Cabinetul din umbră | Justice reform and the external evaluation of judges' integrity in Moldova

The evaluation process of judges from the Courts of Appeal will be completed by December 31st of this year, while the process at the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ) may take longer, as there is no legally established deadline and it is still unclear how many candidates will be evaluated.

This statement was made by Andrei Bivol, Vice President of the Judges Evaluation Commission, during the Cabinetul din umbră show on Jurnal TV.

When asked why the evaluation is progressing slowly and how much longer it will take, Andrei Bivol clarified that he can only comment on the evaluation of judges, and that process is being carried out in accordance with the law.

"In just a few days, the Commission will mark two years since it was established by Parliament. During this period, 180 individuals have been notified by the Commission for evaluation. Of these, 58 chose to resign or withdraw from competitions, and the evaluation process for them was discontinued. The Commission has completed 72 evaluations, each with reports and decisions. In 41 cases, the candidates passed the evaluation, while 31 did not. At the moment, we have 46 evaluations in progress. Of the total number of completed evaluations, the pass rate was 31%, and the failure rate was 69%," stated the Vice President of the Commission.

He also pointed out that there is a legal deadline for the evaluation of judges from the Courts of Appeal — December 31, 2025.
“We are confident that we will complete the evaluation of all sitting judges in the coming months. The last group includes 14 former and current presidents of judicial courts, and we estimate that we will finalize those reports in the fall of this year,” added Andrei Bivol.

When asked what the main reason is that most judges fail the evaluation, Willem Brouwer, international member of the Commission, stated:

“Clearly, it’s about money. Finances are at the core of the investigations we conduct. Many candidates who fail the vetting process spend significantly more money than they could ever have legally earned as judges. If someone spends more than they earn, they must provide explanations — and those must be backed by evidence. This is the main reason many are not promoted.”

‍

‍