The Independent Commission for the Evaluation of the Integrity of Candidates for Membership in the Self-Governing Bodies of Judges and Prosecutors (Pre-Vetting Commission) announced in early September that it will resume the evaluation of 21 candidates for membership in the Superior Council of Magistracy (SCM) and the Superior Council of Prosecutors (SCP), after the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ) admitted their appeals on 1 August. More specifically, there are 18 candidates for membership of the SCM and three candidates for membership of the PSC.

At the request of ZdG, Commission representatives said that the hearings provided for in the recently approved amendments to the Commission’s Rules of Organisation and Functioning are to be held, but the timetable has not yet been made public as not all candidates have yet confirmed their attendance. Specifically, for the first time, witnesses who have appeared before the SCJ in support of the candidates’ positions will be heard.

The decisions by which 21 candidates for the positions of members of the Superior Council of Magistracy and the Superior Council of Prosecutors are to be re-evaluated by the Pre-Vetting Commission were taken by the judges of the SCJ – Tamara Chișca-Doneva, Mariana Pitic, Ion Guzun and Ion Malanciuc. The last judge, who disagreed with the majority’s decisions, gave separate opinions on four candidates. Chișca-Doneva and Guzun resigned shortly after the decisions were handed down.

According to the Pre-Vetting Committee, it is anticipated that the re-evaluation of the 21 candidates could be completed in a few months, given “the need to ensure a full analysis of all relevant facts and a fair and transparent process for all candidates”. There are five other appeals by candidates pending before the SCJ.

Ziarul de Garda has analysed the arguments of the SCJ magistrates who ordered the re-evaluation of the 21 candidates and presents how they justify their decisions.

Business relations with two lawyers

Mihail Bușuleac has been working in the judiciary since October 2011, according to magistrat.md. He currently holds the position of vice-president of the Cahul Court. He is a candidate for the position of member of the SCM.

The Pre-Vetting Commission found that the judge “does not meet the criteria of ethics and integrity” for the following reasons: he had business relations with two lawyers in 2011 and did not abstain from examining cases with their participation; financial integrity violations were found in the purchase of four real estates between 2007-2017.

Thus, according to the Evaluation Commission, on 10 June 2021, Mihail Bușuleac and his wife purchased half of a plot of land and half of an administrative building (shopping centre, editor’s note), assets located in the centre of Cahul. The properties were purchased from two lawyers for 385,658 lei, paid in several instalments until March 2022. At the same time, the Evaluation Commission found that in the period 2021-2022, after the purchase of the commercial space, the candidate, as a judge, delivered judgments in six civil cases involving one of the lawyers from whom he purchased the properties. In all six cases, according to the Commission, the judgments rendered by the candidate were in favor of the parties represented by that attorney.

The SCJ judges who decided to reassess Mihail Bușuleac argue that “it has not been demonstrated that the applicant acted in bad faith, especially as the sale-purchase transaction referred to was concluded by his wife, and not by him personally”. As for the source of financial means for the purchase of four real estate properties between 2007 and 2017, the special panel of the SCJ states that “the so-called violations of financial and ethical integrity were assessed by the Commission strictly in isolation from the historical social context, which affects the security of legal relations”.

• SCJ: “His intention to evade declaring the car in the manner prescribed by law has not been revealed”
• Sergiu Osoianu is a magistrate at the Ștrășeni Court. He has been working in the judiciary since 2008. He is a candidate for the position of member of the SCM.

• The Evaluation Commission found the following non-compliance: The way of acquiring wealth – accepting compensation instead of an apartment and a plot of land allocated free of charge; doubts about the sources of financial means used to purchase an apartment in 2014; the imbalance of wealth in 2016, 2018 and 2021 and the source of income for the declared cash of the candidate’s concubine in 2016-2021; donations received in 2017 and 2021; the fact that a car was not declared in the manner established by the legislation; the undervaluation of two cars and the non-payment of tax on capital increase following the sale of the judge’s concubine’s car.
• The SCJ’s special panel states that “from the applicant’s answers and position on these matters, it did not emerge that he intended to evade declaring the car in the manner prescribed by law, undervaluing two cars and failing to pay capital gains tax on the sale of the concubine’s car”. At the same time, the judges state that “the decision issued by the Evaluation Commission, contrary to the provisions of Article 21 of the Administrative Code, does not meet the requirements of procedural and substantive legality, and the circumstances established denote the right of the candidate to a favourable evaluation decision from this point of view.”

• Judge Ion Malanciuc, who formulated a separate opinion in which he expressed his disagreement with the solution pronounced by the other magistrates with regard to Sergiu Osoianu, maintains that “the arguments put forward by the applicant in his appeal do not show the existence of circumstances which could lead to his assessment being promoted before the Commission and which would justify reopening the candidate’s assessment procedure, since the serious doubts expressed by the Assessment Committee have not been removed.”
• The SCJ finds a conclusion of the Pre-Vetting Committee unjustified
• Alexandru Rotari is a lawyer at the Academic Partnership for Justice Office. He ran for the position of member of the SCM on behalf of the Parliament.

• The judges of the SCJ who ordered the re-evaluation of the candidate consider “unjustified” the conclusion of the Pre-Vetting Commission issued with regard to Alexandru Rotari, namely, regarding the finding of “serious doubts regarding the difference between the candidate’s income and expenses for the years 2013, 2014, 2017 and 2021”.

