The Legal Resource Center and the Association for Participative Democracy (ADEPT) launched a public call, asking ensuring transparency and probity in the process of electing the president of the Supreme Court of Justice. The matter concerning the holding of the contest for filling the post was included in the agenda of the November 1 meeting of the Supreme Council of Magistrates, Info-Prim Neo reports. According to a communiqué from the Legal Resource Center, the list of candidates for Supreme Court of Justice president was published only last weekend. It contains only two candidates. Their CVs have not been yet made known and the Supreme Council of Magistrates made no public announcement about the holding of the contest. It only published the agenda of the November 1 meeting. “The length and complexity of the election process, the statements of the politicians and even of some of the candidates until the new contest and the absence of the CVs of the candidates who take part in the contest announced in September may create the impression that the selection will take place according to political preferences or other unclear criteria, which is inadmissible. Owing to the role played by the Supreme Court of Justice president in increasing transparency and the trust in justice, the transparency and correctness in the process of choosing the president is extremely important,” reads the communiqué. The NGOs demand publishing the candidates’ CVs on the website of the Supreme Council of Magistrates, questioning the candidates in a public meeting, indicating the detailed reasons why a candidate was selected and the other candidate was rejected, and publishing the given decision on the Council’s website within 24 hours of the adoption. The deadline for submissions was October 16. Applications were submitted by the Court’s acting president Ion Muruianu and Moldova’s judge at the European Court of Human Rights Mihai Poalelungi. The previous contest to select the Supreme Court of Justice president, which involved five candidates, failed as three of the candidates withdrew their candidacies, while the other two did not poll the necessary number of votes.