Ion Guzun, a member of the Superior Council of Magistracy (SCM), believes that there are “reasonable” suspicions that Gheorghe Balan, the judge examining the case in which Vladimir Andronachi and Anatolie Blonschi are accused of involvement in the theft of the billion, has committed disciplinary misconduct. Thus, in a complaint to the Judicial Inspection of the SCM and the Commission on Ethics and Professional Conduct of Judges, Guzun asks for verification of the grounds for the evaluation of the judge’s performance.

It all started from a closing issued on 31 January 2024, in which Gheorghe Balan accused that he had become the target of intimidation and surveillance, but also of a media campaign launched by “the legislative and executive powers”, aimed at denigrating his image.

“(… ) I consider it necessary to inform the participants in the trial that, in connection with the examination of the present case, by certain “state structures”, together with and in complicity with some decision-makers within the judiciary and representatives of the legislative and executive branches of the Moldovan legislature, have undertaken, and continue to do so, several actions of intimidation against the undersigned, including special investigative measures and, without the undersigned’s consent, ‘forced specialisation in civil matters’, in order to induce him to adopt solutions that are illegal but ‘convenient’ for them,” the conclusion issued reads.

Later, Bălan made the same statements to the Realitatea.md portal, adding that he is followed even in his free time, including when he goes to a restaurant with family or friends, but also to church.

According to Guzun, if the judge had reasonable doubts that any public institution or private person was infringing on his privacy, he should have referred the matter to the Superior Council of Magistracy or other legal bodies, since, according to Article 27 of the Law on the Status of Judges, he, his family members and their property are under state protection.

“At the same time, I find critical the inference that the case pending against Judge Gheorghe Balan is politically motivated, and that state institutions would intimidate him in order to be induced “to adopt illegal solutions, but ‘convenient’ to them”. This manipulation is so serious and dangerous that an independent observer would conclude that the case is politically motivated and in fact gives the defendants grounds to qualify the case as politically motivated,” Ion Guzun’s complaint states.

Thus, the SCM member qualifies the circumstances invoked by Judge Gheorghe Balan as “an unwillingness to examine the criminal case under procedure and the invocation of circumstances of incompatibility that are not based on the law, without providing factual information” and asks the Judicial Inspection to verify whether there are grounds to carry out an assessment of the magistrate’s performance.

“Failure to examine a case in procedure is in essence a failure to perform a duty. Thus, it shows a lack of professionalism of the judge. Thus, I consider that the inspector-judge should verify the appropriateness of informing the Superior Council of Magistracy if it is found that there are grounds for carrying out the performance evaluation of Judge Gheorghe Balan, provided for in Article 8 paragraph (1) letters b) and f) of Law No. 147/2023 on the selection and evaluation of the performance of judges,” Guzun points out in the complaint.

In November 2022, the interim Prosecutor General, Ion Munteanu, referred the matter to the Superior Council of Magistracy (SCM) and requested the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against Judge Gheorghe Balan, in the context of the sentence handed down to former sportsman Ion Șoltoianu, who was fined 1 500 lei and released from the courtroom after assaulting a man in the Botanica sector of the capital in March 2022 and threatening the dog accompanying him with a gun.