• “(…) Now, on the one hand, the Evaluation Commission, in its decision not to promote the candidate Alexandru Rotari, has retained serious doubts regarding the given circumstances, and on the other hand, it claims the lack of bank accounts where the candidate’s savings would have been kept (…),” the SCJ decision reads.
• “Serious doubts” about the failure to declare some bank accounts
• Ecaterina Buzu has been working in the judiciary since January 2012, according to magistrat.md. She is currently a judge at the Orhei Court. Buzu is a candidate for the position of member of the SCM.

• The Pre-Vetting Commission declared that Ecaterina Buzu does not meet the integrity criteria, after serious doubts were found regarding the following issues: bank accounts/cash deposits were not declared in the manner required by law; the magistrate used the apartment (47.7 square meters, located in Chisinau, ed.) without paying rent in 2004-2018.
• According to the Commission, Buzu had four accounts opened in her name in Moldovan banks between 2012 and 2015. The amounts deposited in 2011 and 2012 were close to 90% of the candidate’s total salary in those years (total salary for 2011 was 72 056 lei; total salary for 2012 was 60 082 lei), but the judge did not indicate other sources of income for the money deposits. This conclusion is assessed by the Special Panel of the SCJ as “hasty and inappropriate to the materials of the case”.

• “(…) The complainant, in the rounds of questions addressed to her by the Commission by e-mail, explained that: 1) Bank account No. 2 was a flexible credit account, in the amount of 30 000 lei, which she used when necessary and replenished it from her financial means (salary), and then replenished it after receiving her salary. Bank account No. 3 is attached to credit bank account No. 2, which are opened in parallel (…). The Special Court does not agree with the opinion of the Evaluation Commission that the candidate did not provide any explanation for the non-disclosure of bank account No. 2 and bank account No. 4. However, with reference to the latter account, Ecaterina Buzu mentioned in her supplementary answers to the Evaluation Commission that the accounts were opened on the basis of loan contracts, not being aware that they generate the opening of new accounts (…)”, the SCJ decision reads.
• As for the second issue, the SCJ judges state the following: “The Evaluation Commission extensively and unfavourably subscribes to the applicant’s abuse of the minor’s (the judge’s daughter’s, ed.) right by using the apartment without paying the rent in the period 2004-2018, referring also to the alienation of the real estate by the owner to the applicant’s daughter and her husband, a transaction that has no causal connection with the applicant’s habitation and payment of the apartment rent in the period 2004-2018.”
• The magistrate who failed to prove to the Pre-Vetting Commission the sources of her mother’s income by which she contributed to the purchase of an apartment
• Angela Bostan, who ran for the position of member of the SCM but failed the Pre-Vetting Commission assessment, has been working in the judiciary since February 2013 and is currently a judge at the Chisinau Court of Appeal.
• The Evaluation Commission found two non-conformities in her case: the source of the financial means for the purchase of the candidate’s mother’s apartment in Chisinau and the right of residence declared by the judge on this property; the ethical violation with reference to the candidate’s participation in the General Assembly of Judges.
• Thus, the Evaluation Commission established that the judge failed to prove the sources of her mother’s income through which she contributed to the purchase of a 74 square metre apartment in Chisinau (at the price of 973 500 lei). The Special Court Complex of the SCJ considers that in this respect, “the Evaluation Commission unjustifiably found serious doubts about the source of the financial means for the purchase of the candidate’s mother’s apartment in Chisinau and the candidate’s declared right to live there”.
• “(…) In the case, the special court observes that the Commission submitted for examination a sale-purchase contract, which certainly indicates that the candidate’s mother alienated an apartment in her property, located in the city of Cahul. This transaction took place on 1 August 2007, and as a result of this transfer of property, the applicant’s mother obtained an income of 108 756 lei (6 500 euros). At the same time, the Evaluation Commission did not take into account the explanation of the applicant’s mother’s additional income from her entrepreneurial activity on a patent basis, in relation to the period of time during which this income was earned (…)”, the judges who decided to reassess the applicant argue in their decision.

• In 2019, Bostan participated in the General Assembly of Judges, which was considered illegal by the SCM and the then Government, calling for the dismissal of the SCM members. With reference to this, the SCJ judges claim: “The evaluation commission appreciated the role that the candidate assumed at the General Assembly, namely that she essentially opened the General Assembly in place of the President of the Superior Council of Magistracy and read out both the decision and the resolution of her court complex that ordered the convening of the General Assembly.” Thus, the SCJ contradicts the Pre-Vetting Commission and says that the judge did not then violate the “principle of ethical integrity”.
• The separate opinion of Judge Ion Malanciuc states that “any conclusion that the procedure was fundamentally flawed by serious procedural errors admitted by the Commission is manifestly unfounded and cannot be accepted as grounds for challenge”. The magistrate proposed to reject the request for appeal which was filed by Angela Bostan.
• SCJ: “There is no evidence to indicate why the candidate is judged to be unfit in relation to the candidates evaluated”.
• The former head of the Evidence and Procedural Documentation Section of the Calarasi Court, Tatiana Chiriac, has applied for the position of member of the SCM from among non-judges.

