Marti

REFORMA JUSTIIEI

Judectorii propun reformarea justiiei

La 20 mai 2015, n cadrul unei conferine, Centrul pentru Reform n Sistemul Judectoresc (CRSJ) a fcut
public un pachet de modificri legislative, care se refer la 17 aspecte diferite. Cele 17 aspecte vizeaz
organizarea judectoreasc, procedura civil i procedura penal.
Iniiativele privind organizarea judectoreasc presupun reorganizarea CSJ, astfel nct 17 judectori s fie
numii din rndul judectorilor de carier, iar 16 - din mediul academic, al avocailor i al societii civile;
divizarea Curii de Apel Chiinu n dou curi de apel - pentru mun. Chiinu i, respectiv, raionale din
centrul rii; majorarea numrului de inspectori judectori de la 5 la 15 i introducerea personalului care
s-i asiste, precum i selectarea majoritii inspectorilor-judectori (8 din 15) din societatea civil;
investirea CSM cu dreptul de a verifica averile judectorilor i de a-i elibera din funcie n caz c
judectorul nu poate proba legalitatea dobndirii averii; transferul Departamentului de Administrare
Judectoreasc de la Ministerul Justiiei (MJ) la CSM; reglementarea prin lege a posibilitii ncadrrii n
statele de personal ale INJ a formatorilor din UE; crearea n Parlament a unei Comisii permanente pentru
supravegherea executrii hotrrilor judectoreti; introducerea dreptului persoanelor de a sesiza Curtea
Constituional, drept filtru naional nainte de sesizarea Curii Europene a Drepturilor Omului (CtEDO) i
mrirea numrului judectorilor Curii Constituionale de la 6 la 12.
Iniiativele privind procedura civil vizeaz achitarea taxei de stat dup terminarea procesului i nu la
iniierea procesului, cum este n prezent; introducerea unei singure ci de atac n cauzele simple;
instituirea medierii obligatorii n prima instan n cauzele civile; i judecarea n prim instan a pricinilor
privind investiiile strine, de un interes public general, ori de rezonan, de un complet compus dintr-un
judector de carier i doi judectori de onoare. Propunerile de modificare a procedurii penale includ
contestarea sentinelor pronunate pentru infraciuni uoare i mai puin grave cu recurs n curile de apel,
excluznd posibilitatea examinrii acestor cauze de ctre CSJ; aplicarea sanciunilor contravenionale
judectorilor exclusiv de judectori i crearea curilor cu jurai. Autorii iniiativelor de asemenea propun,
att pentru procedura civil, ct i cea penal, stabilirea termenelor de examinare a cauzelor 6 luni
pentru prima instan i trei luni pentru instana de apel.
Dei la 20 mai 2015 a fost anunat o perioad de consultri de 30 de zile, aceasta s-a ncheiat la 18 iunie.
La 18 iunie 2015, 18 organizaii neguvernamentale au prezentat CRSJ-ului opinia comun cu privire la
iniiativele lansate. Semnatarii i-au exprimat surprinderea cu privire graba cu care iniiativele sunt
promovate i cu privire la esena iniiativelor propuse, deoarece majoritatea propunerilor nu sunt
prevzute sau vin n contradicie cu Strategia de Reform a Sectorului Justiiei pentru anii 2011-2016
(SRSJ). Cele 18 ONG-uri au reiterat c, pn la finele anului 2016, Republica Moldova trebuie mai degrab
s depun eforturi pentru implementarea cu succes a SRSJ, dect s se aventureze n promovarea unor
propuneri care nu sunt prevzute de SRSJ, sau chiar prezint pericol pentru sistemul judectoresc.
De asemenea, ONG-urile au fost surprinse de faptul c, dei pachetul legislativ a fost elaborat de ctre
judectori, acesta nu se refer la niciuna din probleme grave care pot fi soluionate fr intervenii
legislative majore, cum ar fi: motivarea insuficient a hotrrilor judectoreti, repartizarea aleatorie
defectuoas a dosarelor, nregistrarea audio a edinelor de judecat, lipsa transparenei la numirea
judectorilor, promovarea la instanele superioare a judectorilor evaluai cel mai prost, practica judiciar
neuniform, inclusiv la CSJ, etc.
Din cele 17 iniiative, ONG-urile susin fr rezerve doar crearea posibilitii angajrii la INJ a formatorilor
din UE. Alte 5 propuneri au fost susinute de principiu, dar n alt form dect cea propus de CRSJ.
Celelalte 11 iniiative nu sunt susinute deoarece fie sunt contrare reformelor promovate pn acum, fie
sunt periculoase n contextul Republicii Moldova. ONG-urile au mai constatat c propunerile de modificare
a legislaiei nu conin o justificare convingtoare i nici analiza costurilor, n special a iniiativelor ce in de
schimbarea modului de percepere a taxei de stat, mrirea numrului de judectori ai Curii Constituionale
i a inspectorilor judectori, introducerea curilor cu jurai i a judectorilor de onoare.
JUSTICE REFORM
Judges proposing justice reforms

