“I, as a lawyer, am ashamed of what the government did in the Stoianoglo case, even though I criticized Stoianoglo in connection with the Turkish teachers’ case,” said lawyer Vadim Vieru in the context of Tuesday’s October 24 decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on one of the complaints of former Prosecutor General Alexandr Stoianoglo.

Moldova must pay the former head of the Prosecutor General’s Office €3,600 for violating the right to a fair trial. Thus, Ziarul de Gardă spoke to the president of the Centre for Legal Resources of Moldova (CRJM) Ilie Chirtoaca and lawyer Vadim Vieru about who is responsible for Moldova’s conviction at the Strasbourg court.

Ilie Chirtoaca believes that the judges who examined Alexandr Stoianoglo’s appeal and rejected it as inadmissible should have shown more courage and applied the European Convention on Human Rights.

“We need independent and professional judges”

“Part of the responsibility can be placed on those judges who did not have the courage, regardless of what the law said, to directly apply the direct provisions of the Convention. The fact that something is not concretely stipulated in the law does not necessarily mean that the judge cannot directly apply the European Convention on Human Rights. This is allowed in Moldova, and many of the judgments issued by our judges are full of references to the case law of the ECtHR. Of course there is a problem that something has not been provided for in the law, but that does not mean that those who apply the law cannot interpret and apply the provisions of the Convention directly. Of course it would have been a brave decision, but for that we need independent and professional judges to do that (…).

Theoretically, this could still happen. Practically, I am sure that those who apply the law can step outside the form of the legal line and see how a person is actually guaranteed the right of access to a court.

What I think is important in terms of an ECtHR ruling is that those people who are in such positions have an effective remedy whereby, if they have been suspended, they can challenge the legality of that suspension. Given that Moldova wants to join the EU, it should look carefully at the recommendations of the Venice Commission. If the Venice Commission insists on certain issues and guarantees for key officials, including the prosecutor, Moldova must follow them,” Chirtoaca said.

“The current government is using the same tricks that past governments used”

On the other hand, Vadim Vieru, a lawyer with the “Promo-LEX” association, believes there is a longer list of those responsible for violating the rights of the former prosecutor general.

“In a broad sense, the Government is responsible, because any complaint sent to the ECtHR is against the Government. When we talk about the Government, we are talking about the Parliament and the executive power. We are also talking about the self-governing bodies and the courts. The list of those responsible is, I think, quite long, starting with the Members of Parliament who came up with the initiative to suspend Mr Stoianoglo. Even then, everyone warned, including myself as a lawyer, that the way in which the suspension was carried out was abusive and in violation of the principles of law, not to mention common sense.

The current government is using the same tricks that past governments and the judiciary used in the past – to blame the law. Starting from politicians, members of the Legal Appointments and Immunities Committee, the Minister of Justice, members of the PSC, judges of the Court of Appeal who examined Stoianoglo’s complaint – the list is long. As a lawyer, I am ashamed of what the government did in the Stoianoglo case, even though I criticized Stoianoglo in connection with the Turkish teachers’ case”, Vadim Vieru said.

He added that the judges and members of the Parliamentary Legal Committee “know very well “that the European Convention and the principles it lays down take precedence over “what exists at national level”.

“We warned that such suspensions set a rather serious precedent, which may affect citizens in the future. Any government could initiate procedures to suspend any prosecutor general because it is not comfortable,” Vieru added.

Chronology of the suspension from the post of Prosecutor General considered by the ECtHR:

On 30 September 2021, MP and Chair of the Parliamentary Committee on National Security, Defence and Public Order, Lilian Carp, filed a complaint with the Supreme Council of Prosecutors (SCP). Carp accused Stoianoglo of acts that potentially resulted in the commission of several crimes. The MP then asked the PSC to appoint a prosecutor to investigate the charges, in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

On 5 October 2021, the PSC appointed prosecutor Victor Furtuna of the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office to investigate the charges. Stoianoglo was not heard by the PSC, which gave its decision by majority vote. On the same day, prosecutor Victor Furtuna initiated criminal proceedings against the former prosecutor general in connection with four alleged offences, qualified as abuse of power, bribery, forgery and overstepping of authority.

As of that day, Stoianoglo was automatically suspended from office in accordance with Article 55/1 of Law No. 3 of 25 February 2016 on the Prosecutor’s Office, which stated that the Prosecutor General is automatically suspended from the moment criminal proceedings have been initiated against him.

On 5 October 2021, Stoianoglo filed an appeal with the Chisinau Court of Appeal against the PSC’s decision to appoint Prosecutor Furtuna to investigate the charges brought by Lilian Carp. He argued that the prosecution authority belonged to the prosecutor’s office, not the PSC, which, in his view, was not a prosecution authority.

The Chisinau Court of Appeal dismissed the administrative proceedings as inadmissible on 2 November 2021. Against this decision, the plaintiff lodged an appeal in the interest of the law with the Supreme Court of Justice. In a judgment of 29 December 2021, the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ) dismissed his appeal on points of law as unfounded and upheld the judgment of 2 November 2021.

• The panel of the Court of Appeal that examined the appeal filed by the former Prosecutor General was composed of Magistrate Angela Bostan, who failed the Pre-Vetting Commission assessment in December 2022, and Judges Grigore Dașchevici and Veronica Negru.
• At the SCJ, the appeal was examined by judges Maria Ghervas, Nina Vascan and Victor Burduh.

Thus, the domestic appeals against the suspension from office were exhausted by Alexandr Stoianoglo.

Legal provisions in force from autumn 2022, after Stoianoglo lodged his complaint with the European Court:

Since October 2022, the Law on the Prosecutor’s Office provides that the Prosecutor General against whom criminal proceedings have been initiated under Art. 270 para. (7) of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be considered suspended by right for 3 days. Until the expiry of the given term, the Supreme Council of Prosecutors shall convene an extraordinary meeting and decide, by a majority vote of the members present, on the continuation or termination of the suspension of the Prosecutor General.

If it is not possible to convene an extraordinary meeting of the High Council of Prosecutors, the decision on the continuation of the suspension of the Prosecutor General or on the termination of the suspension may be taken by the President of the High Council of Prosecutors. The decision of the President of the High Council of Prosecutors shall be validated at the next meeting of the High Council of Prosecutors, which shall be convened no later than 15 days from the date of the decision.