• The Pre-Vetting Commission found serious doubts about Tatiana Chiriac’s financial and ethical integrity criteria, in relation to her failure to submit income and property declarations upon appointment and dismissal, and in relation to the underestimated value of a 2011 Honda CR-V car.
• More specifically, the Pre-Vetting Commission established that for the period from 2013 to 2016 when the candidate was working at the Calarasi Court there are annual declarations filed by Tatiana Chiriac for the years 2013, 2014 and 2015, but no declaration filed upon appointment to office and no declaration filed upon leaving office, as required by law. With reference to this aspect, the Special Panel of the SCJ states that “the Evaluation Commission, if it gave sufficient time to the applicant, taking into account the circumstances invoked, had an objective possibility to form an accurate picture of the applicant’s financial situation on the basis of the detailed information possibly submitted by the applicant Tatiana Chiriac.”

• With regard to the underestimated value of a 2011 Honda CR-V, the SCJ states that “there are no factual elements indicating why candidate Tatiana Chiriac is assessed as not being in good standing in relation to the candidates evaluated, if the facts are similar.”

• SCJ considers “insignificant” violation concerning non-payment of related taxes
• Cristina Gladcov has been working in the prosecution system since July 2011 and is currently a prosecutor in the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office. Cristina Gladcov is a candidate for membership of the PSC.
• The evaluation commission found serious doubts regarding the criteria of financial and ethical integrity in relation to Gladcov’s failure to declare her and her husband’s income to the State Tax Service (income received from the sale of land in the town of Sângera, Chisinau municipality, amounting to 75 154 lei (about 3 500 euro); failure to pay the related taxes (2021); failure to declare assets and personal interests in the manner required by law, as well as undervaluing the sale/purchase prices of some assets.

• The judges of the SCJ consider the violation regarding non-payment of related taxes “insignificant” and argue that it cannot lead to “failure to favorably promote the assessment”.
• “(…) In the case in question, the special court panel considers relevant the circumstance of the presentation by the candidate to the Assessment Commission, before the adoption of the decision, of the cash collection order no. 12073856 of 26 April 2023 regarding the payment of the income tax of individuals for payment/payment – Valentin Gladcov (…). The candidate reacted promptly when she was exposed to this issue by the Assessment Commission, thus, her husband paid the tax due to the state budget (…),” the SCJ judgment reads.
• As regards the undervaluation of the sale/purchase price of a MAN truck, the SCJ considers that here “the Evaluation Commission adopted an unjustified decision, without indicating the legal basis in relation to the factual circumstances, in violation of the principle of proportionality.”

• Judge Ion Malanciuc notes in his separate opinion that “the arguments put forward by the applicant in her appeal do not reveal the existence of circumstances that could have led to her assessment being passed before the Commission”.
• SCJ: “Circumstances were established which could lead to the candidate’s assessment being passed”
• Aliona Miron has been working in the judiciary since April 2009, according to magistrat.md. She is currently a judge at the Supreme Court of Justice. She is a candidate for the position of member of the SCM.
• Aliona Miron did not pass the evaluation of the Pre-Vetting Commission, after serious doubts were found regarding the candidate’s compliance with the criteria of ethical and financial integrity, in relation to the financial possibility of a relative to grant her a loan of 10,000 euros and the fact that no documents confirming the expenses incurred by the magistrate for the construction of a 190 square meter house located in Chisinau municipality were submitted.
• The SCJ panel accepted as “convincing and legal” the judge’s argument that she was not obliged to indicate in the declaration of assets and interests the amount of the loan of 10 000 euros, given that “she no longer had the obligation to repay the amount of 5000 euros, this being a way of extinguishing the obligation by compensation or similar”.
• “(…) The special court notes that the Commission’s conclusions that the relatives could not have granted the loan of 10 000 euros, once they had a loan of 7500 lei with three years before granting it (…) are unfounded,” the court ruling said.
• In addition, the panel claims that the time given to the judge by the Commission to present the information “was insufficient and limited”. As for the 190-square-metre house in Chisinau sent to the judge by her mother, the SCJ judges concluded that in the evaluation process the Commission “did not take into account the evidence presented by the applicant”, including the applicant’s request to be heard by her mother on the questions raised.
• “(…) Although the applicant did not submit detailed evidence on each individual piece of work, she submitted documents, information, statements, even photographs from different periods of time showing the development of the construction and from which the volume of work carried out and the veracity of the descriptions in the answers given (…)”, the SCJ states.

• In the case of Aliona Miron, Judge Ion Malanciuc says he agrees with the solution adopted by his colleagues, but disagrees with some of the arguments in the reasoning.

• “I support the opinion of my colleagues that in the process of examining the case circumstances were established that could lead to the candidate passing the assessment, this circumstance serving as a basis for admitting the appeal and sending it back to the Commission for assessment,” said the magistrate in his separate opinion.

• SCJ “refutes the serious doubts raised by the Pre-Vetting Commission”
• Aureliu Postică has been working in the judiciary since 2011. He is currently a judge at the Chisinau Court of Appeals, Buiucani seat. He is a candidate for the position of member of the SCM.

• With regard to Aureliu Postică, the Pre-Vetting Commission found three non-compliances: his wife’s companies as beneficial owners and related income statements; purchase of an apartment at a preferential price, privatization of an apartment and allocation of land; financial imbalance in 2017 and 2019.

• The judges of the SCJ who decided to reassess the candidate argue that “by declaring the income of the companies, a component part of this income being also the salary, and the dividends, the beneficial owner of which is the applicant’s wife, he acted in good faith, thus removing serious doubts about the discrepancy of the information in the annual returns and those submitted by the tax body”.

