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

On August 6, 2025, the Judicial Vetting Commission conducted two public hearings as part of the extraordinary external evaluation process. The hearings concerned the following judges:

• Vitalie Budeci, candidate for the position of judge at the Court of Appeal Centre (2:00 PM);
• Serghei Pilipenco, judge at the Court of Appeal (4:00 PM).

Hearing of judge Vitalie Budeci

During the hearing, the evaluation panel examined issues related to financial integrity, focusing on concerns about potential unjustified assets for the years 2013, 2018, and 2019. Commission members raised questions about a possible violation of the legal framework on asset declaration, including:

• Omission of alleged donations from family members;
• Income from international transfers;
• Unjustified cash savings.

Regarding ethical integrity, the Commission also sought clarification on the judge’s involvement in a case that resulted in a violation of rights guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Hearing of judge Serghei Pilipenco

The hearing for the judge from the Court of Appeal South also focused on financial integrity, investigating possible unexplained wealth during the years 2012, 2013, 2020, and 2023. The evaluation panel’s questions concerned:

• Vacation-related expenses;
• Use and maintenance of a vehicle;
• Inflow and outflow of funds from the judge’s accounts during various periods under review.

Additional matters discussed included:

• Declaration of residence at two properties in Cahul city;
• Purchase of an apartment registered in the judge’s brother’s name;
• An unidentified source of cash deposited in savings accounts in 2020.

Transparency and next steps

Full video recordings of the hearings will be made available within three days on the Commission’s official website www.vettingmd.eu and its YouTube channel, in both Romanian and English.

Subsequently, the Commission will draft an individual evaluation report for each magistrate, including a recommendation for confirmation or rejection. These reports will be submitted to the Superior Council of Magistracy, which will make the final decision.

‍