Representatives of the pre-vetting commission say the public perception that candidates for the Superior Council of Magistracy (CSM) who have not passed the assessment are considered corrupt is “wrong”.

“Such conclusions cannot be drawn for all candidates. There may be judges who are very honest, but who have not kept confirmations of the payments they have had over the years, as the Commission is mandated to examine the financial situation of the candidate and their family members for the last 15 years. If the judge cannot provide evidence, the Commission has no way of issuing a conclusion to pass the assessment,” said Nadejda Hriptievschi, a member of the Commission, in a TV8 broadcast.

Candidates who fail the assessment continue to work in the judiciary, and the non-publication of decisions on promotion or non-promotion of the assessment is “a guarantee for magistrates who participated in the pre-vetting exercise”.

“It is only a doubt. For example, the Commission has established discrepancy between expenditure and income. We ask the candidate how he explains that in one year he bought an apartment, a car and has holiday expenses, but his income is lower. If he could explain, he explained. If not, doubts arise, from what money he made these expenses. This is where the doubts are, and they are serious, because we did not focus on discrepancies of a hundred or a thousand lei,” said Commission member Tatiana Răducanu.

Why so many candidates to the CSM from among judges failed the pre-vetting commission’s assessment

In the assessment process, Commission members claim they focused on the “serious doubts” established about the judges’ candidates.

“For example, a serious doubt of integrity is when a judge admits to a financial transaction with a lawyer with whom he or she subsequently has a court case. The magistrate does not abstain from considering the case and makes a decision in favour of the lawyer’s client. Some of the judges interviewed were unable to argue to the Commission why such situations, which violate the principles of judicial conduct, occur in Moldova”, explained Tatiana Răducanu.

“At the same time, even the candidates who passed the evaluation had minor violations which, however, were considered by the Commission as less serious to be taken into consideration”, Tatiana Răducanu added.

What is the role of the secretariat of the pre-vetting committee in the evaluation process and why its nominal list is not public

These people are selected and paid by Moldova’s development partners, according to Commission member Tatiana Răducanu.

“The fact that the nominal list of the Commission’s secretariat is not known is a guarantee that those working there are kept free from any kind of influence or intimidation. Any body such as the Pre-Vetting Commission works in exactly this way”, said Nadejda Hriptievschi.

The members of the Evaluation Commission are the ones who make decisions about the candidates and bear responsibility for that, and their names are public, she added.

Out of the 23 career judges remaining in the competition for the position of member of the CSM, 5 candidates passed the evaluation, 14 did not pass and cannot participate in the competition and 4 candidates are waiting for their decisions.

The pre-vetting commission announced on Friday, 3 February the results of the evaluation of magistrates Stanislav Sorbalo, from the Balti Court, Victor Sandu, from the Chisinau Court, Centre, and Natalia Clevadi, from the Chisinau Court, Buiucani. According to the Commission, the three judges, candidates for the Superior Council of Magistracy, did not pass the evaluation. Judge Sorbalo was also a candidate for the position of member of the Disciplinary College of Judges.

According to data on the Supreme Court portal, seven of the remaining judges who failed the evaluation have challenged the decision of the pre-vetting commission at the Supreme Court of Justice (CSJ) – Iurie Bejenaru, Anatolie Turcan, Vitalie Stratan, Angela Bostan, Vladislav Holban, Sergiu Osoianu and Ecaterina Buzu.

The special panel for examining appeals against the Commission’s decisions is due to issue its first decision on Monday, 6 February, in the case of Judge Anatolie Turcan of the CSJ. In the case of Judge Angela Bostan of the Chisinau Court of Appeal, an adjournment has been announced without a deadline until the Constitutional Court examines the application on the exception of unconstitutionality.

So far, only five candidates for positions in the CSM have passed the evaluation of the Pre-Vetting Commission – Livia Mitrofan and Maria Frunze from the Chisinau Court, Centre, Ioana Chironeț, judge at the Chisinau Court, Ciocana, Vasile Șchiopu, judge at the Ungheni Court and Sergiu Caraman, judge at the Criuleni Court.