Moldova
Basic Facts about the Country
Membership of the Council of Europe
13 July 1995
Entry into force of the European Convention on Human Rights
12 September 1997
Basic Facts about the Judiciary
Budget per inhabitant
Overall number of judges
Number of professional judges per 100,000 inhabitants
14.88
Judicial Governance
Type of governance system
Superior Council of Magistracy
A. Role and mission
The Superior Council of Magistracy (SCM) is an independent body responsible for managing and overseeing the judicial system in Moldova. It safeguards the independence of the judiciary and ensures the fair functioning of the courts through self-governance.
B. Composition and appointment
The Council has 12 members, elected for 4 years:
- 6 judges elected by the General Assembly of Judges (4 from first-level courts, 1 from courts of appeal, 1 from the Supreme Court);
- 6 professionals with legal or relevant expertise, high integrity, and no political or institutional affiliation, selected transparently by Parliament after a public competition.
C. Specialized bodies
Within the SCM function: the board for judge selection and evaluation, the disciplinary board, the judicial inspection o
Superior Council of Prosecutors (Consiliul Superior al Procurorilor)
A. Role and mission
The Superior Council of Prosecutors (SCP) is the autonomous body responsible for ensuring the independence and impartiality of public prosecutors in the Republic of Moldova. Its core mission is to safeguard prosecutorial self-governance, free from political or institutional influence, and to promote integrity, professionalism, and accountability in the prosecutorial system. The SCP plays a crucial role in upholding the rule of law by overseeing the structure and functioning of the prosecution service.
B. Composition and appointment
The SCP is composed of 13 members. Among them, four are ex officio members: the President of the Superior Council of Magistracy, the Minister of Justice, the Ombudsman, and the Prosecutor General.
Five members are elected by the General Assembly of Prosecutors through secret, direct vote: one from the General Prosecutor’s Office and four from territorial and specialized prosecutor’s offices.
The remaining four members are appointed from civil society, following a public competition, by the President of the Republic, Parliament, Government, and the Academy of Sciences, respectively. All members are required to demonstrate a high level of professional
General Assembly of Prosecutors (Adunarea Generală a procurorilor)
A. Role and mission
The General Assembly of Prosecutors is the representative body composed of all active prosecutors in the Republic of Moldova. It serves as a key forum for ensuring transparency, accountability, and participation in the decision-making processes of the prosecutorial system. Convened annually, the Assembly plays a vital role in the self-governance of the prosecution service by electing representatives and setting ethical and strategic guidelines.
B. Composition and convening
The General Assembly consists exclusively of prosecutors serving at all levels of the prosecution system. It is convened once a year by the Superior Council of Prosecutors, but may also address urgent matters within its scope if necessary. The Assembly operates on the principles of collective deliberation, professional integrity, and democratic legitimacy within the prosecutorial system.
Distribution of Responsibility
The Superior Council of Magistracy (SCM) holds a central role in ensuring the integrity, efficiency, and independence of the judiciary in Moldova.
It oversees judicial careers by proposing appointments and promotions to the President, transferring or dismissing judges, appointing court leadership, and approving evaluation regulations. The SCM also organizes judicial competitions, administers oaths, and appoints members to selection boards.
In the field of training, it guides judicial education by approving strategies and curricula, nominating judges to the Council of the National Institute of Justice, and facilitating participation in professional development programs. It also reviews admission procedures and evaluates appeals on selection decisions.
Regarding ethics and discipline, the SCM handles complaints, reviews disciplinary board decisions, and can dismiss judges or court leaders based on misconduct findings.
Administratively, it reviews resource reports from the Ministry of Justice, approves random case assignment rules, manages court budgets, and submits annual reports to the President and Parliament.
The SCM may exercise other legal powers as needed. It may also submit constitutional review requests to the Constitutional Court regarding legislation affecting the judiciary. It adopts normative acts to implement judicial governance laws and maintains personal records of all judges.
