Frequent questions

Pre-vetting is the initial and preparatory stage before evaluating all judges and prosecutors. Pre-vetting involves checking the integrity of judges, prosecutors, and professionals applying for positions in the Superior Council of Magistracy (SCM), Superior Council of Prosecutors (SCP), and the Boards within these two Councils.

Pre-vetting is voluntary. It becomes mandatory only for those who have applied for competitions to become a member of SCM, SCP, or the Boards of these Councils. In case of a failed evaluation, the only consequence for the candidate is exclusion from the competition.

Vetting is the subsequent and more comprehensive stage of evaluation compared to pre-vetting. Vetting involves checking the integrity of acting judges of the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ) and candidates for SCJ judge positions, judges of Courts of Appeal, and presidents and vice-presidents of courts. Vetting also includes checking the integrity of prosecutors in key positions within the General Prosecutor's Office, prosecutors in the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office, and the Prosecutor's Office for Combating Organized Crime and Special Cases (PCCOCS), as well as chief prosecutors and their deputies in territorial prosecutor's offices.

Vetting is mandatory for all judges and prosecutors identified above. In case of a failed evaluation, the main consequence is dismissal from office with the deprivation of the right to serve as a judge or prosecutor or hold a public office for 5-7 years.

The Vetting Commission conducts three types of evaluations: vetting of the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ), pre-vetting of candidates for membership in the Superior Council of Magistracy (SCM), and in the two boards of the SCM, and vetting of certain categories of judges, as stipulated in Law no. 252/2023.
Therefore, the subjects of evaluation under Law 65/2023 on the external evaluation of judges and candidates for the position of judge of the Supreme Court of Justice are:
- judges of the Supreme Court of Justice in office, including those suspended from office;- candidates for the position of judge of the Supreme Court of Justice.
The subjects of evaluation under Law 26/2022 on certain measures related to the selection of candidates for membership in the self-administration bodies of judges and prosecutors are:
- candidates for membership in the Superior Council of Magistracy (SCM);- candidates for membership in the Board for the selection and evaluation of judges;- candidates for membership in the Disciplinary board of judges of the SCM.
The subjects of evaluation under Law 252/2023 on the external evaluation of judges and prosecutors are:- judges who have held the position of court president and/or vice-president- judges of courts of appeal in office;- candidates for the positions of president, vice-president, and judge of the courts of appeal. Note: The following are not subject to evaluation:
- judges of the Supreme Court of Justice and candidates for the position of judge of the Supreme Court of Justice who have passed the integrity assessment provided for in Law no. 26/2022 on certain measures related to the selection of candidates for membership in the self-administration bodies of judges and prosecutors;- judges who, within 20 days of being notified of the initiation of the evaluation, submit a resignation request.

‍In exercising its mandate, the Evaluation Commission shall have the following powers:
-        to collect, accumulate and verify, by means not prohibited by law, any information relevant to the evaluation;
-        to access any information system containing information relevant to the fulfilment of its mandate, including via the interoperability platform (MConnect);
-        to request information from the subject of the evaluation;
-        to request and obtain, free of charge, information from other natural and legal persons governed by public or private law, including financial institutions;
-        to interview the subject of the evaluation and other persons holding information relevant to the evaluation;
-        to carry out the evaluation and approve reports on the evaluation results.

The Evaluation Commission shall be functionally and decisionally independent from any natural or legal persons, irrespective of the type of ownership and legal form of organization, including parliamentary factions and development partners, which have participated in the appointment of its members. In its work, the Evaluation Commission shall be guided by the Constitution, by laws and other normative acts governing the areas related to its work.
IMPORTANT: Development partners cannot give indications to the Evaluation Commission or its secretariat on matters relating to the implementation of the mandate of the Evaluation Commission. Members of the Evaluation Commission and employees of the secretariat shall enjoy functional immunity and may not be held liable for opinions expressed in the exercise of their mandate and duties.

The Evaluation Commission is not a public authority within the meaning of the Administrative Code. The work of the Evaluation Commission is not public, with the exceptions established by this Law and the Evaluation Commission’s Rules of organization and functioning.

In the evaluation process of SCJ judges and candidates for the position of SCJ judge, regulated by Law 65/2023, the Vetting Commission, the Superior Council of Magistracy (SCM), and the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ) participate, with the SCJ acting as the court exercising judicial control over procedure compliance.

SCM is responsible for organizing the competition and sends the Vetting Commission the list of subjects to be evaluated. The Commission collects and analyzes information, conducts hearings, and prepares reports containing relevant facts, reasons, and proposals to pass or fail the subject of the evaluation.

The report is approved by the Commission members and sent to the SCM, which examines the evaluation results and, through a reasoned decision, either accepts or rejects it. In the event of rejecting are port, the SCM orders, only once, the reevaluation procedure by the Vetting Commission.

