Moldova’s judicial system has long struggled with public distrust. Bivol & Asociatii Managing Partner Andrei Bivol and Dolea & Co Managing Partner Sorin Dolea discuss the current state of Moldova’s judiciary, the vetting process, and ongoing challenges.
A System Under Scrutiny
“Moldova’s judiciary is undergoing a gradual but meaningful transformation, moving toward improvement after years of stagnation and deep-rooted corruption,” Dolea explains. “Historically, the system was heavily influenced by political interests. In recent years, however, the judicial reform has become a national priority. Public trust in Moldova’s judiciary remains low, though it is showing slow signs of improvement. Surveys indicate that less than 30% of citizens trust the judicial system, largely because they believe outcomes are often driven by money or connections rather than law.”
These reforms, although promising, still face skepticism from the public. “Recent reform efforts, such as vetting and anti-corruption initiatives, have begun to shift perceptions, especially among younger citizens and those in urban areas,” Dolea adds. “However, many remain cautious. Tangible outcomes, like high-level prosecutions or improvements in everyday legal proceedings, are still lacking. Until people see real, consistent accountability, trust will remain fragile and easily undermined if reforms stall or are perceived as superficial.”
Bivol agrees, saying that “anticorruption and judicial reform have dominated Moldova’s political agenda for more than a decade. Since 2021, the country has embarked on an ambitious judicial reform centered on the extraordinary external evaluation of the financial and ethical integrity of key judicial and prosecutorial positions. For decades, the Moldovan judiciary struggled to uphold citizens’ rights and issued controversial rulings in politically sensitive cases – from annulled elections to questionable acquittals and politically motivated prosecutions. This history of inconsistency and perceived corruption has kept public confidence in the justice system at around 20% or below.”
Bivol emphasizes that there have been signs of gradual improvement. “Courts have ruled more decisively in political corruption cases and acted efficiently to combat electoral fraud in the most recent elections,” he notes. “Several high-profile cases involving former senior politicians are now pending, and the way these proceedings are handled will likely determine the next phase of public trust in the judiciary.”
Vetting the System
A central pillar of Moldova’s judicial reform has been the vetting process, which aims to restore integrity and professionalism. “With support from the European Union and other international partners, Moldova has launched a reform agenda focused on vetting judges and prosecutors for integrity and professionalism,” Dolea notes. “While policy and structural reforms are underway, implementation has been uneven. Despite various obstacles, the overall trajectory is positive, albeit slow and fragile.”
“To date, all members of the Supreme Council of Magistracy and the Supreme Council of Prosecutors, as well as judges of the Supreme Court of Justice and appellate courts, have been vetted,” Bivol adds. “Out of 181 subjects evaluated so far, only 59 (32.6%) passed and remain in office. Although this has temporarily created a shortage of judges, it has significantly raised integrity standards and is expected to strengthen public trust in the system over time.”
Short on Staff, Big Challenges
While vetting addresses integrity, the judiciary still faces structural and operational challenges. “The judiciary, like the country as a whole, faces demographic and staffing challenges,” Bivol points out. “Many courts operate with shortages of judges, clerks, and assistants, resulting in longer examination times and growing frustration among litigants. District courts tend to function more smoothly, while the appellate courts and the Supreme Court of Justice are most affected by understaffing. The Supreme Council of Magistracy has temporarily seconded judges from lower courts to cover open positions, and the situation should gradually stabilize once the vetting process concludes and all vacancies are filled.”
In addition to staffing, modernization is another area of progress. “Moldova’s judiciary is uneven, with some institutions making progress, while others are lagging,” Dolea adds. “An area of modest improvement is digitalization. Some courts now publish decisions online and allow users to track case progress – steps that enhance transparency and access.” However, he says, many problems persist, especially in lower courts, “which struggle with delays and poor legal reasoning. Oversight bodies like the Superior Council of Magistracy and the Superior Council of Prosecutors have been restructured, but questions remain about their independence and effectiveness. The overall picture is one of partial progress within a still-vulnerable system.”
The Game-Changer: EU Pressure
The major catalyst toward reform comes from Moldova’s EU aspirations. “EU integration has been the most powerful force driving Moldova’s judicial reform,” Dolea notes. “Since gaining EU candidate status in 2022 and beginning accession talks in 2023, the government has faced stronger pressure to meet rule of law benchmarks, promote judicial independence, and combat corruption.” Much of the reform agenda – “including the unprecedented vetting process – has been shaped with EU guidance and support,” he adds. “The EU has also provided technical and financial assistance, helping to train legal professionals and modernize court infrastructure. However, the demands of alignment often exceed Moldova’s institutional capacity, leading to delays or shallow compliance.”
“Moldova’s opening of accession negotiations in 2024 was largely conditional on progress in this area – six of the nine key EU benchmarks relate directly to judicial reform,” Bivol stresses. “Continued EU support, including financing under the EUR 1.9 billion Growth Plan, also depends on tangible progress in strengthening the independence and integrity of the justice system. The EU-Moldova bilateral screening has finished recently, and the first cluster of upcoming EU accession negotiations relates to justice, rule of law, and democratic institutions. Therefore, the justice reform will continue to be a priority for the following years.”
Building Trust for the Long Haul
Looking forward, completing reforms and building public confidence remain the top priorities. To rebuild trust, “Moldova must complete the vetting process fairly and transparently. Judicial independence must be strengthened by insulating appointment bodies from political interference,” Dolea notes. “Legal education and professional training also need reform to cultivate a new generation of ethical, competent legal professionals. Finally, courts must improve transparency by publishing clear, reasoned decisions that citizens can access and understand. Only through these steps can public confidence in the judiciary be restored.”
“Several priorities could strengthen confidence in the judiciary,” Bivol agrees. The steps include “completion of the vetting process, filling all judicial vacancies to ensure adequate staffing, increasing judges’ remuneration while reinforcing their financial and functional independence, digitalization of court processes, adjusting legislation to reduce caseloads in favor of alternative dispute resolution, and improving working conditions, judicial reasoning, and written decisions.”
This article was originally published in Issue 12.9 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.