The Superior Council of Prosecutors carries out a wide range of essential duties related to the management of prosecutorial careers and institutional governance. Its core competencies include:
- Career management: Oversees the appointment, promotion, transfer, suspension, and disciplinary measures applicable to prosecutors;
- Regulatory role: Develops and approves internal rules governing its own activity, the functioning of its specialized boards, and the procedures for selecting and evaluating prosecutors;
- Strategic responsibilities: Participates in drafting the budget and strategic development plans for the Prosecution Service and gives its opinion on annual priorities proposed by the Prosecutor General;
- Selection and training: Organizes competitions for key positions, including the Prosecutor General, and for board members from civil society. It approves training strategies and monitors the implementation of initial and continuous education programs at the National Institute of Justice;
- Oversight and ethics: Examines appeals against decisions taken by its boards, approves the Code of Ethics for Prosecutors, and addresses petitions from citizens and prosecutors;
- Institutional coordination: Takes part in the swearing-in of prosecutors and designates representatives to relevant national bodies, such as the Council of the National Institute of Justice.
The General Assembly of Prosecutors is entrusted with several important responsibilities:
- Elections: Elects members and alternates of the Superior Council of Prosecutors (SCP) and of its specialized boards, from among active prosecutors;
- Oversight and accountability: Hears and discusses the activity report of the Prosecutor General, as well as the annual report of the SCP presented by its President;
- Strategic priorities: Debates and provides feedback on the priorities of the prosecution service for the upcoming year, which are proposed by the Prosecutor General in consultation with the SCP;
- Ethical standards: Adopts and amends the Prosecutors’ Code of Ethics, which is subsequently published on the official website of the SCP to ensure public access and transparency;
- Regulatory powers: Approves and modifies its own Rules of Procedure;
- Other competencies: Considers and decides on any other matters related to the functioning and development of the Prosecution Service.
Challenges
Corruption is one of the biggest problems in the Republic of Moldova. Many people believe the justice system is corrupt and protects the interests of certain groups. Judges and prosecutors have sometimes used their positions for personal or political gain. This has created a culture of impunity, where those who break the law are not held accountable.
Most Moldovan citizens do not trust the justice system. Many believe that court decisions are unfair, slow, and influenced by politics. As a result, people often avoid going to court or feel that justice is not accessible to them.
The same types of cases are often judged differently by different courts. This lack of consistency creates confusion and undermines legal certainty. The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly criticized Moldova for this issue.
Even though reforms have been passed, many judges and prosecutors resist them. There is also a lack of political will to fully support changes. Some institutions, like the Superior Council of Magistracy (SCM), which should defend the independence of judges, have instead been used to control them.
The system for selecting and promoting judges and prosecutors is not always fair. Often, decisions are based on connections or influence, not merit. This leads to unqualified or biased individuals being appointed to key roles.
Laws are often changed quickly, without enough consultation or long-term vision. As a result, the legal framework becomes unstable and hard to follow, both for professionals and for the public
People in rural areas often face difficulties accessing legal aid or qualified legal professionals. The justice system is also still influenced by old practices from the Soviet era, where prosecutors had more power than judges.
Positive Developments & Achievements
In 2021, the Moldovan Parliament adopted a national strategy to improve the justice system: “The national strategy on ensuring the independence and integrity of the justice sector for the years 2022–2025”3. The plan includes several key goals:
Ensure judicial independence and integrity: The reform aims to improve how judges and prosecutors are selected and promoted, making sure the process is fair, transparent, and based on merit. The role of the Constitutional Court will also be strengthened. New disciplinary mechanisms are being developed to deal with misconduct among judges and prosecutors. The goal is to ensure they act professionally and ethically at all times.
Improve the quality of justice: Efforts are being made to harmonize court decisions and ensure that similar cases are judged in the same way. This will help build a more predictable and reliable justice system.
Rebuild public trust: Public education campaigns will be launched to explain how the justice system works and what citizens’ rights are. The goal is to make the system more transparent and approachable.
Modernize judicial administration:Training and digital tools will be introduced to improve how courts function, reduce delays, and support professionals in their daily work.
