The Center for the Analysis and Prevention of Corruption (CAPC) determined that decisional transparency wasn’t ensured in case of a bill to amend a number of laws, including the law on the prevention and combating of money laundering and terrorism financing and the law on administrative litigation, for which the Government assumed responsibility before Parliament.

The procedure for assuming responsibility before Parliament is a particularity of the legislative procedure according to which the bill no longer goes through the legislative process. It is subject to a strictly political debate as a result of which the confidence given by Parliament to the Government is either maintained or withdrawn.

In a news conference at IPN, expert Mariana Kalughin, who assessed the bill, said that even if the bill was placed on the Parliament’s website, it wasn’t very useful to the interested sides. The informative note contained no fundamental analysis of the conditions that required the drafting of the bill, judicial statistics and reference to the community acquis and other relevant international standards. The law wasn’t accompanied by the analysis of the regulation impact, being identified corruptibility elements and norms that groundlessly allow derogation. The provisions include norms concerning the judicial process. Such norms should be contained only in special laws such as the Penal Code and the law on administrative litigation.

According to the expert, the provisions by which the court examining administrative claims can order suspension only at the request of the complainer (without specifying that the suspension can be ordered by the court at its own decision) can affect the principle of cooperation and separation of powers, which is guaranteed by the Constriction of the Republic of Moldova.

The CAPC considers that the given law is inopportune. Under the Penal Code, the administrative claims in the relevant courts are examined according to the general norms of the Civil Code, with the exceptions and amendments contained in the legislation on administrative claims.

Mariana Kaluhin noted that it’s not clear why the Government assumed responsibility before Parliament for this bill as such a simplified legislative method is employed as an extreme measure when the measures stipulated in the law must be taken immediately.

The CAPC assessed the bill within the project “Vulnerability appraisal of draft normative and legal documents” that is financially supported by MATRA Rule of Law and Good Governance of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.