Five judges, all from the first instance, who have passed the Pre-Vetting Commission’s assessment are fighting for four vacancies on the Supreme Judicial Council. The Pre-Vetting Commission found that the five magistrates met the criteria of ethical and financial integrity and passed the assessment, even though it found four of them to be in breach of the law.

ZdG has analysed the decisions of the Independent Integrity Assessment Commission for the five magistrates who passed the assessment and presents the main conclusions. Following the General Assembly of Judges on Friday 17 March, four of them will be elected to the Superior Council of Magistracy, and the candidate with the fewest votes will become an alternate member of the Superior Council of Magistracy(SCM).

UPDATE: After more than five hours of discussion and debate, the judges present at the General Assembly of Judges decided to “interrupt the General Assembly of Judges” and postpone the vote on the members of the SCM. The interruption was announced until 28 April.

Initially, 28 judges had registered for the competition for membership of the Superior Council of Magistrates (SCM). Five of them withdrew during the process, thus failing the evaluation, and in the case of the others, the Commission members found that they “do not meet the integrity criteria, as serious doubts were found regarding compliance with the ethical and financial integrity criteria”.

Livia Mitrofan: the candidate was asked about the money to buy an apartment and the declared value of a car

Livia Mitrofan has been a judge since 2017. Previously (2008-2012) she worked at the Ministry of Justice. On 25 October 2022, the Independent Integrity Assessment Commission for candidates for membership in the self-administrative bodies of judges and prosecutors established that Mitrofan meets the criteria of ethical and financial integrity and thus passes the assessment.

During the hearing, the candidate was asked about the sources for the purchase of a 45.7-square-meter apartment located in Chisinau and the declared value of the Mercedes Vaneo car, manufactured in 2004 and purchased in 2012. The Commission had no serious doubts about any aspect of the candidate’s ethical integrity.

The Commission established that the 45.7 square metre apartment was bought by the judge’s family with money received from her mother. “According to the information provided by the candidate, her mother worked abroad under several employment contracts between 2007 and 2014. Based on the employment contracts provided, the Commission was able to establish that the income received by her mother was sufficient to allow the transfer of funds to the candidate during that period of time. The candidate also provided a copy of the sale-purchase contract for a 45.7 square metre apartment in Chisinau, which showed that the purchase price was 256.4 thousand lei. From the information provided by the candidate and her bank, the Commission was able to establish that, at the time of the purchase of the apartment, the candidate had withdrawn from the bank a total amount of 36 thousand euros (approximately 542.7 thousand lei). Although this amount exceeded the amount needed to purchase the apartment, the candidate was able to demonstrate in minute detail that these resources were needed for a number of serious repairs to be made to the old apartment and for the purchase of furniture. In view of the above circumstances, the Commission did not find that there were serious doubts as to the applicant’s compliance with the financial integrity criterion relating to the purchase and financing of the apartment, as the applicant’s detailed explanations mitigated the Commission’s concerns on this issue,” the Commission decision states.

As for the value of the Mercedes Vaneo car manufactured in 2004, the Commission established that it had been imported by the candidate’s husband in October 2012. According to information from the Customs Service, the declared purchase value of the car was 48 thousand lei, with customs duties paid amounting to 21.8 thousand lei. Both her husband, in his annual declarations submitted to the National Integrity Authority since 2013, and the candidate, in her annual declarations since 2017, consistently indicated that the car would have a value of 28.4 thousand lei.

“Although the candidate did not submit a contract for the sale and purchase of the car, the Commission considered it plausible that the contract value of the car was 48 thousand lei. The Commission also found that the customs duties paid by her husband amounted to 21.8 thousand lei. Both during the written questioning of the applicant and at the hearing, the applicant admitted that the declared price of 28.4 thousand lei for the car was based on an error. This error first appeared in her husband’s annual return in 2013. Both he and the candidate, when she started filing returns after becoming a judge in 2017, continued to reproduce this error in their annual returns. It was only in the current assessment procedure that the candidate realised that these declarations were based on an error. The mispricing did not benefit the candidate or her husband. The Commission finds that the candidate’s explanation is plausible and considers it to be an unintentional error”, the Commission concluded.