• As regards the judge’s purchase of an apartment at a preferential price, the SCJ “refutes the serious doubts raised by the Commission”.
• “(…) The applicant’s explanation is justified, according to which he could not live with his family of 3 persons in the building privatized personally with his father, nor in the one privatized by his wife and first daughter, as his family had enlarged to 5 persons, the land granted by the local public administration, acceptable, was alienated for the investment and repair of the apartment received under the program of housing at a preferential price for employees of the Prosecutor’s Office, in which the applicant’s family has been living since 2013 until today (… ),” the decision reads.

• “Serious doubts” about the purchase of an apartment at a preferential price
• Nicolae Șova has been working in the judiciary since June 2005, according to magistrat.md. He is currently a judge at the Chisinau Court of Appeals, central seat. He is a candidate for the position of member of the SCM.

• The evaluation commission found serious doubts about Nicolae Șova in relation to: the purchase of an apartment at a preferential price in the municipality of Chisinau; the source of financial means for the purchase of this apartment; the source of the candidate’s financial means for the purchase of currency; the underestimation of the value of two real estate assets and the non-payment of the tax on capital increase in the manner provided for by the legislation.

• On the first issue, the SCJ states: “The Commission did not verify all the factual circumstances and did not give a correct assessment of the documents submitted by the applicant, and at the time of the application for the allocation of an apartment, the applicant did not have sufficient living space for all the members of his family.”
• As to the source of financial means for the purchase of the property, the SCJ states that during the hearings “the candidate presented to the Commission the sources of income for the purchase of the apartment and the currency, financial means which were declared in the order and legal regime of declaration and respectively, the given facts cannot be regarded as serious doubts as to the compliance with the criterion of financial integrity.”
• On the third issue, the judges of the High Court state that “through the contract of sale-purchase of the real estate in the commune of Stăuceni, Chisinau municipality, the applicant has shown what the price for the transaction was, and these transactions could not be regarded as a circumstance raising serious doubts as to financial integrity.”

• The candidate’s wife “did not know” about two bank accounts he held
• Anatolie Gîrbu was appointed as a prosecutor in the Ungheni District Prosecutor’s Office in December 2005. Since April 2023 he has been Deputy Chief Prosecutor of the Ungheni District Prosecutor’s Office. Gîrbu refused the publication of the decision of 2 June that he failed the evaluation. He had previously requested to be assessed solely on the basis of the material accumulated by the Commission, without attending hearings in public.

• The special court noted that the Independent Evaluation Commission found “serious doubts” regarding Anatolie Gîrbu with regard to the source of funds deposited in 2011-2014 in the two deposit accounts, totalling 365 thousand lei, which were registered in the name of the candidate’s wife, and with reference to the fact that one of the accounts was not declared by the candidate in 2012-2014.

• The SCJ heard the prosecutor’s wife, his mother-in-law and her brother, who allegedly deposited the money in the accounts. The candidate’s wife said she “did not know” about the accounts opened in his name, and her mother said she was the one who carried out the banking transactions.

• The Independent Evaluation Commission also found that there were “serious doubts” about how the service apartment was obtained, privatised and sold in 2018 for 125 thousand lei. Video footage of that apartment was shown at the SCJ hearing, and the special court panel noted that “the property was in a deplorable state, in need of capital repair”.

• “They agreed to include a contract price that the parties knew was incorrect”
• Parliament’s nominee for the SCM, Angela Popil, received her law license on 1 July 2013 and has been working as a lawyer in an office in the capital ever since. From 2007 to 2008 she was head of the Regulatory and Authorisation Department at the National Financial Market Commission (CNPF).
• According to the Pre-Vetting Commission’s decision, lawyer Angela Popil did not promote the assessment of financial and ethical integrity, because she allegedly participated twice (in 2007 and 2012) “willingly in real estate transactions in which the parties agreed to underestimate the value of the property and agreed to include a contract price that the parties knew was incorrect”.

• “By including an incorrect price in the sale of the real estate property in the town of Durlesti in 2007, the candidate avoided the payment of capital gains tax based on the price actually paid for the property, while in the purchase of the real estate property in the town of Durlesti in 2012, the candidate thereby assisted the seller of the property in avoiding the payment of such tax,” the Commission’s March 21, 2023 decision against the lawyer states.
• According to the lawyer, the contested decision is “lacking in legal reasoning, is unfounded and liable to be annulled and reassessed”.

• The court noted that Popil provided “detailed explanations” regarding the indication of the cadastral value in the sale-purchase contracts of 2007 and 2012. “He explained that it was common for the reference period to indicate the cadastral value at the conclusion of sale-purchase contracts to the detriment of the actual price received,” according to the SCJ decision.
• In addition, the lawyer claimed that “serious procedural errors” had been admitted in the evaluation procedure by the Evaluation Commission, because the documents presented by the Commission had not been translated into English for some of the Commission members who did not know Romanian. The special court indicated that the Commission representatives had not provided evidence that the documents and papers submitted by the candidate had been translated into the language known to the foreign members of the Evaluation Commission, which constituted “serious procedural errors”.

• Son allegedly “donated” 150 thousand lei to the judge to pay off a loan
• Veronica Cupcea has been employed at the Orhei Court since June 2007. She has served as president of the court since 2010 and has been acting as interim president since 2021.