The Vetting Commission's report cannot be challenged in the Supreme Court of Justice, according to Law 65/2023. However, SCM decisions can be challenged at the SCJ by both the evaluated subject and the Vetting Commission. Therefore, the SCJ may either uphold the challenge if it finds serious procedural errors during the evaluation process affecting its fairness, or if there are factual circumstances that could have led to the evaluation's promotion, or it may dismiss the challenge. These challenges are examined by a special panel composed of the first 3 judges who passed the evaluation and have not served at the Supreme Court of Justice until December 31, 2022.

Integrity criteria are standards set by law to which the Vetting Commission refers when evaluating subjects. Let us examine the financial and ethical integrity criteria specified by Law 65/2023 in relation to judges of the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ) and candidates for the SCJ judgeship, whom the Vetting Commission assesses.

From a financial perspective, the Vetting Commission verifies whether the subjects:
• Have, in the last 12 years, incurred a discrepancy between assets, expenditures, and income exceeding a cumulative total of 20 average national salaries (calculated for the year in which the evaluation was initiated), equivalent to 234,000 lei (for the year 2023), which they cannot justify;
• Have, in the last 10 years, committed fiscal irregularities resulting in unpaid taxes exceeding a total of 5 average national salaries, equivalent to 58,500 lei.

From an ethical perspective, the Commission checks whether the subjects:
• Have seriously violated the rules of ethics and professional conduct for judges, or other professions as applicable, in the last 5 years;
• Have, in the last 10 years, engaged in activities with conflicts of interest incompatible with the position of SCJ judge;
• Have, in the last 5 years, exhibited arbitrary behavior or issued arbitrary acts contrary to the law, as sanctioned by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

If the Commission finds serious doubts regarding these aspects, the subject of the evaluation is considered not to meet the criteria for ethical and financial integrity. The Vetting Commission does not assess the professional competence of SCJ judges and SCJ candidates, nor does it adjudicate on the legality of decisions issued by them.

"Inexplicable wealth" refers to the significant difference between declared income, acquired assets, and expenses made by an individual within a certain period of time. To determine whether a subject is financially upright or not, the Vetting Commission checks, among other things, for substantial discrepancies between the income and expenses declared by them.

One of the indicators used by the Commission in examining the financial component "inexplicable wealth" is the CEP, in other words, "Consumption Expenditure for Population". The CEP is established annually by the National Bureau of Statistics of Moldova (NBS) per household at the national level. According to the NBS methodology, these expenditures are estimated based on several indicators, including categories of daily life such as food, clothing, housing, health, education, transport, recreation, tourism, and others.

In the evaluation process, the Commission calculates the estimated expenses for each household using NBS data, taking into account the number of family members, as well as the area of residence: rural or urban. The Commission compares the declared expenses with those calculated based on CEP and identifies on what goods or services the subject spent their money, if they saved any, or if there are significant discrepancies between income and expenses. This process is essential to ensure a fair and objective assessment of the subject's financial situation.

It is assumed that every household has a CEP, as social life involves some expenses. Nevertheless, there are situations where the subject may withdraw all earned money in cash and make all payments throughout the year in cash as well. The Commission also considers these aspects and relies on NBS data to calculate average expenses, even if subjects may have higher actual expenses.

Additionally, to establish the difference between income and expenses, apart from CEP, the Commission takes into account expenses related to the acquisition of real estate or movable assets, precious objects, inheritances, bank savings or cash, cash inflows or outflows, and others.

The CEP methodology is provided for in the Rules of organization and functioning of the Vetting Commission and has been widely used by other states in similar evaluation procedures. The European Court of Human Rights has found that the use of the methodology itself is not contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights, as long as it is not arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable.

For the evaluation of the integrity of judges from the Courts of Appeal, presidents and vice-presidents of district courts, as well as other categories of subjects in accordance with Law 252/2023, two evaluation panels will operate within the Vetting Commission. Here are some important aspects related to the functioning of these panels for a better understanding of the evaluation process:

1. Mixed composition: The six members of the Commission have been grouped into two evaluation panels, each consisting of three members, both national and international. This structure ensures a balanced and objective evaluation by combining local legal and cultural context with international perspectives and standards. The Commission reserves the right to modify the composition of the panels depending on workload.

2. Distribution of leadership roles:  One panel is led by the Chair of the Commission, while another panel is led by the Vice-Chair. Both are responsible for coordinating and presiding over meetings and hearings. They are also responsible for signing reports and other documents related to the evaluation process.

3. Unanimity in decisions: Decisions within the panels will be made unanimously. If the members of the evaluation panel do not reach a unanimous vote, the evaluation report is reviewed by the full Commission. In this case, the report is approved by a majority vote of the Commission members, including the mandatory vote of two international members, and is signed by the Chairperson. Commission members may not abstain from voting.

4. Random distribution of files: To ensure the equitable distribution of cases, the files are randomly assigned to panels. In the event of the recusal of a panel member, the file may be transferred to another panel, and the Commission will inform the subject of the change in the panel.

5. Flexibility in replacing panel members: If a panel member is unable to attend a hearing, they may be temporarily replaced by a member from the other panel. If replacement is not feasible, the hearing will be rescheduled. Additionally, only the Chair of one panel may replace the Chair of the other panel, ensuring continuity in the evaluation process.