Moldovan Minister of Justice Fadei Nagachevsky was surprised that the Constitutional Court “blocked the reform of justice”, giving a partially negative response to the draft constitutional amendments previously approved by the Venice Commission. According to the official, the CC’s arguments were unconvincing, and the references to the fact that the government had not published the draft of this document in the Official Monitor and had made additional amendments after it had been approved in December 2020 were invalid.
Nagachevsky emphasized that “the Constitutional Court could at any time apply to the government for confirmation”.
“They didn’t do it, and I consider it suspicious,” the minister said, noting the fact that the court announced its verdict only three months after the appeal, “exactly in the pre-election period.
The Head of the Ministry of Justice stressed that the Constitutional Court gave a negative opinion exactly on the amendments proposed by the Venice Commission to strengthen the position of the Supreme Council of Magistracy.
“By blocking this norm, we have blocked in principle the agreement of Moldova with the Venice Commission and the European Union. I would like to note that the bill that was sent to the CC has been agreed before commas with the Venice Commission,” Nagachi said, promising to contact the CC and consult with external partners on how to proceed.
He recalled that the justice reform is a mandatory condition for financing the Republic of Moldova by the European Union and the International Monetary Fund.
“I hope that through this decision we will not get back into the grey zone when all external partners turn their backs on Moldova. I hope that the Constitutional Court will review its opinion in order to finally complete the justice reform,” concluded Fadey Nagachevsky.
EADaily reported that on September 22, the Constitutional Court of Moldova rejected the draft amendments proposed by the government to the main law of the country. Their goal was to strengthen the judicial power. The formal reason for this, according to the Constitutional Court Chairman, Domnica Manole, was the violation of several provisions when filing.
We recall that the Cabinet of Ministers’ amendments provides for a change in the status of judges and members of the Supreme Council of Magistracy (SCM). Namely, judges were planned to be appointed immediately until they reach 65 years of age (retirement age), that is, without a five-year probationary period. In addition, judges had to be selected by the Supreme Council of the Judiciary and sent to the president for approval (the president can only once refuse to appoint a judge). In addition, the project provides that the appointment of judges of the Supreme Court of Justice (SJC) will also be approved by the president. Now, this function is performed by the Parliament. Thus, it was supposed that judges of all instances should be appointed in the same way to “reduce the influence of politicians”.