• Before the supreme court, the magistrate claimed violation of her right as a judge to stand for election and to be a member of the SCM, as well as of her right to dignity, honour and professional reputation.
• Referring to the conclusions of the Evaluation Commission set out in the decision of 11 January 2023 on the sources of financial means for the purchase in 2012 of the apartment in Chisinau municipality, of a plot of land on which there was an unfinished building in Criuleni district and on the full payment in 2014 of the loan contracted in 2012, Cupcea alleged that she and her family had lived for 20 years in the studio allocated to her by the State. According to the judge, during this time they were employed in the labour market and “did not purchase expensive goods, saving up finances to buy an apartment”.

• As for the loan of 270 thousand lei, she stated during the assessment that she repaid it from several sources: the sale of some land by her mother, her father-in-law’s pension, contributions from her mother and her husband’s parents, as well as contributions from a close relative of her husband, “income that has been received by the family over time”.
• On the Evaluation Commission’s findings of “serious doubts” about the sources of funds used to pay off another loan of 540 thousand lei in 2020, taken out in 2018, the complainant noted that “it is not clear what kind of ‘serious doubts’ can arise as long as the expenses do not exceed the income”.

• The second loan was allegedly paid off with the help of her eldest son, who “donated” 150 thousand lei to her, a donation not mentioned in her declaration of assets and personal interests.
• The special court accepted the magistrate’s argument that she was “unfoundedly sanctioned” by the Pre-Vetting Commission for not remembering with certainty the period when her mother alienated all the plots of agricultural land she owned, that she does not have the contracts by which she alienated them, nor does she know with certainty how many plots of land she owned.

• Similarly, the special court considers as justified the applicant’s argument that in the period 2012-2015 she did not declare donations, “or the material support granted by the parents cannot be interpreted as a donation in the sense of the law, on the grounds that, in fact, they ran a joint household and, respectively, the contributions did not take the legal form of a donation, but were used for the management of the joint household”.
• SCJ: “Stanislav Sorbalo won his case in the disciplinary proceedings against him”
• Stanislav Sorbalo was appointed as an investigating judge in 2004 to work at the Balti Court. He was relieved of his duties in July 2009 and reinstated as a judge 11 years later, in July 2020, when the decree on his release was repealed. Sorbalo resigned from his post before the Pre-Vetting Commission began its re-evaluation, with the SCM approving his resignation request at its meeting on Tuesday 24 October.

• In its 18 January decision that he failed the evaluation, the Pre-Vetting Commission only cited “serious doubts as to the candidate’s compliance with the criterion of ethical integrity”.

• On 15 August 2008, the candidate issued a decision declaring unlawful the searches carried out in April 2008 at the office and former home of the lawyer who had represented his interests in a criminal case relating to a 2007 road accident in which the candidate was an injured party.

• Sorbalo told the SCJ that he had been held liable three times for the same act: the first time – in disciplinary proceedings, the second time – through criminal liability and the third time – based on the decision of the Pre-Vetting Commission, “which is contrary to national and international standards”.

• “Based on the behavior of the Evaluation Commission during the evaluation, the content of the questions asked, the different situations in which the candidate was put in relation to other candidates, including having to (the magistrate, ed.) pay money to obtain the information requested on an urgent basis from various state institutions, he concluded that the Evaluation Commission superficially examined the case, did not get into the essence of the materials sent by the candidate, having a pre-established position on the non-promotion of the candidate,” Sorbalo argued.
• The special panel of the SCJ concluded that in the evaluation process the Commission distinguished between the forms of legal liability of the judge, namely between disciplinary liability concerning disciplinary misconduct and deontological liability concerning ethical violations.

• “In practice, it was extremely important for the Evaluation Commission to take into account, when assessing the criterion of ethical integrity and in reaching a decision in each case, the conclusions of the Strasbourg Court as set out in the decision adopted in the case of Stanislav Sorbalo v. R. Moldova, where it was established that Stanislav Sorbalo had already been disciplined for breach of the rules of ethics and professional conduct when the decision of 15 August 2008 was adopted, through his dismissal from his position as investigating judge of the Balti District Court, (…) and as a result of the new procedures that were conducted following the review, the unfavourable consequences of the complaints based on the flaws in the original procedures were remedied by the national authorities, Stanislav Sorbalo was successful in the disciplinary proceedings against him. He was formally reinstated and, in addition, was granted salary payments for a period of inactivity of more than eleven years, i.e. well beyond the original five-year term of office,” the special panel notes.

• Lawyer who says he didn’t pay income tax because he allegedly had a “difficult financial situation” despite buying an apartment
• Valentin Caisîn was appointed as a judge in February 2011 to serve in the Balti Court. In September 2014, the candidate resigned as a judge. In 2017, he established the Law Firm “Valentin Caisîn”, where he is still working.