The Vetting Process: a key step in the judicial reform
As part of this national strategy, the government decided to conduct an extraordinary vetting exercise of judges and prosecutors, to improve the quality, professionalism and integrity of the justice sector4.
After consultation with international partners, such as the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe, the Moldovan government mapped out a concept to conduct this vetting, starting with the self-governing bodies of the Moldovan justice sector: the Superior Council of the Magistracy (SCM) and the Superior Council of Prosecution (SCP).
The law foresees an assessment of ethical and financial integrity first of the members of the SCM and SCP and second it will comprise the vetting of members of the Supreme Court of Justice, justice of the courts of appeal and candidates for leadership positions in courts of first instance.
This action is funded by the European Union. The vetting of prosecutors has been taken up in parallel by a US-funded action. After USAID withdrawal, efforts are made so that the process receives EU support.
The main purpose for which the Vetting Commission assessed current and prospective judges was to combat corruption within the judiciary. The results have been significant. This rigorous process has led to the resignation of 21 judges from the Chișinău Court of Appeal in May 2024, as they sought to avoid scrutiny. On 27 November 2024, another 15 judges (including two acting vice presidents) from Moldova’s appellate courts have submitted their resignations, opting to resign ahead of their evaluation. This pattern echoes previous waves of resignations. When the vetting process was announced at the Chișinău Court of Appeals, 50% of the judges (21 out of 40) resigned. The situation was even more pronounced at the Supreme Court, where 88% (22 out of 25) stepped down. This trend highlights a broader issue: since the vetting began, approximately 70% of judges across Moldova have opted to resign instead of undergoing evaluation. These resignations show how widespread the issues are—but they also mark a chance for a fresh start. However, the high number of resignations has created another challenge: filling the many vacant positions in the courts. The SCM has been forced to work quickly and carefully to appoint new judges and ensure that cases are not delayed, and this is still an ongoing process.
The EU Commission’s 2024 Enlargement Report acknowledged Moldova’s progress in judicial reforms but highlighted the need for sustained efforts5.
Judicial reform to enhance court efficiency
On July 31, 2024, the Moldovan Parliament voted on a legislative project6 aimed at addressing shortcomings in the judicial system. The bill, drafted by the Ministry of Justice, became law no. 224/20247 which allows courts to request advisory opinions from the Supreme Court of Justice for criminal cases—a right previously limited to civil procedures. These opinions must be issued within three months and will suspend pleadings during that time. The legislation also includes amendments to clarify when such opinions should be sought based on criteria like novelty and difficulty in applying legal norms. Additionally, it allows witness testimony via video conferencing for individuals abroad or with mobility issues during criminal investigations. Other provisions address personal guarantees, bail increases, and measures to expedite case examination by the Supreme Court of Justice.
Judicial map reorganization
In a significant judicial reform, Parliament approved the reorganization of Moldova’s judicial map on May 30, 20248. This reform includes the merger of several district courts and the reassignment of others, impacting locations such as Bălți, Cimișlia, and Edineț. The appeal courts will be reorganized into Central, Northern, and Southern Appeal Courts, with the Southern Court having two locations. The judicial map revision considers several factors, including the creation of sufficiently large courts to form complete panels and specialize judges, case volume, and costs. The number of courts is reduced from 15 to 14.
It is important to note that the new law does not aim to decrease or increase the number of judges or court staff. Judges and employees at redistributed locations will continue their work at their current posts, with the only change being administrative, as they will be considered part of different courts.
The reform, estimated to cost over 100 million Euros (mostly for the construction of the new merged courthouses), aims to streamline judicial processes and improve access to justice
Chisinau Parliament amends civil procedure code to implement Hague Convention
The Parliament of Moldova has passed Law 30/15.02.20249, amending the Civil Procedure Code to incorporate provisions from the Hague Convention of June 30, 2005. This international agreement governs the recognition and enforcement of exclusive choice of court agreements, prompting a review of Moldova’s procedural laws to establish jurisdictional rules for cases involving foreign elements.
