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

Today, as part of the external evaluation process, the Judicial Vetting Commission conducted hearings with the participation of judge Andrei Mocanu, Acting Vice President of the Căușeni District Court, and judge Ana Panov of the Central Court of Appeal.

Regarding judge Andrei Mocanu, the Commission found no concerns related to financial or ethical integrity. He had been previously informed, through the hearing notice, that no such concerns had been identified. During the hearing, judge Mocanu reconfirmed the accuracy of the information provided to the Commission throughout the evaluation process and stated in his closing remarks: “As a judge with more than ten years of experience, I hope that once the vetting exercise is completed, both among magistrates and citizens, confidence in the act of justice will increase.”

Judge Ana Panov was heard again by Panel B of the Commission after the Superior Council of Magistracy (SCM) ordered the reevaluation of her case. During the hearing, panel members asked questions concerning integrity issues related to possible breaches of professional ethics, including in the context of court rulings that resulted in convictions of the Republic of Moldova by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). They also discussed matters related to compliance with the asset and interest declaration regime.

Judge Ion Pâcaleu, Acting President of the Bălți District Court, was also invited to a hearing today but chose not to attend, exercising his legal right to do so. In his case, the Commission found no integrity concerns during the evaluation period, which covers the last 12 years.

For all three magistrates, the Commission will approve evaluation reports within one month of the hearings. The reports will then be submitted to the SCM for review and final decisions

Tomorrow, the Commission will conduct a new hearing with judge Silvia Cecan of the Central Court of Appeal, as part of the reevaluation procedure ordered by the SCM following the rejection of the Commission’s initial report, which had proposed her non-promotion in the external evaluation process.

‍