On 20 May 2015, at a conference in the judiciary reform center (CRSJ) made public a package of legislative
changes, which covers 17 different aspects. The 17 issues related to the organization of law, civil
procedure and criminal procedure.
The initiatives involve reorganizing the Supreme Court on judicial organization so that 17 judges be
appointed from among career judges and 16 - academics, lawyers and civil society; Court of Appeal split
into two courts of appeal - for mun. Chisinau, respectively, in the district center of the country; increasing
the number of inspectors judges from 5 to 15 and introducing them to assist staff and selecting most
inspectors judges (8 of 15) of civil society; CSM investing with the right to check fortunes judges and to
dismiss the case because the judge can not probe the legality of acquiring property; transfer of the judicial
administration department of the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) CSM; regulation by law the possibility of
employment in NIJ staff of trainers in the EU; creation of a parliamentary standing committees to monitor
the enforcement of judgments; introduction of the right to appeal to the Constitutional Court, as a national
filter before referral to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and increasing the number of
Constitutional Court judges from 6-12.
Initiatives aimed fee on civil procedure state after the initiation of the process, not the process, as it is
now; the introduction of a single review in simple cases; imposition of mandatory mediation in civil cases in
the first instance; and wherefores judgment at first instance on foreign investment, a general public
interest, or resonance, a formation composed of one judge and two judges career of honor. The proposed
amendments to the criminal procedure include challenging Sentencing lighter and less serious appeal to
courts of appeal, ruling examining such cases by SCJ; applying sanctions for judges exclusively of judges
and the jury creation. The authors also propose initiatives for both civil procedure and the criminal
timetable for examining the cases - six months for the first instance and three months to appeal.
Although on 20 May 2015 was announced a consultation period of 30 days, which ended on 18 June. On 18
June 2015, 18 NGOs had CRSJ's common opinion on the initiatives. The signatories expressed their surprise
about the haste with which initiatives are promoted on the substance of the proposed measures, because
most proposals are not provided or contradict the Justice Sector Reform Strategy for 2011-2016 years
(SRSJ). The 18 NGOs reiterated that by the end of 2016, Moldova should rather strive for the successful
implementation of SRSJ than to venture into promoting proposals that are not provided for SRSJ, or even
endangering judiciary.
Also, NGOs were surprised that although the legislative package has been developed by judges, he does
not refer to any of the serious problems that can be solved without legislative intervention in major such
as: inadequate reasoning of judgments , faulty random assignment of cases, the audio recording of court
proceedings, lack of transparency in the appointment of judges to higher courts promotion of judges
evaluated the worst, uneven judicial practice, including the Supreme Court, etc.
Of the 17 initiatives, NGOs unqualified support but creating the possibility of employment in EU NIJ
trainers. Other five proposals were supported in principle, but other than that proposed by CRSJ. The other
11 initiatives are not supported or are against reforms promoted as far or dangerous within the context of
Moldova. NGOs have also found that proposals to amend the legislation does not contain a compelling
justification or cost analysis, especially initiatives related to changing the perception of the state tax, the
number of judges of the Constitutional Court and inspectors judges introduction of jury courts and judges
of honor.
Miercuri
La 19 iunie 2015, CRSJ a organizat un eveniment public n cadrul cruia iniiativele CRSJ au fost oficial
transmise ministrului Justiiei. Dei pachetul legislativ a fost supus consultrilor publice, pn la 25 august
nu a fost publicat nici o informaie cu privire la rezultatele consultrilor, inclusiv opiniile primite, cele luate
n calcul i textul transmis ministrului Justiiei. Se pare totui, c iniiativele privind introducerea recursului
individual la Curtea Constituional, a judectorilor de onoare i a curilor cu jurai nu au fost incluse n
pachetul transmis ministrului Justiiei. Pn la mijlocul lunii septembrie, pachetul de legi nc nu a fost
expus pentru avizare de ctre Ministerul Justiiei.
n iulie 2015, CRSJ a propus crearea instanelor specializate n examinarea infraciunilor de corupie.
Iniiativa propune crearea unei judectorii separate, a unei curi de apel separate i a unui complet
specializat la CSJ care s examineze cauzele de corupie. Drept justificare este invocat practica
judectoreasc neunitar i individualizarea contestabil a pedepselor n cauzele de corupie. Studiul CRJM
cu privire la specializarea judectorilor recomand renunarea la practica de constituire a instanelor
specializate i fortificarea mecanismului de specializare a judectorilor n instanele existente.

