The misdemeanour case against the President of the High Council of Prosecutors, Angela Motuzoc, has been discontinued. She was being investigated for exceeding her official duties, following a complaint lodged in her name by former Dignity and Truth Platform MP Inga Grigoriu.

Grigoriu filed a complaint with the CSP on 28 July 2021 to examine the actions of the Prosecutor General, Alexandr Stoianoglo, who is currently suspended from office after he dropped the charges against Veaceslav Platon. The former MEP then requested the appointment of a prosecutor to examine these facts under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

On 26 August 2021, in a reply signed by the Chairperson of the CSP, Angela Motuzoc, the former MP was told that the waiver of charges could only be examined by the court, without the complaint being examined at the CSP meeting.

As a result, in December 2021, the National Anti-Corruption Centre(CNA) opened a misdemeanour file for exceeding the duties of office on the name of the Chairperson of the CSP, Angela Motuzoc.

The CNA has opened a misdemeanour case for exceeding the duties of office against the Chairperson of the CSP, Angela Motuzoc

However, the court found that the facts attributed to the CSP president were time-barred and decided to terminate the contravention proceedings. The decision was handed down by Judge Dorin Munteanu of the Chisinau Court.

“From the materials of the case, the court established that the facts alleged to be contraventions were committed in 2021, so that, at the date of the examination of the contravention case, the court considers that the statute of limitations has expired for a possible contravention liability of the CPP. Motuzoc Angela, a circumstance that also serves as a basis for the termination of the contravention proceedings”, reads the decision of the Chisinau Court of 17 February 2023.

The court also found that the charges against Angela Motuzoc did not constitute contraventions.

“Reiterating the above, the court finds that the granting of informative and not decisional answers, as erroneously found by the ascertaining agent, does not violate any of the petitioners’ rights, or the information provided through these answers does not violate in any way their rights and/or interests. While the inclusion on the agenda of the CSP meetings and the examination of the merits of the petitions in question, which are not part of the powers of the CSP, are not part of the powers of the Commission, they are not part of the powers of the Court. Motuzoc Angela but of other structures of the CSP, which although later, at other times than the petitioners had hoped for, were nevertheless put on the agenda for examination.

The court concludes that the President of the Supreme Council of Prosecutors, in this case, did not replace the Supreme Council of Prosecutors, did not act by taking over the powers characteristic of the plenary proceedings, but proceeded in order to maintain the coordinates established by the Law to ensure the uniformity of the legal order.

Thus, both the contravention process concerning Motuzoc Angela and the assessments made by the investigating officer that the President of the Superior Council of Prosecutors was not entitled to give an explanatory answer to an address containing an obvious legal confusion, not having exceeded the limits of the powers established by law, in fact represent an interference in the separation and collaboration of powers and prevent the right to exercise his mandate,” the Chisinau Court judgment states.