ODIHR Legal Reviews, Assessments and Guidelines

Opinion

• Interim Opinion on the Draft Law on the Reform of the Supreme Court of Justice and the Prosecutor’s Offices of the Republic of Moldova (as of September 2019) (in English) [ 2019/10/16 | en | ] Summary

  Summary: Overall, in light of the existing challenges in Moldova, ODIHR generally welcomes the willingness and efforts undertaken by public authorities to strengthen judicial independence in the country, to address widely acknowledged problems of integrity, corruption, political influence and lack of public trust in the judiciary. However, any judicial reform process should not undermine its independence and should be in compliance with applicable international rule of law and human rights standards and OSCE commitments. ODIHR notes that, even in times of transition, the use of the ordinary judicial accountability structures should always be the starting point and that ad hoc temporary mechanism should be discouraged, except if it is demonstrated that existing bodies are themselves so compromised that they cannot play their role. If the authorities nevertheless decide to proceed with an ad doc temporary re-evaluation mechanism for key judicial office-holders, this should remain wholly exceptional, one time, strictly temporary measure and the Draft Law should be substantially revised in order to ensure that extremely stringent safeguards are in place to limit interferences with judicial independence. Especially, the process should be conducted by entities having all the characteristics of an impartial and independent tribunal, in compliance with basic standards of procedural fairness, and with the possibility for the evaluated judge to challenge the decision before an independent and impartial body, on the basis of both law and procedure.

• Interim Opinion on the Draft Law on the Reform of the Supreme Court of Justice and the Prosecutor’s Offices of the Republic of Moldova (as of September 2019) (in Romanian) [ 2019/10/16 | en | ] Summary

  Sumar: Per ansamblu, Biroul ODIHR pune în general sub semnul întrebării necesitatea de a reglementa printr-o lege specifică combaterea așa-zisei ”activități extremiste”, această reticență datorându-se faptului că este inerent dificil de a elabora o noțiune juridică pentru  conceptul de ”extremism”, precum și unor îngrijorări substanțiale ce țin de aspectul respectării drepturilor omului, condiționate de includerea unor definiții și norme juridice ambigue și atotcuprinzătoare. Dacă totuși este susținută necesitatea adoptării prezentei Legi, este imperativă o revizuire substanțială a acesteia, pentru a se asigura faptul că prevederile Legii sunt în conformitate cu principiul clarității actului normativ. De asemenea, ODIHR concluzionează că multe din măsurile stipulate în prezenta Lege constituie  ingerințe grave în exercitarea dreptului la libertatea de exprimare, libertatea de asociere, la adunare pașnică și libertatea presei și, prin urmare, necesită o revizuire integrală.  

• Joint Opinion on the Prosecution Service of the Republic of Moldova [ 2015/03/23 | en | ]
• Opinion on the Law on the Selection, Performance Evaluation and Career of Judges of Moldova [ 2014/06/13 | en | ]
• Opinion on the Law on the Selection, Performance Evaluation and Career of Judges of Moldova (in Romanian) [ 2014/06/13 | en | ]
• Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Disciplinary Liability of Judges of the Republic of Moldova [ 2014/03/24 | en | ]
• Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Disciplinary Liability of Judges of the Republic of Moldova (in Romanian) [ 2014/03/24 | en | ]
• Opinion on the Draft Law of the Republic of Moldova on the Disciplinary Responsibility of Judges [ 2012/12/14 | en | ]
• Opinion on the Draft Law of the Republic of Moldova on the Disciplinary Responsibility of Judges (in Romanian) [ 2012/12/14 | en | ]