Recomandarea este dictat de volumul insuficient de dosare pentru crearea instanelor specializate,
precum i de experiena neplcut a Republicii Moldova n ceea ce privete instanele specializate.
CRSJ a fost creat de un grup din 14 judectori. Co-preedinii acestuia sunt Preedintele Curii Supreme de
Justiie (CSJ) i Preedintele Consiliului Superior al Magistraturii (CSM).
CRJM recomand mbuntirea procedurii de numire i promovare a judectorilor
La 25 iunie 2015, CRJM a prezentat documentul de politici Implicarea executivului i legislativului n
numirea i promovarea judectorilor contrabalan sau tirbire a independenei justiiei?. Documentul
analizeaz implicarea executivului i legislativului n procesul de numire a judectorilor, reconfirmare n
funcie a acestora dup primii 5 ani de activitate, n transferarea i promovarea judectorilor. Autorii
recomand excluderea competenelor parlamentului n ceea ce privete numirea i promovarea
judectorilor, precum i clarificarea procedurilor de numire, reconfirmare i promovare a judectorilor de
ctre Preedintele rii. Recomandrile se bazeaz pe cele mai bune practici europene i standardele
Comisiei de la Veneia.
Legea privind testarea integritii profesionale este neconstituional
La 16 aprilie 2015, Curtea Constituional a declarat n parte neconstituional Legea privind testarea
integritii profesionale (nr. 325/2013). Instana s-a bazat n mare parte pe Opinia Comisiei de la Veneia
din decembrie 2014 cu privire la aceast lege. Curtea Constituional a stabilit c garaniile unui proces
echitabil n materie penal se aplic procedurii prevzute de Legea nr. 325, dat fiind gravitatea acuzaiilor
i consecinele eurii testrii integritii - pierderea locului de munc, iar garaniile procedurale din Legea
nr. 325 nu sunt suficiente pentru a asigura un proces echitabil. Ea a mai stabilit c aceasta nu conine
garanii pentru a proteja viaa privat.
Curtea Constituional a depistat mai mult lacune n Legea nr. 325. Legea nu stabilete clar subiecii fa
de care se aplic testarea integritii profesionale; procedura testrii integritii poate fi pornit fr
existena unor motive preliminare c persoana este predispus s comit acte de corupie; testorii de
integritate au competene discreionare nelimitate n realizarea testrii, iar persoana testat nu se poate
apra dect dup ce a fost sancionat disciplinar. Mai mult, persoana testat nu are acces deplin la
probele relevante, iar Legea nr. 325 nu acord organelor disciplinare nici o putere discreionar, ele fiind
obligate s elibereze persoana din funcie dac acesta a admis o nclcare a obligaiilor sale anticorupie.
Eliberarea obligatorie din funcie a agentului public care a admis nclcrile prevzute de art. 6 alin. (2) al
legii nu asigur respectarea principiului proporionalitii dintre abaterile comise i sanciunea aplicat.
On 19 June 2015, CRSJ organized a public event in which CRSJ initiatives were officially sent the Minister of
Justice. Although the package was subject to public consultation until August 25 was not published any
information on the results of the consultation, including the views received, the text considered and
forwarded to the Minister of Justice. It seems, however, that the initiatives on the introduction of individual
appeal to the Constitutional Court, judges of honor and the jury were not included in the package