The objectives announced by the candidate: “Things in the system need to change and we are the only ones who need to and can change the system”

“The system has not been able to resist political influence and protect the independence of the judiciary. The system has not fought for its independence, it has not become vocal, on the contrary, it has constantly contributed to undermining the judicial authority”, writes Livia Mitrofan in her manifesto. She is asking for her colleagues’ votes to convince them “that things in the system need to change and we are the only ones who need to and can change the system”. She writes that she has three major strategic objectives if she becomes a member of the SJC.

independence, accountability and integrity of judges, strengthening the system
access to justice and quality of SCM decisions
efficient and modern administration of the justice sector

Vasile Șchiopu
Vasile Șchiopu: why he bought a flat at a preferential price, why he donated money to his son, why he didn’t declare some bank accounts and the correct value of a car
Vasile Șchiopu has been a judge since 2003. Since 2012, for two terms, he has held the position of president of the Ungheni court. In a decision issued on 5 January 2023, the Pre Vetting Commission determined that the magistrate “meets the criteria of ethical and financial integrity”.

During the hearings the candidate was asked about the purchase of an apartment at a preferential price and the source of financial means, about donations to his son, about declaring the value of a car and about declaring bank accounts in the manner prescribed by law.

The Commission established that on 7 June 2022 the candidate purchased a 74.2 square metre apartment in Chisinau. This apartment was purchased at a preferential price under the programme for improving the living conditions of judges, implemented by the Superior Council of Magistracy – 31 thousand euros, equivalent to about 635 thousand lei. The judge told Commission members that he applied for improved living conditions because he aspired to become a judge at the SCJ or a member of the SCM, both institutions based in Chisinau, where he had no place to live.

The Commission also established that in order to pay for the apartment, on 6 June 2022 the candidate had taken out a loan of 635 thousand lei “from an old acquaintance”. The judge informed the members of the Commission that he resorted to this gesture because, although the construction of the apartment was completed in early 2022, the final registration at the Cadastre did not take place due to problems between the construction company and the local authorities, and without registering the apartment at the Cadastre, the candidate could not access a mortgage loan from a bank to pay for it.

“As the apartment remains unregistered for the time being, the candidate verbally agreed that the loan would be repaid by the end of this year. Asked during the public hearing about his relationship with this acquaintance and its background, the candidate informed the Commission that although he could have taken a loan from someone in Ungheni, he decided not to do so in order to avoid rumours and a potential conflict of interest. Instead, the candidate deliberately took a loan from this acquaintance, who is a businessman from Chisinau and has a good reputation. The candidate has also confirmed that this acquaintance has never been involved in any legal proceedings as a party or representative of a party in a case brought by the candidate,” the Commission’s decision on Vasile Șchiopu states. And after listening to his explanations, the committee members found that he “presented complete and detailed information which removed the Commission’s concerns on this issue”.

The Commission also found that the magistrate provided financial support to his son in 2018 and 2021. In 2018 he donated €5,000 to his son for “wedding expenses”, and in 2021 he took out a loan of 122,000 lei from a bank “to help his son buy an apartment”.

“The Commission considers that certain circumstances regarding donations are relevant for the assessment of the candidate. Although the candidate should have declared the 2018 donation in his annual declaration, the Commission notes that this was the only donation that the candidate did not declare at all (as the 2021 donation was declared only as a loan, but by mistake not as a donation). The Commission also took into account the size of the donation, as well as the fact that there were no concerns about the source of the donated funds. Finally, the Commission also took into account the fact that although the 2018 donation was not declared in the candidate’s 2018 annual return, he reflected it in his 5-year return submitted to the Commission. In this context, the Commission concludes that the candidate did not intend to conceal this donation to his son,” the Commission decision states.

The Commission also noted that in his annual declarations for 2017-2021 the candidate declared that the car he drives, Honda CRV, manufactured in 2012 and bought by his son in 2017 from Germany, had a value lower (180 thousand lei) than the claimed purchase price, which was 12 thousand euros, equivalent to about 250,000 lei, or the customs value, which was 270 thousand lei.

“The candidate did not make any profit as a result of importing the car or as a result of declaring its value incorrectly. Nor did the candidate obtain any financial benefit from not declaring the true value of the car in question. While the Commission is concerned that the candidate has provided incorrect information about the value of the car in his annual returns, it cannot conclude that the provision of this incorrect information, in the absence of any profit by the candidate and without any indication of an intention to misrepresent the value of the car, amounted to a breach of the candidate’s ethical or financial integrity,” the Commission concluded.

