The Moldovan authorities need to review the mechanism for suspending the prosecutor general from office, government agent Dumitru Obada told ZdG in the context of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decision on the case of Alexandr Stoianoglo.

Although the law was amended in autumn 2022, it still does not provide for a court challenge to the suspension decision, as the European institution indicated.

“The European Court has established that the procedure concerning the procedure of suspension of the Prosecutor General from office does not meet the requirements of the right of access to a court. Now the legal framework needs to be revised, Article 55/1 of the Law on Prosecutor’s Office provides for this mechanism. Before being adopted, it was examined by the Venice Commission, including a referral to the Constitutional Court, which was declared inadmissible (…) The Court notes that the State must also regulate mechanisms that provide the possibility of review or challenge before an independent magistrate. We will have to rethink this rule and see what will be the optimal mechanism”, said Dumitru Obada, Moldova’s representative before the Court.

The Legal Resources Centre from Moldova (LRCM) pointed out that the ECtHR had not examined the merits of the criminal charge against Stoianoglo, whether his suspension from office was justified or whether his dismissal was correct.

“The law for which Moldova was condemned at the ECtHR has already been amended, and the only legal effect of the judgment is the obligation to pay compensation in the amount of €3,600,” according to the CCJE.

Former Deputy Minister of Justice Nicolae Eșanu also came out with a public reaction after the ECtHR decision. He said that the authorities “cannot hide behind the fact that the Court has ruled in their favour, at least partially, and that the situation is not that serious”.

“I hope that they will not fall so low as to invoke the fact that the Court decided not to examine the violation of Article 13 (i.e. the fact that at national level there was no effective remedy), as in essence the Court found that there was no such remedy (otherwise the application was inadmissible), but that it is not necessary for this issue to be examined separately.

The Court found a clear violation even for the most mediocre jurist. The proof is also in the fact that the Court’s entire analysis, on the merits of the case, is set out in 17 lines. This Court ruling demonstrates that those who dealt with the case are either totally legally illiterate or are potlogists who knowingly adopted solutions contrary to the Convention,” wrote Esanu on social media.

The lawyer of former Prosecutor General Victor Munteanu said that the Court is also due to rule on the complaint filed by Alexandr Stoinaoglo on the fact of his “illegal arrest” and the initiation of criminal cases against him “on political grounds”.