The amendments address the recognition and enforcement of foreign judicial decisions, ensuring consistent application of foreign civil and commercial court rulings in Moldova. This will provide greater predictability and legal certainty for parties involved in international commercial transactions. Specifically, the modifications focus on chapters concerning the jurisdiction of Moldovan courts in cases with foreign elements and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards. These changes aim to enhance the efficiency and reliability of forum selection agreements, benefiting international commercial operations.
Rankings and Surveys
Expert Recommendations
The Commission’s recommendations from last year were partially implemented and
therefore remain valid. In the coming year, Moldova should in particular:
- finalise the vetting and appointment of judges especially the Supreme Court of Justice,
as well as specialised bodies of the Superior Council of Magistracy, the Courts of appeal,
and continue vetting prosecutors from prosecutorial institutions including specialised
prosecutors’ offices; - improve the functioning of the National Institute of Justice by implementing all the
outstanding 2022 TAIEX recommendations, develop human resource strategies for the
judiciary and prosecution services, including a comprehensive salary reform, and
implement the judicial and prosecutorial maps; - introduce a randomised case allocation system for prosecutors based on strict and
objective criteria; - significantly improve clearance rates and disposition time in courts.
2025 Enlargement Package - Moldova Report
The Venice Commission praised the draft law for aligning well with international standards and best practices. In particular, the Commission welcomed the effort to simplify and consolidate legal norms, making the Court’s legal basis clearer and more coherent. The use of gender-sensitive language in the draft was also noted positively.
However, the Commission also issued several recommendations to further improve the draft law:
- The law should clarify that the constitutionality of international treaties must be reviewed before ratification.
- The oath for Constitutional Court judges should be taken before the full bench (Plenum) of the Court, with a clear deadline for its administration.
- The law should include transparent procedures for nominating judges and provide mechanisms to ensure the Court’s operational stability, including clear rules for ending a judge’s term.
- If a judge is caught in the act of a crime (flagrante delicto), the Plenum should have the power to approve or cancel the arrest. If the arrest is canceled, the judge must be released immediately.
- The law should clearly outline how disciplinary sanctions (other than dismissal) are decided, including voting rules and procedural safeguards. It should also clarify overlapping articles about dismissing judges as a disciplinary measure.
- Article 30(4) should not rely only on internal Court regulations but should clearly define what falls under the law and what under internal rules.
- The Court should have some flexibility to accept cases that raise previously judged issues, if new circumstances justify a fresh review.
Additional recommendations include:
- Adding the principle of constitutionality to Article 2;
- Keeping the title “judicial counsellor” rather than changing it to “assistant judge”;
- Ensuring that all Court decisions are published promptly on its official website, and ideally also in the Official Monitor.
The Commission concluded that the draft is a solid step toward strengthening constitutional justice in Moldova, with further improvements recommended to enhance legal clarity, judicial independence, and rights protection.
n the coming year, Moldova should, in particular:
- continue making progress on the vetting process and on appointing top judges and prosecutors in line with European standards, especially the remaining member of the Superior Council of Magistracy and the Supreme Court of Justice, and the members of the four specialised bodies of the Superior Councils of Magistracy and of Prosecutors;
- improve the functioning of the National Institute of Justice by implementing all the outstanding 2022 TAIEX recommendations, develop human resource strategies for the judiciary and prosecution services and pursue implementation of the judicial map;
- Improve significantly clearance rates and disposition time in the courts.
GRECO recommended that appropriate measures be taken to ensure that the composition and operation of the Superior Council of Prosecutors be subject to appropriate guarantees of objectivity, impartiality and transparency, including by abolishing the ex officio participation of the Minister of Justice and the President of the Superior Council of Magistracy. [partly implemented]
Compliance with European Courts' Judgements
Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)
State Performance
Number and % of rulings fully complied with
Number and % of rulings partly complied with
Number and % of rulings not complied with
Number and % of rulings where impossible to judge compliance
Number and % of rulings pending for 2 or more years
European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)
State Performance
Problematic
Implementation record
46
35 %
102
Judgements with pending implementation
Sarban v. Moldova
This case concerned violations of the rights to liberty and security (Art. 5 ECHR) including lack of sufficient reasons in court decisions ordering detention and failure to ensure prompt examination of the lawfulness of detention.
