Moldova’s judicial council backs domestic integrity checks
Moldova’s Superior Council of Magistracy (SCM) has rejected plans to extend external integrity checks to all judges, including those at first-instance courts, proposing instead to strengthen domestic oversight with financial specialists.
CSM proposes strengthening domestic oversight
The Council issued a negative opinion on the proposed expansion of external vetting, arguing that existing national institutions should take responsibility for continuing judges’ integrity assessments.
SCM President Sergiu Caraman said the Council and the Board for the Selection and Evaluation of Judges were already operational, while SCM members themselves had undergone external integrity assessments.
Under legislation introduced in 2023, judges are subject to financial integrity checks as part of ordinary and extraordinary evaluations. Ordinary assessments must take place at least once every five years.
Speaking on Moldova 1’s Pe Față programme on November 10, Caraman said the evaluation process should continue under domestic institutions, supported by an expanded administrative team.
“We believe that judges should continue to be evaluated, but the process should be carried out by the Board for the Selection and Evaluation of Judges and the SCM, supported by a strengthened secretariat,” Caraman said.
He explained that the Council needed additional financial specialists to examine judges’ assets and financial records.
Financial expertise needed to scrutinize judges’ assets
The main obstacle to transferring these responsibilities to domestic institutions is the lack of staff with economic and financial expertise.
The SCM secretariat, which also provides administrative support to the evaluation board, currently employs only legal specialists. Caraman said financial experts were needed to collect and analyse information about judges’ income, expenditure and assets, identifying any unexplained discrepancies.
The SCM president believes national institutions can build on the experience accumulated by the External Evaluation Commission. Under his proposal, financial specialists would conduct the technical analysis, while members of the evaluation board would make decisions based on their findings.
He argued that this arrangement would allow integrity checks to continue after the external evaluation commissions complete their work.
SCM rejected three external evaluation reports
Caraman acknowledged that external vetting had played an important role in judicial reform and contributed to changes within the judiciary. However, the SCM has not endorsed every recommendation made by the External Evaluation Commission.
The Council rejected three reports: one recommending that a judge pass the evaluation and two recommending that judges fail it.
In one case, the disagreement concerned a calculation error identified by the SCM. Caraman said the Council had corrected the calculation and determined that the judge’s unexplained wealth fell below the threshold that would justify a negative evaluation.
“There was a mathematical error by the Commission, however trivial that may sound. The SCM corrected it because it involved a calculation and found that the unexplained wealth did not exceed the threshold that could lead to a failed vetting assessment,” Caraman said.
He added that the External Evaluation Commission had not challenged the SCM’s decision.
In another case, the Council considered that the ethical breaches identified by the Commission were not sufficiently serious to justify removing the judge from office.
The SCM referred to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). However, its decision was challenged, and the case is awaiting examination by the Supreme Court of Justice.
Corruption concerns remain
Caraman also acknowledged that judicial reform had not eliminated all integrity problems within the judiciary.
He admitted that corruption cases could still occur, pointing to requests from the General Prosecutor’s Office seeking authorization to initiate criminal proceedings against sitting judges.
According to the SCM president, the Council granted the necessary approvals for investigators to proceed.
Judicial reform remains central to EU accession
The debate over expanding external vetting comes as Moldova advances its European Union accession process, with judicial reform remaining a key priority.
The integrity of judges, stronger judicial institutions and efforts to fill vacant positions are among the issues being monitored as part of the country's EU accession negotiations.
Translation by Iurie Tataru
RELATED COVERAGE
- Moldova expands judicial vetting to anti-corruption judges
- Unexplained wealth of €714k uncovered in Moldova’s judicial vetting report
- Vetting could also extend to first-instance judges. Head of State: “We must ensure only people of integrity remain in the system.”
- SCM extends the deadline for 20 anti-corruption judge positions to October 5
- Moldova, EU clash over pace of judicial vetting ahead of report
