13 Evaluation Reports of the Judicial Vetting Commission reviewed by the SCM. What decisions were taken?

At its plenary session on 15 July 2025, the Superior Council of Magistracy (SCM) examined 13 evaluation reports submitted by the Judicial Vetting Commission. The reports concerned both sitting judges serving at the courts of appeal and candidates for positions in higher courts – the courts of appeal and the Supreme Court of Justice.

The decisions adopted by the SCM are as follows:

Evaluation not passed:

• Ruxanda Pulbere, judge at the Chișinău Court of Appeal – the Commission’s report was rejected; the SCM ordered a re-evaluation.
• Grigore Dașchevici, judge at the Chișinău Court of Appeal – the report recommending non-promotion was accepted.

Evaluation passed (reports accepted):

• Andrei Mironov, judge at the Cahul Court of Appeal
• Ghenadie Liulca, judge at the Bălți Court of Appeal
• Vitalie Movilă, judge at the Cahul Court of Appeal
• Grigori Colev, judge at the Cahul Court of Appeal
• Diana Corlăteanu, judge at the Hîncești District Court – candidate for the Chișinău Court of Appeal
• Andrei Cașcaval, judge at the Anenii Noi District Court – candidate for the Chișinău Court of Appeal
• Elena Bolocan, judge at the Chișinău District Court – candidate for the Chișinău Court of Appeal
• Ivan Parii, judge at the Orhei District Court – candidate for the Bălți Court of Appeal
• Gheorghe Stratulat, judge at the Chișinău District Court – candidate for the Supreme Court of Justice
• Iurie Chirica, attorney – candidate for the position of judge at the Supreme Court of Justice
• Dumitru Calendari, prosecutor at the Cahul Prosecutor’s Office – candidate for the position of judge at the Supreme Court of Justice

For those who passed the external evaluation, the SCM decided to submit nominations for appointment until the mandatory retirement age.

Publication of the Evaluation Reports

In accordance with the Constitutional Court’s interpretation, the evaluation reports of the Commission will be made public three days after the expiry of the legal deadline for challenging the SCM’s decision, with full respect for all legal requirements regarding the protection of private life.

‍