The Chair of the Parliament’s Legal, Appointments and Immunities Committee, Olesea Stamate, says that the Prosecutor General’s Office has taken an “interesting” approach to the application of Law No. 200, amending some normative acts (improving the mechanism of selection, evaluation and disciplinary responsibility of prosecutors), voted in final reading on 31 July.   

The MP’s statements came in the context of the earlier announcement by the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (PA) that several delegated prosecutors, including the state prosecutor in the “kuliok” case of former President Igor Dodon, Petru Iarmaliuc, were unable to continue their work in the institution.                      

“Curious approach of the Prosecutor General’s Office regarding the retroactivity of the law. The general principle of the law is non-retroactivity, with the exception also provided by the law – the milder criminal law is retroactive,” the Commission chair wrote on social media on Thursday, August 17.                      

According to the MP, the new changes do not apply to the ten previously delegated prosecutors from other prosecutor’s offices, two of whom have more than 3 years but less than 4 years of activity, including Petru Iarmaliuc.                        

“The Prosecutor’s Office says it has stopped delegating some prosecutors from the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office because they do not have the 4 years of experience required in the new regulations to be delegated to the specialized prosecutor’s office.                          

They were delegated under the previous law, so the criteria laid down in the amending law apply to delegations from now on.                          

A hypothetical situation, which I propose for your consideration. If we were to amend the law now and say that the chief anti-corruption prosecutor must have experience as a prosecutor in Moldova and not abroad, according to the logic of the Prosecutor General’s Office, would the mandate of the current head of the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office also be suspended? The answer is obvious: NO. The mandate began under certain legal regulations, and the change of the law has no effect on the rights acquired under the law in force at the time of the emergence of these rights,” Stamate added.                     

The PA came on Tuesday, 15 August, with clarifications on the delegated prosecutors.     

According to PA representatives, the new law has modified the procedure for delegating prosecutors to specialized prosecutors’ offices so that “delegated prosecutors are required to meet the conditions for appointment as a prosecutor in the Anticorruption Prosecutor’s Office, including a minimum of 4 years of activity”. At the time this amendment entered into force, ten delegated prosecutors from other prosecutor’s offices were working in the Anticorruption Prosecutor’s Office, two of whom have more than 3 years but less than 4 years of activity, including Petru Iarmaliuc.                    

“For these reasons, after consultation with the Chief Anti-Corruption Prosecutor, the Prosecutor General stopped the delegation of these prosecutors who do not meet the new legislative conditions,” the PA explained.                       

The Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office said it would ensure the appointment of other prosecutors “to cover the responsibilities” on the files that were under the management of these prosecutors.                      

“But this legislative change hampers the work of the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, which has always relied on the effort and work done by young prosecutors delegated from other prosecutors’ offices who have not been active for 4 years, but who are often appointed by competition after a period of delegation in which they gain experience and training for the position of anti-corruption prosecutor. The five anti-corruption prosecutors appointed last autumn after a competition were all young prosecutors delegated to the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office from other prosecution offices,” the PA added.