The applicant worked as the secretary of the Chişinău Municipal Council. In 2004, the Prosecutor General initiated proceedings against him for alleged abuse of power. The applicant was placed in detention several times. The first time, the detention was partly quashed by the Court of Appeal. The second time, the applicant appealed against the warrant for his detention and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal without relying on new arguments. The applicant’s detention was prolonged several times, and the court did not promptly and properly respond to the applicant’s habeas corpus requests.
Before the ECtHR, the applicant complained inter alia of breaches of Art. 5(3) ECHR and 5(4). The Court found that the court had not given sufficient reasons in ordering and prolonging the applicant’s detention and thus there had been a violation of Art. 5(3). It further held that the court did not respond timely to the habeas corpus request, which constituted a violation of Art. 5(4).
The judgment’s implementation is under ongoing supervision.
3456/05
04-01-2006
Levinta v. Moldova
This case is about ill-treatment in police custody and ineffective investigations into these matters.
In 2000, the applicants were arrested in Russia following a request by Moldovan authorities because they were suspected of membership in a criminal organization and of murder and attempted murder. They were transferred to the Republic of Moldova and detained there. The applicants alleged that during their detention they were mistreated including mistreatment with the aim to extract confessions. The applicants lodged several requests and complaints with the Prosecutor General’s office but received no reply. The Court of Appeal in 2002 found the applicants guilty of different criminal acts, including murder and attempted murder. According to the applicants, the judgment was based on evidence obtained through violent and unlawful means. The Supreme Court dismissed the applicants’ appeal.
Before the ECtHR, the applicants complained under Art. 3 ECHR of ill-treatment and ineffective investigations and under Art. 6 ECHR of their arbitrary conviction. The Court found that the applicants were subjected to torture and that their complaints of ill-treatment were not properly investigated. This constituted a breach of Art. 3. Additionally, the fact that the Moldovan courts relied on evidence obtained as a result of torture rendered the trial unfair, thus constituting a violation of Art. 6(1) ECHR.
While the Republic of Moldova has made progress in fighting ill-treatment by police the Committee of Ministers considers that the ECtHR’s judgment has not been fully implemented yet.
17332/03
16-03-2009
V.I. v. The Republic of Moldova
This case concerns the applicant’s involuntary placement in a psychiatric hospital and alleged misconduct by the medical staff and other patients there as well as ineffective investigations into the allegations.
The applicant has a mild intellectual disability and in June 2014, public authorities placed him in a psychiatric hospital. At the time, the mayor of Ciutești was his guardian and legal representative. When his treatment was completed, the authorities did not respond to the hospital’s requests to take care of the applicant. So, the applicant had to stay in the hospital until, in November, the applicant’s cousin became his guardian and cared for him. The applicant stated that he was placed in the hospital against his will and that the conditions of the hospital were poor and complained about misconduct by the staff and other patients.
In January 2015, a lawyer lodged a complaint on behalf of the applicant’s guardian. Following this complaint, a criminal investigation was launched and the Ciutești mayor was charged with negligence. In June 2016, the District Court acquitted the mayor. The judgment was appealed by the applicant and the prosecutor. The Court of Appeal upheld the appeals, but they were quashed by the Supreme Court of Justice in January 2018 on grounds of insufficient evidence. The first instance acquittal was reinstated. Investigations into the alleged mistreatment at the hospital were discontinued, which the applicant appealed unsuccessfully.
Before the ECtHR, the applicant argued inter alia that Art. 3 ECHR in its procedural limb was violated due to the ineffective investigations into the alleged mistreatment. The Court unanimously agreed with him.
The judgment has not been fully implemented yet.
38963/18
26-06-2024
Further Readings
Acknowledgements
Konrad Adenauer Stiftung Rule of Law Programme South East Europe
The data and analysis for this country were contributed by the experts of the Rule of Law Programme South East Europe of the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung