In the opinion of the Venice Commission, the recall of mayors may only be seen as an acceptable, though exceptional, democratic tool, when it is provided for by the national or regional law, if it is regulated very carefully and coupled with adequate and effective procedural safeguards to prevent its misuse. From this perspective, a number of key conditions must be fulfilled:

- The Venice Commission recommends that recall be permitted only in respect of mayors who are directly elected, when and if it is prescribed by the Constitution or the national/regional law; relevant provisions should attempt to find a balance between the need for voters to be able to remove an elected official having lost their confidence, and the necessity to prevent misuse of the process; individual recall of local council members should not be allowed;

- in those situations where the reasons for terminating the mandate imply legal assessments (destitution), the end of the mandate should be the subject of a judicial decision taken in an urgent judicial procedure within the time frame enshrined in the law, and not of a popular vote; therefore, a clear distinction must be made between the legal and political responsibility of elected mayors, and between the institutions of recall, revocation and destitution;

- recall should be used as an exceptional tool and national or regional legislation should regulate it very carefully and only as a complement to other democratic mechanisms which are available in a representative system;

- legislation should provide for adequate procedural safeguards, ensuring transparency, legitimacy and legality of the recall process; clearly identify the actors of the process and define sufficiently high thresholds for initiating (number of signatures or of members of the local council) and validating the recall; provide for a clear and reasonable timeframe; and for judicial review of the different steps and conditions in the process.