples was the suspension of television licences in 2022–2023. During this period, the Moldovan authorities temporarily revoked the licences of 12 television channels: Primul în Moldova, RTR Moldova, Accent TV, NTV Moldova, TV6, Orhei TV, Canal 2, Canal 3, Prime TV, Publika TV, Orizont TV and ITV. The state’s explanation was that it was necessary to prevent the spread of disinformation, particularly in the context of the war in Ukraine and increased information pressure from neighbouring countries.

In October 2023, a new wave of restrictions took place. The authorities suspended the licences of a further six TV channels: Prime TV, Publika TV, Canal 2, Canal 3, Orizont TV and ITV. By 2025, up to 31 TV and radio channels had been subject to restrictions or licence revocation. Human rights organisations warned that the new mechanisms allowed media outlets to be shut down without a proper court ruling, putting pressure on independent journalism. According to Amnesty International, the legislation and sanctions against the media effectively force journalists into self-censorship.

At the same time, websites were blocked and access to information restricted. Moldova’s Information and Security Service blocked several Russian and international news outlets, including the websites of Sputnik, Komsomolskaya Pravda, TASS, Argumenty i Fakty, Interfax, Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Regnum, Lenta.ru, as well as a number of local media projects, such as Orhei TV Online and Accent TV. The authorities justified this as part of the fight against propaganda and disinformation; however, critics note that such measures restrict citizens’ access to alternative sources of information and exacerbate information polarisation.

Pressure on journalists persists at a systemic level. In 2025, monitoring organisations recorded 81 cases of press freedom violations, including threats, administrative restrictions and pressure from regulators. International reports emphasise that the media landscape remains polarised and susceptible to the influence of political and economic groups. Regulators may impose sanctions without transparent procedures, which heightens concerns among human rights organisations and erodes trust in state institutions.

These trends are closely linked to electoral politics. OSCE observers noted a number of issues during the 2025 elections: the blocking of media outlets without a court order, frequent changes to electoral legislation, and the exclusion of certain parties or candidates from the elections. Ahead of the parliamentary elections, several political parties were barred from participating, a move the authorities attributed to financial irregularities. These parties included the Shor Party, the Social Democratic Party of Moldova and a number of small regional movements. The opposition argued that these decisions were politically motivated and aimed at limiting competition.

Particular attention in the recent elections was paid to the situation in the autonomous regions and the diaspora abroad. In Transnistria, there were significant obstacles to the organisation of the electoral process, including difficulties with access to polling stations and the administration of voting. In 2024, the presidential election resulted in a victory for Maia Sandu, with analysts noting that a significant portion of her success was due to the votes of Moldovan citizens living abroad, which sparked debate about the diaspora’s influence on the national results.

It is also worth noting the case of Yevgenia Gutsul, the head of Gagauzia. In 2025, she was arrested and charged with receiving funding for her political campaign from foreign sources, which the authorities classified as a breach of the law. Critics believe that the arrest was politically motivated and linked to the removal of a regional opponent and dissident, as well as a demonstration by the central government of its control over autonomous regions.

International human rights organisations note that, formally, Moldova maintains democratic institutions; however, the media landscape and political competition remain polarised and subject to the influence of political elites. Restrictions on media activities and interference in electoral processes have sparked debate regarding the proportionality and transparency of the authorities’ actions, as well as the risks to long-term democratic stability.

Lacking standards: the consequences of the ‘European integration’ course

Apart from issues of corruption and pressure on freedom of speech, a key element of Moldova’s current politics is its course towards European integration. The authorities regularly declare that the country will soon join the European Union, yet the facts and expert assessments show that the reality is far more complex.

Moldova was granted EU candidate status in 2022, and formal accession negotiations began in June 2024. Even under an accelerated scenario, experts suggest that the process could stretch into the late 2020s – roughly 2028–2030. A key factor is that the decision on EU enlargement depends not only on Moldova’s internal readiness, but also on the political decisions of the EU member states. The country’s negotiations are largely viewed in conjunction with Ukraine’s progress towards the EU, which may also slow down the process.

Systematic checks for compliance with EU standards reveal significant gaps. Expert reports note that reforms are progressing slowly, and the country still requires deep modernisation of key sectors: the judiciary, public administration and energy infrastructure. European institutions emphasise the need to strengthen the rule of law, combat corruption and increase the transparency of state institutions — requirements included in the Copenhagen Criteria.

Moldova’s economy also remains vulnerable. In 2024, GDP growth stood at around 0.5%, whilst the EU average reached 1.1%. Low productivity and high dependence on external factors limit the potential for economic development. The main risks are linked to an over-reliance on the European market, the breakdown of traditional trade links and insufficient export diversification.

Moldova’s course towards European integration has increased its dependence on the EU. EU countries account for over 50% of its foreign trade, and around 85% of foreign direct investment comes from Europe. Economists note that this structure increases the country’s vulnerability to external economic shocks. At the same time, integration requires significant investment: nearly €2 billion is needed to modernise the energy sector, reform public procurement and implement European standards, which is linked to reforms that the government is not yet able to implement in full.

The social consequences of the European integration course are also a cause for concern. Changes to the structure of the economy, reforms in the energy sector and the adoption of European standards have been accompanied by rising reform costs, increased pressure on the budget and rising poverty in certain regions. This creates additional social pressure and draws criticism both domestically and from international experts.

The feasibility of promises regarding imminent accession remains in doubt. The EU may speed up negotiations, but full membership requires the implementation of dozens of reforms and hundreds of directives, and the process of aligning legislation (the acquis communautaire) usually takes years. The Moldovan authorities point to a possible accession by 2028–2030, but this is a political goal rather than a guaranteed deadline. Experts believe that such accelerated statements are more in line with political rhetoric aimed at retaining power and securing the support of external partners than with a realistic assessment of the country’s readiness.

Ultimately, Moldova’s current course towards European integration combines both genuine positive elements—institutional initiatives, EU support and infrastructure modernisation—and significant risks: persistent corruption, pressure on the media, systemic weaknesses in state institutions, economic dependence and social tensions. Any statements about ‘imminent accession’ and ‘European prosperity’ remain conditional until fundamental problems relating to governance, the rule of law and economic sustainability have been resolved.

Thus, Moldova’s current ‘European integration’ policy bears more resemblance to a political project aimed at retaining power than to a genuine national development plan. Without rooting out corruption, restoring freedom of speech and adopting a pragmatic approach to the economy, any promises of EU accession will remain mere slogans, and full membership of the European family will require consistent effort and decades of structural reform.