• The decision not to promote the candidate from the Parliament was based on the fact that he did not pay the income tax related to the amount of about 763 thousand lei, which he received for his work as a lawyer in 2018-2021. He should have paid income tax to the state in the amount of about 72 thousand lei, to which was added in 2023, when he paid the tax, and penalties in the amount of more than 21 thousand lei.
• Caisîn explained to the Commission that the “main cause” for the late submission of income tax returns to the State Tax Service (SFS) and the late payment of the tax would have been the lack of financial resources, due to the “difficult personal and family financial situation” until 2021. However, the Commission noted that at the end of 2022, the candidate preferred to use his and his family’s personal savings to purchase an apartment at a “bargain” offer instead of paying the taxes due.
• The judges on the special trial panel noted that the candidate’s answers “did not reveal an intent” to evade paying taxes. “And a mere late payment of income tax for the period 2018-2021 does not constitute non-compliance with the integrity criterion of Act No. 26 of March 10, 2022,” the decision to allow the appeal was added.
• “An expression of the principle of solidarity between family members, deeply rooted in national tradition and culture”
• Ion Chirtoaca, a magistrate at the Chisinau Court, Buiucani seat, has held various positions in the “Ștefan cel Mare” Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs since 2010, and was appointed as a judge at the Centru Court, Chisinau municipality in March 2016. He is among the magistrates whose appointment to office until reaching the age limit was refused by President Maia Sandu in autumn 2022.

• The evaluation commission found “serious doubts” about Ion Chirtoaca’s compliance with the criteria of financial and ethical integrity, in connection with the non-declaration of a bank account and transfers from his parents between 2012 and 2015 totalling more than €74,000, which exceeded by more than €10,000 the official income of his parents working abroad. The money was allegedly used to buy an apartment in Chisinau.

• A year after his appointment as a judge, Chirtoaca applied for an apartment at a preferential price as part of a programme to improve living conditions for judges, although he had owned an apartment since 2010 and had lived in another one in his parents’ possession since 2015.
• During the examination of the case by the SCJ, Chirtoaca submitted documents in the form of statements by individuals in Italy from March and April 2023, “from which it appears that the applicant’s father worked for these individuals between 2012 and 2014, earning a monthly income of €200 at one job, in three years he earned an income of €7,200, and at another job, during this period, he was paid €70 or €80 weekly for services rendered”. The special court noted that the Commission representative’s allegations that the documents were to be submitted in the assessment process could not be accepted as relevant, as the candidate would not have known that there were “ambiguities” regarding the source of the parents’ income.

• “Furthermore, the special court holds, pursuant to Article 22 para. (2) of the Administrative Code, as a notorious fact and a national cultural element that parents help their children and children, in turn, help their parents. This fact is an expression of the principle of solidarity between family members, deeply rooted in national tradition and culture,” the SCJ decision on ordering the re-evaluation of the candidate reads.
• The SCJ took into account that one of the Commission members, Vitalie Miron, expressed a separate opinion on the decision, disagreeing with the proposed decision supported by the majority of the Commission members and voting against the approved decision. He considered that Ion Chirtoaca met the integrity criteria and would pass the assessment.
• “Ethical behaviour is determined by the contemporary realities of democratic societies”
• Vitalie Codreanu was appointed as a prosecutor in 2011, in the section leading criminal prosecution in the central bodies of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Customs Service of the Prosecutor General’s Office. He has been an anti-corruption prosecutor since July 2016.

• The reasons why Ion Codreanu did not promote the evaluation, as alleged by the Pre-Vetting Commission, relate to the use of the preferential housing programme for prosecutors to “help” his sister acquire the real estate he later claimed to have sold to her, the way he acquired an apartment of about 49 square metres as a service apartment and privatised it, actions that took place in 2008-2009. The first property was not indicated by the candidate in his declaration of assets, although it should have been.
• According to the SCJ, the fact that Vitalie Codreanu benefited from an apartment at a preferential price in 2008 and sold it in 2013 “is not a violation that raises serious doubts as to the candidate’s compliance with the criterion of ethical integrity and the criterion of financial integrity, i.e., the solution of the Evaluation Commission is manifestly unreasonable.”

• The special court also considers that in this case the evaluation committee “unjustifiably found serious doubts” as to the way in which the apartment was acquired as a service apartment and privatised.

• “Beyond the legality aspect in the case of obtaining the two buildings, the special court notes that Vitalie Codreanu was confronted under the ethical aspect by the question of why he used such state programs twice, but the candidate answered only that he benefited from the legal provisions in force at the time, or this was a guarantee for civil servants. (…) Ethical behaviour is determined by contemporary realities of democratic societies”, the SCJ argued.
• “The evaluation committee did not retain evidence such as the candidate’s explanations”
• Vitalie Stratan was appointed as a judge at the Botanica Court of Appeals, Chisinau municipality in 2008. He served as vice-president of the Chisinau Court in 2017, and since 2021 he has been acting as an interim judge at the Chisinau Court, Central Headquarters.

• The special court complex set up within the SCJ notes that in its decision of 9 December 2022, with the publication of which the judge did not agree, the evaluation commission found the existence of “serious doubts” regarding the criteria of financial, ethical integrity, namely:

• Purchase of an apartment at a preferential price in 2014 in the capital – eligibility, improved living conditions and undervaluation of the sale price;
• Purchase of an apartment at a preferential price in 2014 – source of funds;

• A loan in the amount of 200 000 lei was not declared in the manner prescribed by law.

• Specifically, it is about an apartment with an area of about 67 square meters purchased at a preferential price and its sale in 2018 at the same price. However, the SCJ indicates that at the time of filing the application with the SCM, the candidate did not own real estate that “would allow him to satisfy his living conditions”.
• The special court concludes that in Stratan’s case the evaluation commission did not verify all the factual circumstances and did not give “a correct assessment” of the documents submitted by the candidate, who at the time of submitting the application for the allocation of an apartment did not have sufficient living space for the four members of his family.

