Magistrate Aliona Miron, who applied for membership of the Superior Council of Magistracy (SCM) from among career judges but failed the Pre-Vetting Commission assessment, has been appointed interim president of the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ).

The information about the appointment was confirmed to Ziarul de Gardă by Nina Cernat, interim president of the SCJ.

“By order of 27 March 2023, I appointed Ms Aliona Miron as interim president of the SCJ,” Nina Cernat said.

Aliona Miron has been a judge since 2009. She worked until September 2021 only at the Chisinau Court (at the Râșcani sector Court, which later became the Chisinau Court).

Previously, ZdG wrote that in 2014, 2017 and 2019, the judge was evaluated by the College for the Evaluation of Judges’ Performance with a very good rating, with the College members finding that the magistrate was not disciplined and her name did not appear in cases lost by Moldova at the ECHR.

According to the information in the declaration of assets and interests for 2020, the Miron family owns a 190-square-metre residential house, obtained in 2018 following a contract of alienation of the property, with the condition of life-long maintenance, another 130-square-metre house, obtained following an inheritance contract, and two apartments of 140 and 76 square metres respectively, the last one being purchased at a preferential price in a block built especially for the magistrates of the Rascani Court. The judge’s family owns some agricultural land obtained through inheritance and two cars: Volkswagen Multivan, manufactured and bought in 2012 for 553 thousand lei, and Mercedes E 220, manufactured in 2004 and bought in 2011 for 8 thousand euro. The Miron family also owns an F 8505T motorcycle, manufactured in 2007 and bought in 2013 for 17.5 thousand lei. In 2015, the Mirons contracted a debt of 5 thousand euros, to be repaid by 2025 with an interest rate of 0 percent.

Before being promoted to the SCJ, Aliona Miron told ZdG: I know that in May, Ms Luiza Gafton (the interim president of the SCM at the time, editor’s note) signed a letter sending back to the Legal Commission my documents, on the grounds that no act had been issued in my regard. If there was a decision of refusal, the SCM was obliged to meet, discuss again and put it to a vote. My file was returned by a simple letter, and this is not provided for in the Rules of Procedure, i.e. I understand that Ms Gafton discussed the matter with the members of the SCM and sent the papers back to Parliament. I have not been officially informed about this. Now the Legal Affairs Committee has to take a decision, to propose to Parliament, either positively or negatively, and Parliament has to take a decision.

About wealth: the house I received in 2018 from my parents, under a contract of alienation, with the condition of maintenance for life, is in Chisinau. They built two identical houses. Regarding their income, I believe they were verified, because they came from abroad with money and declared all the money. They also own a ground floor apartment in Chisinau and a garage in a common yard. I’ve had them since I got married in 1997. My family also owns a property in the village of Vălcineț, rl Călărași, inherited from my in-laws. I had all these before I became a judge, except for an apartment I bought in the blocks built for judges. If I’d known it was going to be this kind of talk, I really would never have taken it. The loan of 5 thousand euros was taken from a family member, after he sold the house, he lent me this money.” The judge said she was ready to present all the documents justifying her family’s wealth.

How the magistrate responded to the Pre-Vetting Committee’s questions about her financial and ethical integrity

On 30 December 2022, the Independent Integrity Assessment Commission for candidates for membership of self-governing bodies of judges and prosecutors (Pre-Vetting Commission) heard Judge Aliona Miron of the SCJ.

During the hearings, members of the Commission asked Judge Aliona Miron questions about her financial and ethical integrity. In particular, issues related to the origin of deposits of money in a bank account, the donation of a house, and the conditions under which a loan in euro was offered by a family member were raised. The Commission’s questions also concerned the circumstances in which the judge came into possession of an apartment at a preferential price, under the programme to improve living conditions for judges, initiated by the Chisinau Court, Riscani headquarters.

See below how the magistrate answered the Pre-Vetting Commission’s questions about her financial and ethical integrity: