This fall, the European Commission could recommend the initiation of EU accession negotiations for the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine, to be started either late this year or early next year. In order for these negotiations to be launched, Chisinau should do as much as possible to fulfil the conditions that Brussels set in June last year, once the Republic of Moldova obtained the status of a candidate state for the EU accession. These conditions include the reform of the justice system, the fight against corruption and organized crime, and deoligarchization. The actions undertaken by the authorities in Chisinau, especially with regard to justice reform, however, have clashed with the fierce opposition of the judges. Most of the magistrates seem to boycott the current government, and without a clear development and implementation of the justice reform, it will be very difficult for Chisinau to get the starting of EU accession negotiations.
The current government in Chisinau, adamant about cleansing the judiciary of corrupt judges
The reform of the justice system in the Republic of Moldova has been talked about for several years. Until recently, however, all the changes in this field seem to have been reduced to cosmetic actions that did not bother figures in the judicial system too much.
However, the current power in Chisinau, led by President Maia Sandu, has resorted to radical actions to cleanse the system of corrupt judges. In fact, fighting corruption, including among magistrates, was one of Maia Sandu's electoral promises, but also of the Action and Solidarity Party that supports her.
To this end, the Pre-Vetting Commission was established, i.e. a commission whose task is to verify, first of all, the integrity of judges and prosecutors who aspire to positions in the Superior Council of Magistracy (SCM) and the Superior Council of Prosecutors (SCP). This commission is made up of experts from the Republic of Moldova and abroad who analyze and determine whether the aspirants for positions in the CSM and CSP “behaved in a manner compatible with professional ethics during their activity, whether or not they adopted arbitrary acts, whether they admitted conflicts of interest, if they have properly declared their wealth and if this wealth corresponds to their income”.
The majority of magistrates, critical of the current government and the justice reform
The Pre-Vetting Commission seems to have stirred up the “wasps' nest” in the judiciary. The reaction of the judicial system to the conclusions of the verifications carried out by this commission was extremely vehement, especially after it was found that many of those who for years had been holding key positions in the judiciary failed to pass the integrity test.
In order to stop the reform of the judiciary, the judges tried first of all to block the activity of the SCM and of the Supreme Court of Justice. Several top magistrates in the SCM, the Supreme Court of Justice, the courts of appeal or the district courts resigned in February, but kept their judgeship.
Therefore, the SCM and the Supreme Court of Justice ended up being unable to function due to too few members remaining in office.
Against this background, the General Assembly of Judges, the self-administration body of the magistrates, was convened on March 17, after a four-year break (although, mandatorily, it should have convened annually). The assembly was to elect four permanent members of the CSM from among the judges, from the total number of five who had received the approval of the Pre-Vetting Commission.
The assembly did not elect them, claiming that would have harmed the rights of those who did not get the commission's vote, but who challenged its decision in court and might win. Formally, the General Assembly of Judges took a break until April 28, without adopting any concrete decision.
At the meeting on March 17, several judges focused on criticizing the current government and accusing it of interference in the work of the judicial system, rather than unblocking the judicial situation. There was also a minority who tried to persuade their colleagues to do their best to move things along. To no avail, though.
One of the leaders of the judges who oppose the reforms initiated by the current government, Anatolie Țurcan, stated, against the background of these events, that the pre-vetting procedure lacks credibility and that the justice reform would be essentially flawed. Anatolie Țurcan is also one of those who failed the integrity test in the Pre-Vetting Commission and lost the case it filed against the commission at the Supreme Court of Justice.
Maia Sandu: some of the judge’s aim is “to compromise justice”
After it became clear that the judicial system would oppose in every way any reform that would affect its interests, President Maia Sandu urgently convened the Supreme Security Council, in connection with what she called “the critical and exceptional situation of the judiciary”.
At the end of the Council meeting, Maia Sandu stated that justice had been seized by some judges who “let criminals go free, allowed the theft of over one billion dollars from banks in the Republic of Moldova to go unpunished or invalidated democratic elections”. She pointed out that some of the judges decided to block all the trials in the system and hinder the changes in the justice system.
“All the judges were able to show at the Assembly is that the judiciary is rotten and unwilling or unable to treat itself. Some judges have demonstrated that their goal is not to do justice, but to compromise justice”, Maia Sandu said.
She also formulated a series of recommendations to state institutions.
“The first recommendation concerns the acceleration of the setting up of the SCM. The SCM is to become operational within 30 days [no later than April 20]. Parliament will appoint non-judge members who have passed the Pre-Vetting Commission evaluation and these members will form the SCM, which will function regardless of what the judges decide”, Maia Sandu stressed.
Parliament did not wait for April 20, and it immediately voted three new members into the SCM from among non-judges, so that the SCM held its first meeting with a new membership on April 4. The SCM currently has only four members out of a total of 12, as it should, but it can function after Parliament reduced the quorum from two-thirds of its members (which would mean 8) to 2/3 of those who have already taken their positions in this body.
Apparently, the role of this downsized SCM is to unblock the situation that has been reached in the judiciary, in particular due to the opposition of the largest part of the judges. The president of the Judiciary Committee in the Chisinau Parliament, Olesea Stamate, has admitted it herself. She has stated that SCM members from civil society will not make decisions regarding the activity of judges, but they will be able to initiate the competition for the position of member of the Supreme Court of Justice, for example. Or, in the case of too many resignations that would block the activity of this court, they could transfer judges from other courts as temporary members of the Council.
A justice system dominated by Communists and oligarchs/criminals
The authorities seem determined to promote the reform of the justice system without hesitation, because only in this way can the country get closer to the European Union and in case of a favorable decision, accession negotiations can start.
The reform is all the more necessary as the judicial situation in the Republic of Moldova seems to have reached a critical point.
Serious issues emerged many years ago, in the early 2000s, during the communist government led by Vladimir Voronin. He managed to subordinate a good part of the judges, so that they would make decisions favorable to the regime, getting instead the liberty to pursue their own interests. The peak of corruption in the judiciary seems to have been reached during the time of the controversial oligarch/politician Vlad Plahotniuc, who managed to get everything he wanted from the judiciary. With the help of the decisions made by corrupt magistrates, one and a half billion dollars was stolen from the Moldovan banking system in 2014. It was also with the help of corrupt magistrates that Chisinau Airport ended up being leased in 2013. And with their support, the June 2018 elections for the position of mayor of Chisinau were canceled, as they had been won by one of Vlad Plahotniuc's opponents, Andrei Năstase. The list of such court decisions is a very long one and remains open.
None of the high-profile cases of recent years have been finalized - not even that of Ilan Shor, another oligarch who fled the Republic of Moldova and who is now trying with the help of Russia to bring down the current government in Chisinau; nor that of his close friend Marina Tauber and not even that of the former head of the Railways Company, Iurie Topală. All of them were first arrested, then placed under house arrest, after which they were placed under judicial control. There are voices who say that this would be normal practice for some judges, as it has brought them substantial gain.
The only exceptions were the case of Vlad Filat and that of Veaceslav Platon, both opponents of Vlad Plahotniuc’s. When Plahotniuc lost the reins of power, Filat and Platon were released.
Against the background of the system opposing the reform of the judiciary, we can assume that in the future we will witness even more decisions obstructing the big cases, decisions that, from now on, will be taken rather to defy the current ruling power.
Justice reform has become a geopolitical stake, especially against the background of the war in Ukraine
Justice reform is no longer just an action to clean up the judicial system and bring it back to normality. With the Republic of Moldova obtaining the status of a candidate country for the EU accession, this reform, along with the fight against corruption, including in the justice system, and deoligarchization became a geopolitical stake, especially against the background of the war in Ukraine. The outcome of this reform depends on whether the Republic of Moldova will keep its pro-European path and whether or not it will become a member state of the EU. It is a stake not only for the current power in Chisinau, but also for those in Brussels.
It is hard to imagine that the West would accept that, due to the failure of justice reforms, pro-Russian forces came to power in Chisinau and turn the Republic of Moldova into a second Belarus, and Moscow, even hypothetically, would get the opportunity to open here a second front against Ukraine.
The European Union – the entire West in fact – cannot afford to lose to Russia, which is trying not only to occupy Ukraine militarily, but also to extend its influence in the Republic of Moldova. A victory for the West would mean the anchoring of the Republic of Moldova (and Ukraine, of course) in the democratic space, where civil liberties are respected and the justice system functions without deviations. The Chisinau authorities seem to have understood this. The judges who oppose the reform should also understand it, especially since their chances of emerging victorious from this geopolitical confrontation seem to be extremely low.
