Evaluation Panels for judges reconfigured

The Judicial Vetting Commission has revised the composition of Evaluation Panels E, F, and G to enable a proportional distribution of work among all Commission members. This decision comes in the context of circumstances including an increased number of individuals notified for evaluation.

Accordingly, Panels have been reconfigured as follows:

Panel E:

Andrei Bivol – panel chair, national member
Lavly Perling – international member
Willem Brouwer – international member

Panel F:

Marcel van de Wetering – panel chair, international member
Lilian Enciu – national member
Iurie Gațcan – national member

Panel G:

Willem Brouwer – panel chair, international member
Gerrit Sprenger – international member
Iulian Rusu – national member

The Commission has recently notified 16 new subjects, and the number of ongoing evaluations continues to grow. Under these circumstances, the reconfiguration of panels became necessary to ensure a proportional allocation of evaluations and efficient management of the workload.

The composition of Panels A, B, C, D remains unchanged. This is essential to maintain continuity in any re-evaluation procedures that may be mandated by the Superior Council of Magistracy or the Supreme Court of Justice.

Today, the 13 judges from the Chișinău Court who have served in the specialized anti-corruption panels since 1 January 2017 and are currently undergoing evaluation were informed of the panel assigned to conduct each judge’s evaluation.

‍

Evaluation Panels for judges reconfigured

Subscribe for notifications.

Other press releases

Recommendation to pass the evaluation for SCJ candidates Elena Croitor and Oxana Parfeni

13 of 16 anti-corruption judges continue the external evaluation

Elena Croitor and Oxana Parfeni – hearings concluded with no integrity concerns

Two candidates for the position of Supreme Court Judge invited to hearings on 26 February

Specialized anti-corruption panel judges enter evaluation phase

Vetting Commission recommends that Judge Vasile Nogai not pass the evaluation

Judge Corneliu Guzun is to be heard by the Vetting Commission

The Commission publishes the evaluation report concerning Grigore Dașchevici following the final decision of the Supreme Court

Judge Mihail Bușuleac did not pass the evaluation by the Judicial Vetting Commission

Radu Jigău withdraws from the competition for the position of Supreme Court judge

Evaluation of Judge Ion Rusu concluded with recommendation for promotion by the Vetting Commission

Status of the external evaluation of judges at the end of 2025

Evaluation completed for Judge Veronica Cupcea, Acting President of the Orhei District Court

All reevaluations at the Central Court of Appeal finalized – pending review by the SCM

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

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