The date of July 31, 2026 — repeated across the whole district as the last day on which a local council could still decide a “voluntary” merger of communes — has no express legal basis. It is “an operational term set by the State Chancellery”, which “is not expressly provided for by Law no. 225/2023 and does not amend its provisions”. The clarification comes from the state itself: the Ungheni Territorial Office of the State Chancellery replied in writing, on July 20, to a newsroom request that had asked for the legal basis of this date.
The reply matters because dozens of councils in the district are now scheduling their merger votes around that date. It does not say, however, that the deadline is without consequences. On the contrary: the document explains, in equal measure, why it was set and what happens to a locality that misses it.
What the Chancellery says: an “operational” term, not a legal one
The Office describes July 31 as an administrative milestone, meant “to ensure compliance with the legal framework and the timely completion of all the necessary administrative and legislative stages”. Its purpose, the document says, is to delimit the files that can be included in the current legislative cycle, so that the new administrative-territorial units exist in time for the 2027 general local elections.
The consequence is practical, not formal. To benefit from the advantages of the voluntary path, town halls must sign the final decisions by July 31:
Local public authorities that do not complete the process in due time will no longer be able to benefit from the voluntary mechanisms Ungheni Territorial Office of the State Chancellery, reply of 20 July 2026
Those left behind are to be reorganised later through normative amalgamation — the mandatory, top-down path.
At the same time, the Office states that the deadline does not close off the right to merge:
The operational term cannot be interpreted as a legal term for the cessation of the right to amalgamate, which is not expressly provided for by law. Ungheni Territorial Office of the State Chancellery, reply of 20 July 2026
In other words, Law 225/2023 remains in force after July 31 as well; what changes is the framework in which the files are processed. “The Government respects local autonomy and the voluntary nature of the process”, the Office writes, and the decision to merge “belongs to the participating communities and local councils”. The state’s role, the document adds, is to provide “methodological and legal support” and to check the legality of the files. As an argument for the timeline, the Chancellery also invokes the Venice Commission’s Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters, which recommends avoiding changes to the fundamental elements of the electoral framework less than one year before an election.
Where the July 31 date comes from
On the Government’s official page, the instrument is described “on the basis of Law no. 225/2023 and Government Decision no. 925/2023” and is called “absolutely voluntary” — with no deadline in the text. The July 31 term was communicated publicly by the Government’s Secretary General, Alexei Buzu, and taken up by the state press, as the boundary between two stages of administrative reform.
The distinction is the key to the whole process:
- Voluntary amalgamation is the opt-in path opened by Law 225/2023: local councils decide on their own to merge and receive financial incentives — among them 3.000 lei for each resident and transfers over three years.
- Normative amalgamation is the “top-down” stage, which the Government launches in August: for town halls remaining below the threshold of 3.000 residents, reorganisation becomes mandatory, through a normative framework, in the logic of the “Strong Town Halls” reform.
In practice, July 31 is the day the window closes in which a commune can still choose on its own whom to unite with. After it, the decision moves gradually to the centre.
What the other side says
The deadline has been challenged head-on by the mayors’ association. The Congress of Local Authorities of Moldova (CALM) publicly described it, at the start of July, as “an illegality and an abusive pressure on local democracy”, arguing that the date is provided for by no law or Government decision. On the legal fact — that July 31 does not appear expressly in the law — CALM’s position and the reply of the Ungheni Territorial Office coincide. What differs is the interpretation: where the association sees pressure, the state sees a timeline needed to fit the reform in ahead of the 2027 vote.
The Cornești case, the first in the district
For Ungheni district, the concrete example of how the state checks these decisions is Cornești. “The situation of the town of Cornești is the first of its kind in Ungheni district”, the reply confirms.
The Ungheni Territorial Office says it issued, in 2026, four notifications on decisions initiating amalgamation that contained breaches of the law — two of which concern Cornești (one notification on the town council’s decision and one on the village council’s decision), and two are in the neighbouring district of Călărași. The reason, in Cornești’s case, is the same one described by the newsroom in the article on the repeal of the first merger: the town had wanted to take the villages of Mircești and Poiana from Boghenii Noi commune, but the law allows the amalgamation of whole administrative-territorial units, not the detachment of a single village from a commune.
The town council has, in the meantime, repealed its decision and re-initiated the merger with a lawful perimeter — the town, Cornești village and Bumbăta commune. One decision, however, has remained standing: that of the village council of Cornești, no. 3/13 of 27 May, which had accepted the perimeter declared unlawful. The Office’s reply shows what comes next:
Decision no. 3/13 of 27.05.2026, adopted by the Cornești village council, has been examined, notified and is to be repealed. If within 30 days of the notification being submitted the decision is not repealed, the Ungheni Territorial Office will challenge its legality in court. Ungheni Territorial Office of the State Chancellery, reply of 20 July 2026
The notification on this decision is dated 30 June, which places the 30-day deadline around July 30. As for the villages of Mircești and Poiana, if they ever move to Cornești, the route is a different one: not through voluntary amalgamation, but through Laws 741/1996 and 764/2001, and for that, the Office confirms, “the consent of the Boghenii Noi Commune Council is required”, alongside the opinion of the Ungheni District Council and a technical file submitted directly to Parliament.
In Ungheni district, two deadlines now matter, in parallel. One is July 31, beyond which communes that have not decided voluntarily enter the normative logic. The other is the 30-day deadline of the legality review, which can take Cornești village’s decision 3/13 all the way to the courts.