forwarded to the Minister of Justice. By mid-September, a package of laws has not yet been set for
approval by the Ministry of Justice.
In July 2015, the Supreme Court proposed the creation of specialized courts in examining corruption
offenses. The initiative proposes the creation of a separate judges, a separate appeals courts and a
specialized panel at the Supreme Court to examine the causes of corruption. It is invoked as a justification
and inconsistent judicial practice questionable individualization of sentences in corruption cases. CRJM
study on specialization of judges recommends giving up the practice of establishing specialized courts and
strengthening the mechanism of specialization of existing judges to the courts. The recommendation is
dictated by the inadequacy of files for the creation of specialized courts and the unpleasant experience of
Moldova regarding specialized courts.
CRSJ was created by a group of 14 judges. Its co-chairs are President of the Supreme Court (SCJ) and
President of the Superior Council of Magistracy (CSM).
CRJM recommends improving the procedure for appointment and promotion of judges
On 25 June 2015 presented the document policy CRJM involvement in the executive and legislative
appointment or promotion - counterbalance or curtailment of judicial independence ?. The document
analyzes the executive and legislative involvement in the appointment of judges, their reappointments
after the first 5 years of the transfer and promotion of judges. The authors advise against Parliament's
powers in the appointment and promotion of judges and clarify the procedures for appointment and
promotion of judges reconfirmation by the President. Recommendations are based on the best European
practices and standards of the Venice Commission.

Law on professional integrity testing is unconstitutional

On 16 April 2015 the Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional the part of professional integrity
testing Act (no. 325/2013). The court relied heavily on the opinion of the Venice Commission in December
2014 on this law. Constitutional Court established that the guarantees of a fair trial in criminal proceedings
applies provided by Law no. 325, given the severity of the charges and the consequences of failure
integrity testing - job loss, and procedural safeguards of Law. 325 are insufficient to ensure a fair trial. She
also established that there are no safeguards to protect privacy.
The Constitutional Court has found more gaps in Law no. 325. The law does not clearly establish the
subjects to which applies professional integrity testing; integrity testing procedure can be started without
the existence of preliminary grounds that the person is prone to commit acts of corruption; integrity tester
have unlimited discretion in making testing and tested person can not only defend himself after being
disciplined. Moreover, the person tested does not have full access to relevant evidence, and Law no. 325
does not give any discretion disciplinary bodies, they are obliged to release the person from office if he
"admitted" breach of its obligations corruption. Issue binding function of public officials "admitted
violations under article. 6 para. (2) the law "does ensure proportionality of violations committed and the
penalty imposed.
Crjm Centrul de Resurse Juridice din Moldova
Crsj