The Commission also found that Vasile Șchiopu had failed to declare three bank accounts over the years. “The candidate declared the loan from his account, as well as salary payments and pensions received in his wife’s accounts. No suspicious transactions took place in any of the three accounts. The Commission also takes into account the fact that the candidate admitted that the non-declaration of these bank accounts was an omission on his part and a violation of the law. Further, the Commission found no benefit to the candidate from the non-disclosure of this bank account and did not identify any sources of income for the candidate or his wife other than those reported by the candidate. Although the bank accounts should have been disclosed, the candidate’s failure to do so in these circumstances does not constitute a serious doubt as to the candidate’s financial integrity”, concluded the Commission members who decided that Vasile Șchiopu can run for the position of member of the SCM, because the judge meets the criteria of ethical and financial integrity and thus passes the assessment.

Candidate’s objectives: effective communication and increasing the number of judges
“To ensure effective communication between SCM members and judges in order to identify and remove problems in the system, to ensure more active communication of the SCM with the other powers in the state, legislative and executive, with the aim of ensuring real separation of powers in the state, as well as more active communication with the press and legal NGOs, developing cooperation relations between the SCM and self-administrative judicial bodies in Romania, Ukraine, the Baltic States and EU countries, or promoting and supporting initiatives to increase the number of judges in the system in order to reduce the workload per judge and improve the quality of justice”, are some of the objectives that Vasile Șchiopu proposes as a member of the SCM.

Ioana Chironeț
Ioana Chironeț: asked about the non-declaration of a loan, two bank accounts and the correct price for the sale of real estate
Ioana Chironet passed the Pre-Vetting Committee’s assessment following the decision of 26 October 2022. Chironeț has been a judge since 2015, but since 2018 she has been working as a judge inspector in the Judicial Inspectorate of the SCM, a position she previously held. Between 2012 and 2015 she was head of the SCM secretariat.

At the hearing the candidate was asked about four financial issues: failure to declare a loan, failure to declare two bank accounts in the legally required manner, failure to declare the correct price for the sale of three plots of land and receiving an amount different from the contract value. The Commission had no serious doubts about any aspect of the candidate’s ethical integrity.

The Commission found that Chironet received a loan of 140 thousand lei at 9% interest for two years, due in 2021. The candidate declared this loan in her 2019 and 2020 annual returns filed with the National Integrity Authority, but did not declare the loan in her 2021 annual return. In her replies to the Commission, the candidate provided a copy of the loan contract and explained that she did not declare the debt in 2021 because the monthly payment for the loan repayment was 6.5 thousand lei, and in 2021 she had only 4 payments left to make, the amount of which is below 15 average monthly wages per economy and the law does not oblige her to declare this debt. The Commission established that at the time of filing the annual declaration for 2021, in March 2022, the candidate’s debt had been extinguished, the last instalment having been paid on 9 April 2021, and therefore considered that the magistrate had not violated the law.

The Commission also established that Ioana Chironeț did not declare a bank account opened in 2003 in the annual declarations for 2012-2015 and a bank account opened in 2014 – in the annual declarations for 2014-2015. “The Commission noted that although the legal provisions on the obligation to declare bank accounts were clear, the candidate’s answers did not reveal an intention to conceal, but rather an unintentional ignorance of the need to declare. The Commission noted that the bank account opened in 2003 had been inactive since May 2008, a circumstance which corroborates the candidate’s statement that she had forgotten about this account. While the account opened in 2014 was active, the Commission noted the candidate’s conduct in declaring income during the period assessed and the candidate’s admission that she had overlooked the provisions requiring the declaration of bank accounts in addition to declaring income. The Commission also noted that there was no major turnover on the two bank accounts: the bank account opened in 2003 had been inactive since May 2008 with a zero balance, while the one opened in 2014 had only salary-related income, which was declared by the candidate. The Commission did not find any advantage for the candidate not to declare the two bank accounts and appreciated her truthful answers and the provision of all bank statements as requested,” the Pre-Vetting Commission decision states.

