A civil society candidate in the Selection and Evaluation Board of Judges failed the external evaluation

Attorney Denis Lesnic, a civil society candidate for the position of member in the Selection and Evaluation Board of Judges, did not pass the external evaluation conducted by the Judicial Vetting Commission. According to the Commission’s conclusions, the candidate does not meet the integrity criteria established under Law no. 26/2022, pursuant to which the evaluation procedure was carried out.

The decision was adopted by a majority of the nine Commission members. Members Scott Bales, Andrei Bivol, and Lavly Perling issued separate opinions, which accompany the decision. The decision has been communicated today to the candidate and to the Superior Council of Magistracy (SCM), as the organizer of the competition to fill vacancies in the two specialized judicial boards.

Note: Under the legal procedure, the decision will only be published with the consent of the candidate. Denis Lesnic may notify the Commission within 48 hours of receipt of the decision if he objects to its public disclosure. In the absence of such a notification, the decision will be published on the Commission’s website: www.vettingmd.eu.

All candidates for positions in the SCM’s specialized boards, whether from the judiciary or civil society, are evaluated in terms of integrity. Candidates registered in the competition after 1 September 2023 are evaluated by the Judges’ Evaluation Commission in accordance with Law no. 252/2023 on the external evaluation of judges and prosecutors.

‍

A civil society candidate in the Selection and Evaluation Board of Judges failed the external evaluation

Subscribe for notifications.

Other press releases

Judge Vasile Nogai under review in the Judicial Vetting Commission’s final hearing of the year

Scott Bales concludes his mandate at the Judicial Vetting Commission

Roman Pascari withdraws from the competition for judge at the Central Court of Appeal

Preliminary evaluation result: non-promotion for Judge Petru Triboi, Interim President of Ungheni Court

Two former Court leaders clarify ginancial and ethical integrity concerns in public hearings

Four judges invited to hearings before Panels to clarify integrity concerns

Ion Covalciuc withdraws from the competition for the position of judge at the Supreme Court of Justice

Three evaluation reports submitted to the SCM for review

Commission upholds initial conclusions after reevaluating three judges from the Central Court of Appeal

Evaluation process underway for four additional Supreme Court judge candidates

Leadership transition at the Judicial Vetting Commission

Three judges recommended for promotion following integrity evaluation

Judicial Vetting Commission concludes November hearing session

Judges in leadership positions heard by the Judicial Vetting Commission

Three judges heard on the first day of the new round of hearings

11 judges invited to clarify integrity-related issues during public hearings

Outcome of the evaluation of judges Ion Pâcaleu and Olga Cojocaru

Completion of the vetting procedure at the Northern and Southern Courts of Appeal

Ongoing reevaluation: judge Silvia Cecan reheard by the Commission

The Judicial Vetting Commission held hearings with judges Andrei Mocanu and Ana Panov

Judicial vetting: preliminary results for judges Angela Bostan and Vitalie Budeci

Two lawyers have withdrawn from competitions for positions within the judicial system

Judges’ vetting continues: Four public hearings scheduled for October 15 and 16

Withdrawal of Natalia Paustovscaia from the competition for member of the Disciplinary Board of Judges

Vetting procedure launched for a lawyer candidate to the Supreme Court

A judge from the Southern Court of Appeal did not pass the integrity evaluation, according to the Vetting Commission

External evaluation of the interim Vice President of Strășeni District Court finalized with proposal for promotion

Repeated public hearings for two judges from the Courts of Appeal

Public hearings: Three cases examined by the Judicial Vetting Commission

Integrity evaluation of judge Serghei Pilipenco from the Southern Court of Appeal – completed

Judicial inspector withdraws from competition for Supreme Court position

Judicial Vetting Commission announces a new round of public hearings

New panels established to ensure continuity in the external evaluation of judges

Judges Vitalie Budeci and Serghei Pilipenco publicly heard by the Judicial Vetting Commission

Two judges to be heard on Wednesday, 6 August by the Judicial Vetting Commission

SCM accepted three evaluation reports and excluded a former judge from the Central Court of Appeal competition

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

New members appointed to the Judicial Vetting Commission

A judge from the Court of Appeal North failed the integrity evaluation, according to the Judicial Vetting Commission

On the litigations involving the Judicial Vetting Commission

Commission updates Rules of Organization and Functioning following recent legislative amendments on external evaluation

External evaluation of judges – Two years of activity by the Evaluation Commission

A candidate for the position of judge at the Central Court of Appeal has withdrawn from the competition

External evaluation of the Central Court of Appeal completed: the last report submitted to SCM for review

16 external evaluations completed for sitting judges and candidates for vacant judicial positions

New public hearings scheduled by the Judicial Vetting Commission for the week of June 16–20

Public hearings for several subjects found to have no integrity issues in the external evaluation

Hearing schedule for June 9 and 10

Evaluation procedure for Supreme Court candidate Valeriu Pleșca has been discontinued

Several judges being found to have no integrity issues following external evaluation

Revision of the Evaluation Panels within the Judicial Vetting Commission

4 of the 24 notified court presidents and vice-presidents remain in the external evaluation process

A report with a recommendation for non-promotion and a dissenting opinion submitted to the SCM for review

New candidates for the Supreme Court of Justice undergoing external evaluation

Two civil society candidates undergoing external evaluation for the position of member in the Disciplinary Board

Proposal for failure of the external evaluation for a judge of the Central Court of Appeal

Judicial vetting enters its final stage with the evaluation of Court Presidents and -Vice Presidents

Evaluation completed for judge Mihail Diaconu of the Central Court of Appeal

Two evaluation reports concerning judges from the Central Court of Appeal, submitted to the SCM

Judge Braga case referred for re-evaluation by the SCM

Evaluation status at the Central Court of Appeal: 12 reports submitted to the SCM, 6 reports in progress

Revised procedures for publishing evaluation reports pursuant to a ruling by the Constitutional Court

Commission recommends failure in integrity evaluation for a Central Court of Appeal Judge

Proposal for the pass of the external evaluation for a judge of the Central Court of Appeal

Annual Report of the Judicial Vetting Commission: progress, challenges, and perspectives

Evaluation completed for two more judges of the Central Court of Appeal

New candidates submitted for evaluation

OFFICIAL STATEMENT

Evaluation completed for a candidate to the Supreme Court and a judge from the Central Court of Appeal

The importance of hearings in the integrity evaluation of judges

Update regarding a rescheduled hearing

Notification of scheduled hearing for Central Appellate Court judge Mihail Diaconu

Two new evaluation reports on judges of the Central Court of Appeal submitted to the SCM

Withdrawal from the vetting process: Legal implications and consequences

First evaluation reports on the integrity of judges from the Central Court of Appeal submitted to SCM

Evaluation procedure for SCJ candidate Dumitru Mardari, ceased

How did the hearings of the Central Court of Appeal judges unfold and how long did the longest hearing last?