The Constitutional Court (CC) has upheld the exceptions of unconstitutionality raised by the defenders of several judges, who challenged at the Supreme Court of Justice (CSJ) the decisions of the Pre-Vetting Commission on the non-promotion of financial and ethical integrity assessment. Thus, the Court declared unconstitutional the text “if it finds the existence of circumstances that could lead to the promotion of the assessment by the candidate” of the law on some measures related to the selection of candidates for membership in the self-administrative bodies of judges and prosecutors.

The CC admitted the unconstitutionality exceptions raised by the lawyer Petru Balan, in the interests of Judge Angela Bostan, party in case no. 3-1/2023, in the interests of Judge Sergiu Osoianu, party in case no. 3-6/2023 and in the interests of Judge Ecaterina Buzu, party to case no. 3-7/2023; by lawyers Rodion Tocan and Marian Bucătaru, in the interests of Judge Iurie Bejenaru, party to case no. 3-2/2023, by Judge Vladislav Holban, party to case no. 3-6/2023; by lawyers Rodion Tocan and Marian Bucătaru, in the interests of Judge Iurie Bejenaru, party to case no. 3-2/2023, by Judge Vladislav Holban, party to case no. 3-4/2023, by lawyer Nicolae Leșan, on behalf of Judge Vitalie Stratan, party to case no. 3-3/2023, pending before the Supreme Court of Justice, before the special panel set up to examine appeals against the decisions of the Independent Integrity Assessment Commission for candidates for membership of the self-administration bodies of judges and prosecutors.

“At the same time, the Court held that until the law is amended by the Parliament, the special panel of the Supreme Court of Justice, when examining appeals lodged against the decisions of the Evaluation Commission, may order the re-evaluation of non-promoted candidates if it finds (a) that serious procedural errors were admitted in the evaluation procedure by the Evaluation Commission, affecting the fairness of the evaluation procedure, and (b) that there are circumstances that could have led to the candidate’s promotion,” according to a CC release.

According to experts from the Centre for Legal Resources of Moldova (CRJM), “the essence of the text declared unconstitutional was the same”.

“The CSJ is to urgently resume examining the appeals filed by judges who did not pass the assessment and adopt a decision within 10 days,” the CRJM said.

According to the President of the Constitutional Court, Domnica Manole, by the challenged text of the law, the legislator established that the decisions of the evaluation commission can be verified by the special college only in terms of the candidate’s fulfilment of the criteria of ethical and financial integrity. Consequently, the judicial review of the special college extends only to matters of substance, without covering procedural matters.

The pre-vetting commission has completed its evaluation of candidates for the CSM from among the judges with 5 promotion decisions and 23 non-promotion decisions. The five candidates who passed the evaluation are magistrates from the lower courts. Candidates who failed the assessment continue to work in the judiciary, but are no longer eligible to participate in the competition for membership of the CSM.

The special panel for examining appeals against the decisions of the Pre-Vetting Commission of the CSJ rejected on Monday 6 February the request of magistrate Anatolie Turcan, who failed the assessment, to appeal the Commission’s decision.