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

The Judicial Vetting Commission has completed the evaluation procedure of Judge Oxana Mironov from the Court of Appeal North and submitted its report to the Superior Council of Magistracy (SCM), recommending that the judge not pass the external integrity evaluation.

According to the legal procedure, the SCM is to review the Commission’s report and adopt a decision on whether to accept or reject the recommendation of non-promotion. Until a final decision is adopted, the outcome of the evaluation is published on the Commission’s website, in the “Subjects” section. The full report will be made public within three days after the expiration of the legal timeframe for appealing the SCM’s decision or, where applicable, following a final ruling by the Supreme Court of Justice in the event of an appeal.

Context

Judge Mironov’s evaluation was conducted pursuant to Law No. 252/2023 on the evaluation of judges and prosecutors and was randomly assigned to Panel B of the Commission, composed of members Scott Bales, Willem Brower, and Iurie Gațcan. The Commission invited Judge Oxana Mironov to a public hearing in June to clarify concerns regarding financial and ethical integrity. During the hearing, the panel members asked the judge questions concerning potentially unexplained assets accumulated between 2012 and 2023, as well as the circumstances of a possible conflict of interest.

General statistics on the external evaluation of judges

Since the beginning of its activity, the Judicial Vetting Commission has received 180 cases for evaluation, based on the three laws governing the external evaluation process. Of these, 59 individuals resigned or withdrew from competitions, and 4 had previously passed the pre-vetting evaluation. To date, the Commission has completed 90 evaluations, while another 27 are currently in progress.

‍