• Moreover, it is noted that the candidate Vitalie Stratan was not given the opportunity to exclude any serious doubts about him by means of additional data and information, due to a restricted deadline for submission (approximately 2 months).
• In addition, the special court panel considers that the evaluation commission unjustifiably found “serious doubts” about the source of the financial means for the purchase of the apartment. The judges of the SCJ found that during the hearings the candidate told the Pre-Vetting Commission that he had three different sources: a loan of 200 000 lei – taken from a close family member, a loan of 100 000 lei – taken from a bank and the family savings up to 2014.
• At the same time, during the court hearing, the candidate presented pension certificates from Romania, which would have additionally confirmed the income of the close persons from whom Vitalie Stratan took the loan in the amount of 200 thousand lei in 2014.
• “The evaluation commission did not retain evidence such as the candidate’s explanations and the documents submitted by him to support his position,” the SCJ notes, indicating that Stratan submitted more documents only when addressing the court, “because obtaining this additional information required a longer period of time.”
• Nearly 900 thousand lei – the income made on the basis of patents declared by the judge’s wife and the café to which Holban contributed “manual work”
• Vladislav Holban was appointed as a judge in April 2014. He works at the Chisinau Court, Centre seat, specialising in civil law matters.

• The special court notes that in its decision of 21 December 2022, according to which the judge did not pass the evaluation and whose publication he refused, the Evaluation Commission indicated that Vladislav Holban does not meet the integrity criteria, on the grounds that he did not remove “serious doubts” regarding the following circumstances:

• The declared amount of his wife’s income from business activity under the entrepreneur’s patent in the last 5 years;

• Sources of funds and undervaluation of investments in the opening of the wife’s business – a coffee shop;
• Lack of explanation of sources of financial means for a loan and purchase of apartments by close relatives.

• The Pre-Vetting Commission noted that in the annual statements of the judge for the period 2017-2021 he declared a total income of 882 thousand lei, made by his wife on the basis of the entrepreneur’s patent for making and selling handicraft articles of folk art, of which only about 153 thousand lei was supported by confirmatory documents.

• The special court held that in response to the request of the Evaluation Commission, after the hearings, to present the notes according to which the candidate declared the income obtained from the activity on the basis of the entrepreneur’s patent of his wife during the last five years, the candidate presented 9 documents and several copies of holographic writings, apparently for the sale of various items, some accompanied by dates, names, and others by prices. In addition, the SCJ magistrates pointed out that the requirements for the submission of financial and statistical reports, keeping accounting and financial records, carrying out cash operations and settlements do not extend to the patent holder.

• With regard to the opening of the café, the applicant stated that investments amounting to approximately 80 thousand lei were made. This amount was made up of two loan contracts, amounting to 30 thousand lei each and the candidate’s own contribution of 20 thousand lei. The candidate also explained that additional manual work had been done by him and his wife.

• “The applicant exercised his rights diligently and provided the Evaluation Commission with copies of the bank statements confirming the transfer of the two loans, the account statements of SRL ,,xxx” regarding the transactions carried out, the contract certifying that all the coffee brewing equipment that was made available to the café for free temporary use, the tax receipts, as well as the relevant explanations regarding the monthly reporting of the activity of SRL ,,xxx” to the tax institutions,” the SCJ held.
• Finally, the Commission also noted that the sources presented by the candidate did not cover the purchase by the family of the candidate’s close relative of two apartments in 2017 and the granting of a loan by the same close relative to the candidate in 2018. Thus, the special panel pointed out that “the only argument of the Evaluation Commission was that Holban presented only three sources: the sale of a tractor model MTZ-82, the sale of land on 27 June 2017, the economic activity on land processing through a peasant household of the close relative for 2017, but all sources of income and evidence presented by the candidate were to be considered in the case.”

• Pre-Vetting Commission decision – “guided by the wishes of the President of Moldova, Maia Sandu and interest groups”
• Alexei Panis was appointed as a judge in March 2017, for an initial term of 5 years, to serve at the Chisinau Court of Appeals. In autumn 2022, the head of state refused to appoint the candidate as a judge until he reached the age limit.
• According to Judge Alexei Panis, the January 2023 decision of the Evaluation Commission issued for him “is illegal and was influenced by political factors, in particular guided by the wishes of the President of Moldova, Maia Sandu and the interest groups that serve the current regime.”
• He cited the participation in the decision-making process of the Pre-Vetting Commission members Tatiana Răducanu and Nadejda Hriptievschi, who “did not exercise their mandate impartially and objectively”.

• Mr Panis also said that during the evaluation period his personal data had been accessed by Parliament’s secretariat and that “serious errors” had been admitted in the process of analysis of the evaluation materials by the Pre-Vetting Committee and in their translation.

• During the hearings, the candidate was asked about three financial and ethical issues:

• The source of funds for a loan offered to him by his father, amounting to 300 000 lei and the money used from his father’s salary card in 2022, while he was undergoing the vetting procedure;
• The sale of the Kia Sorento car in 2017 for 300 thousand lei and cash investments in 2018 in the house located in Chisinau municipality;
• Candidate’s public statement of 19 January 2022.
• The Evaluation Commission found Alexei Panis’ justification for accepting money from his parents to be worrying, especially when he asked the Commission whether “he was expected to take bribes instead of accepting help from his parents”.

