Commission challenges SCM decision concerning Judge Ion Bulhac before the SCJ

The Judicial Vetting Commission today filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ) against the decision of the Superior Council of Magistracy (SCM) of 4 August 2026 rejecting the Commission’s re-evaluation report concerning Judge Ion Bulhac of the Central Court of Appeal.

Following the re-evaluation, Panel A maintained its initial conclusion, finding that Judge Bulhac did not meet the ethical integrity criteria and proposing that he failed the external evaluation. On 4 August 2026, the SCM rejected the re-evaluation report. In summary, the SCM found that the ethical deficiencies identified by the Commission in the re-evaluation report did not reach the required level of gravity or that other circumstances, such as the lack of a rapporteur or limited judicial experience at court of appeal level, diminished the judge's responsibility.

The Commission received the SCM’s reasoned decision on 12 August 2026. After examining the grounds set out in this decision, it decided to exercise its statutory right to challenge it before the SCJ, mainly because the SCM departed from its previous practice and did not carry out a cumulative assessment of the subject's 16 decisions related to 6 ECHR cases.

Under the law, SCJ is required to examine the appeal within 30 days of its filing.

Decision in the case of Judge Veronica Cupcea

The Commission also examined the SCM’s decision of 4 August 2026 rejecting the re-evaluation report concerning Judge Veronica Cupcea, Acting President of the Orhei District Court. In this decision the SCM replaced the 2020 amount of urban Consumption Expenditures for Population (CEP) with the rural one. This resulted in a total value of inexplicable wealth below the threshold provided for in the law.

After reviewing the reasoning set out in the SCM’s decision, the Commission decided not to challenge the decision before the SCJ, having found insufficient legal grounds to pursue an appeal.

‍