The commission also found that in April 2019 the candidate sold three pieces of land she had inherited in a village in the Criuleni district. In her annual declaration for 2019 she indicated as the sale price for these lands the amount of 43 thousand lei. In her income tax return filed with the Tax Service, however, the candidate indicated the sale price of 16.6 thousand lei. When asked by the Commission about the difference between the price in her annual declaration and the income tax declaration, the candidate explained that the correct price was the one declared to the Tax Office. “This is also confirmed by the sale-purchase contracts of the three plots of land that the candidate provided to the Commission. The candidate indicated that the price of 43 thousand lei in her annual declaration was a mistake,” the Commission decision said.

“The candidate promptly admitted to the Commission the mistake made in her annual return. The fact that she declared the amount of the sale price to the tax authorities in accordance with the contract and paid all taxes related to the sale of the three plots of land corroborates her claim that the price mentioned in her 2019 declaration was a mere mistake. The candidate’s error did not affect the amount of taxes she was required to pay or have any other consequences. The candidate also provided full documentation in a timely manner to allay any concerns about the matter. The Commission therefore considered that the error was not a major one,” the Commission concluded.

Another aspect checked by the Commission was the receipt on its account of an amount greater than the value of the contract. Specifically, in her annual declaration for 2017, the candidate declared the sale of a plot of land, a house and a building accessory to the house that she inherited in a village in the Criuleni district, at a price of 6 thousand euros (approximately 123, 4 thousand lei). The candidate also declared the sale amount of 123.4 thousand lei in her tax declaration and paid the corresponding taxes. In response to the Commission’s questions about the transaction, the candidate provided the Commission with the sale-purchase contract as well as bank records, which showed a deposit of 202.9 thousand lei in the candidate’s bank account on the date of sale and a withdrawal of the same amount the following day.

“The candidate received an amount higher than the sale price of the property and returned the difference to the buyer. The Commission notes that such transactions could raise doubts about the candidate’s ethical and financial integrity. The candidate offered a plausible explanation for her actions, namely that she wanted to help the buyer. The difference between the sale price and the amount paid to the candidate only came to the Commission’s attention through documentation provided by the candidate herself when questioned about the transaction. The candidate provided both the explanation, in a clear and honest manner, and all related documents in a timely manner. The candidate also admitted that she did not attach much importance to this transaction when she entered into it and that perhaps she should have treated it more carefully. The Commission did not establish any intention on the part of the candidate to withhold any income, she declared the amount indicated in the contract and paid all the related taxes. The bank financed the loan to a higher amount. Although this transaction raises doubts, the Commission found that these do not constitute serious doubts for disqualifying the candidate,” the Commission concluded.

Candidate’s objectives: creating a positive working climate and cooperation with other state powers
“Strengthening the SCM’s capacities for judicial self-administration, with a view to ensuring the independence and transparency of the judiciary, crеаrеа of a positive climate in саdrum of the judiciary, identification of possibilities for optimizing а workload of judges and court staff, ensuring respect for the rights of judges and the judiciary, or collaborating with other state powers, national and international institutions in order to promote good practice and ensure the efficiency of the judicial system” are some of the objectives announced by Chironet, if she becomes a member of the SCM.

Maria Frunze
Maria Frunze: the candidate to whom the Commission members had NO questions. “I am absolutely sure that I will contribute to the creation of an independent, honest and professional judiciary”
Maria Frunze passed the Pre-Vetting Committee’s assessment by decision of 25 October 2022. Frunze has been a judge at the Chisinau Court of Appeals since 2017. Previously she was a court clerk and a judicial assistant.

The Commission members did not find any deviation from the law with regard to her, and the Commission had no questions for the candidate during her hearing in October 2022. “The Commission asked the candidate a limited number of questions relating to financial matters. The applicant responded in a timely manner, providing the Commission with all the necessary answers and documentation. Based on the information provided by the candidate and the other information available to the Commission, the Commission has no serious doubts as to the candidate’s compliance with the financial integrity criterion. Moreover, the Commission has no serious doubts as to the candidate’s compliance with the criterion of ethical integrity”, reads the Commission decision by which Maria Frunze passed the assessment.