• The special court panel considers that in this case the Evaluation Commission “unjustifiably” found “serious doubts” about the source of the money for the 300 thousand lei loan and the salary card of the candidate’s father. “This conclusion was based in isolation only on the act of finding issued by the National Integrity Authority on September 8, 2021, which found that in the period 2012-2020 the difference between the wealth acquired by the parents of candidate Alexei Panis and their income was 1,928,091 lei,” the SCJ notes.

• The decision of the Evaluation Commission is unfounded and the applicant would be entitled to a favourable decision, as the contested decision is flawed in particular from the point of view of proportionality, misinterpretation of undefined legal notions and equal treatment.

• On the second issue, the special court found that here the Evaluation Commission had not complied with the provisions of the Evaluation Regulation, reversing the burden of proof, and had not taken the steps required by the special law and the internal regulation to request data from the Public Services Agency (ASP) on the transaction of Alexei Panis’ sale of the Kia Sorento car in 2017.

• The special court complex pointed out that the income of 300 thousand lei received from the sale of the car was part of the amount of 1,507,590 lei that Alexei Panis owned and declared in 2018.

• “From this amount, in October 2018, Alexei Panis paid 984 070 lei (estimated 50 000 euros) for a house and land located in Chisinau municipality. After the purchase of the house in the municipality of Chisinau, Alexei Panis’ remaining money held in cash amounted to 523 590 lei. (…) Alexei Panis explained to the Evaluation Commission that of the amount remaining after the purchase of the house and the adjacent land in Chisinau municipality, about 200 000 lei were used for consumption expenses, and the rest of the money, up to 300 000 lei, was used in the first months of 2019 for investments in the house. Respectively, as of March 29, 2019, he no longer held in cash funds that would have exceeded the amount of 92,250 lei (15 average monthly wages on the economy),” the SCJ points out.
• Regarding the third non-compliance, Judge Alexei Panis allegedly made a broad attack on Eugeniu Rurac and on the complaints filed by him regarding the verification of the actions of Judge Alexei Panis when issuing the decision of 31 December 2021 to reinstate Vladislav Clima in the administrative position of president of the Chisinau Court of Appeal.
• The special court complex noted that the decision of the Pre-Vetting Commission does not contain a “consistent and well-founded” reasoning, from which it can be seen how the Evaluation Commission qualified the public statement of January 2022 of Judge Alexei Panis as a “serious violation of the rules of ethics and professional conduct of judges”, while the Plenum of the Disciplinary College of the SCM concluded that this act of Judge Alexei Panis does not constitute a serious disciplinary offence.

• The member of the Pre-Vetting Committee, Vitalie Miron, issued a separate opinion expressing his disagreement with the position of the Evaluation Committee.

• “The Evaluation Commission has not established whether the action/breach of professional conduct is serious enough to provide a valid reason for rejecting the candidate”
• Victor Sandu was appointed to the position of judge at the Centru Court, Chisinau municipality in February 2015, in 2020 he was appointed to the position of judge until reaching the age limit.

• All the Commission’s doubts about the magistrate are related to vehicles: the issue of non-payment of capital gains tax on the sale of Honda motorcycles (in 2018) and Suzuki Espana motorcycles (in 2021); the issue of ownership rights over 20 vehicles imported in 2009 by his former brother-in-law; the issue of profit or income from the sale of other vehicles imported and registered in the candidate’s name between 2008 and 2015; the issue of the obligation to pay capital gains tax on the sale of these vehicles; the way a Mercedes car was purchased from a female prosecutor.

• The evaluation commission established that the Honda Hornet motorcycle, purchased in 2015 for 25,000 lei, was sold by Sandu in 2018 for 50,000 lei, and the Suzuki Espana motorcycle, purchased in 2008 at the customs value of 5,106 lei, was sold in 2021 for 20,000 lei. The magistrate, however, stated that he did not have any capital gains, because the two motorcycles were bought damaged and were repaired.

• “The candidate gave answers to the questions given, as well as attached pictures of the condition of the motorcycles at the time of their purchase to the file materials. According to the candidate’s explanations, the motorcycles in question have been repaired, with the replacement of damaged parts, which were purchased on the websites of the industry, as well as a new part; the adjustment of carburetors for which he paid the sum of 40 euros. Objectively, such type of work requires the investment of financial means,” the SCJ decision states.

• Regarding the Mercedes allegedly purchased from a prosecutor, a former work colleague, the special court concludes that here the Evaluation Commission limited itself to indicating “serious doubts” as to the candidate’s compliance with the criteria of ethical integrity regarding the manner of purchase of the Mercedes car, but did not establish whether the action/breach of professional conduct is serious enough to provide a valid reason for rejecting Victor Sandu.

• The Pre-Vetting Committee announced on 8 September that it had notified the 21 candidates of the start of the assessment procedure which is being resumed under Article 14(2) of the Staff Regulations. (10) of Law No 26/2022 and the decisions of the SCJ.

• “After a thorough examination of the decisions of the SCJ, the Pre-Vetting Commission has drafted and approved several amendments to its Rules of Organisation and Functioning so as to meet the rigours of the new process,” the Commission said at the time.

• More specifically, according to Commission spokeswoman Victoria Timuș-Loza, this concerns the hearing of witnesses who made statements in support of candidates before the SCJ judges.

• The article was prepared in the framework of the Project “Accountability of the Justice Sector in Moldova”, implemented by the Centre for Analysis and Prevention of Corruption with the support of Freedom House in Moldova. The views expressed reflect the position of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the funder.