The Committee on Legal Affairs, Appointments and Immunities heard and approved on Tuesday, June 13, the candidates nominated by parliamentary factions and development partners as members of the Evaluation Commission on external evaluation of ethical and financial integrity of judges and candidates for the position of Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ) judge.

The following candidates will thus be proposed to Parliament’s plenary for appointment: Iurie Gațcan and Andrei Bivol, proposed by the parliamentary faction “Action and Solidarity Party” and Lilian Enciu, proposed by the parliamentary faction of the Bloc of Communists and Socialists. Lavly Perling, Maria Giuliana Civinini and Scott Bales were nominated by the development partners and selected on a competitive basis, the Parliament announced.

According to the legislation, the Evaluation Commission on the external evaluation of the ethical and financial integrity of judges and candidates for the position of judge of the SJC is composed of six members. Three members, citizens of Moldova, are proposed by the parliamentary factions, taking into account the proportional representation of the majority and the parliamentary opposition, while three other members are nominated by development partners.

The members of the Evaluation Commission are appointed by the Parliament, with a vote of 3/5 of the elected members.

The law on the external evaluation of judges and candidates for the position of judge of the SCJ was promulgated on 7 April by President Maia Sandu. It establishes that judges and candidates for the position of judge of the SCJ will be subject to external evaluation. The evaluation of the SCJ will be carried out by the Evaluation Commission within six months of the start of the procedure. Specifically, the members of the Commission will analyse information on the ethical and financial integrity of both current SJC judges and candidates for vacant positions. According to the Parliament, the evaluation exercise will be applied only once.

The report on the promotion or non-promotion of the ethical and financial integrity assessment will be forwarded to the Superior Council of Magistracy (SCM), which will take a final decision. The SCM may reject the report and order a one-off re-run of the assessment procedure if it finds certain procedural errors and circumstances. At the same time, the SCM’s decision not to approve the evaluation will result in the dismissal of the judges.