Candidate Frunze announces in her motivation letter submitted in the competition for the position of member of the SCM that she has five important objectives if she becomes a member of the SCM: guaranteeing judicial independence, strengthening and modernising the judicial system, reducing the workload of judges, motivating the decisions of the SCM, transparency of the work of the SCM. “I am applying for the position of member of the SCM, being absolutely sure that I will contribute to the creation of an independent, honest and professional judiciary and to the increase of confidence in the act of justice”.

Sergiu Caraman
Sergiu Caraman: explained why he did not declare three of his wife’s bank accounts
Sergiu Caraman has been a judge since 2012. He served in Soroca, and since 2018 he has been a judge in Criuleni. Previously he worked in the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Centre for Combating Economic Crimes and Corruption, the current NAC.

Caraman passed the evaluation by Commission decision of 29 December 2022. During the hearings the candidate was asked about his wife’s failure to declare her bank accounts in the manner prescribed by the legislation.

The Commission established that the judge and his wife were married in September 2014, and in 2014 and 2015 the candidate’s wife had three bank accounts, which he did not disclose in his asset declarations filed in those years. “The candidate provided detailed answers regarding his wife’s bank accounts both in the written proceedings and at the hearings. After examining the bank statements from these bank accounts provided by the candidate, the Commission was able to establish both the nature and the level of financial flows into the candidate’s wife’s bank accounts. The Commission did not find any suspicious or dubious bank transactions, undeclared sources of funds or other bank accounts belonging to the candidate or his wife that were subject to disclosure,” the Commissioners said.

“Although the candidate’s legal justifications for the non-declaration of bank accounts were futile, the Commission found that the circumstances relating to the candidate and the bank accounts were relevant. Given the inactivity of some of the candidate’s wife’s bank accounts, the absence of suspicious transactions, the fact that these bank accounts had been opened in his wife’s name prior to marriage, the fact that the candidate had declared all of his wife’s salary and income in all of his declarations, as well as the candidate’s explanation that his wife forgot about two of the accounts and did not disclose them to him when he submitted his declarations, the Commission finds that there was no intention or motive to conceal or not declare these bank accounts in the candidate’s declarations and his failure to do so was probably inadvertent at best,” the Pre-Vetting Committee’s decision in which Sergiu Caraman passed the assessment states.

The candidate’s objectives: from the principle of meritocracy in the promotion process to e-dossier
The motivation letter submitted by the candidate for the position of member of the SCM specifies four major objectives if he becomes a member of the SCM. On the career of judges, Caraman says he will advocate the promotion of judges according to the principle of meritocracy, “excluding the free discretion of the SCM”. The candidate announces that he will pay more attention to the initial and continuous training of judges, that he will advocate for the objective examination of appeals issued against judges by the Disciplinary Board and that he will ask for the implementation of the e-docket in all courts, as well as the modernisation of the system of random allocation of cases.

Five judges – candidates for four vacancies
The five judges are running for four vacancies on the SJC for judges. The fifth judge, who gets the fewest votes, will be an alternate member of the SJC and will become a full member if one of the four candidates who win the seat resigns. Two other vacancies in the SCM, for judges of the Courts of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Justice, will not be filled at the current General Assembly of Judges, as none of the judges from these courts who announced their intention to run for SCM membership passed the evaluation of the Pre-Vetting Commission.

SCM Headquarters
The General Assembly of Judges has been scheduled for 17 March 2023, starting at 10:00 a.m. and has only two items on the agenda: approval of amendments to the Regulation on the functioning of the General Assembly of Judges and election of permanent members of the Superior Council of Magistracy from among judges. The event takes place in the meeting room of the National Confederation of Trade Unions. The decision to convene the General Assembly of Judges was taken by the SJC at its plenary meeting on 14 February 2023.

The latest amendments to the Law on the SCM stipulate that the new SCM is to be composed of 12 members: six career judges, representing the judiciary proportionally: four – from the courts, one – from the courts of appeal and one – from the SCJ, as well as six members of civil society, voted by the Parliament, after they also pass the evaluation of the Pre-Vetting Commission.

The article was developed in the framework of the Project “Accountability of the Justice Sector in Moldova”, implemented by the Centre for Analysis and Prevention of Corruption, with the support of Freedom House in Moldova. The views expressed reflect the position of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the funder.