Lawyers consider the amendment of law on judge status is aimed at subordinating the judicial system to the executive

By introducing amendments to the Law on the Status of Judge with the aim of modifying the method of starting legal proceedings against judges, the authorities want to subordinate the judicial system to the executive, a number of Moldovan Lawyers told Info-Prim Neo. According to the [Association of Independent Lawyers of Moldova], the amendments to the law on the status of judge are not opportune. The Association’s president [Vladimir Griceaniuc] considers that by amending the law the principles of separating powers between the state authorities are being violated as the executive authorities are trying to undermine the power of the judiciary. Vladimir Griceaniuc says that if the amendments are adopted, the judges could be subjected to prosecution at any moment and they will be thus dependent on the authorities. The same opinion was expressed by the vice president of the Association [Ghenadie Tataru], who is also president of [the Lawyers’ League of Moldova]. The two Lawyers consider that the immunity of the civil servants, not only of the judges but of the MPs and local councillors also, is a topic for public discussions. This issue should be discussed and reviewed only in concert, they say. If the judiciary is subjected to such procedures, the legislative and executive authorities should be put in similar conditions. By modifying the rules of the game for a single branch, they undermine the powers of the judicial system and this leads to a misbalance between the state powers, the Lawyers consider. [Vitalie Nagacevschi, president of the organisation Lawyers for Human Rights,] considers that the given bill will affect the independence of the judicial system. “This bill is another brick laid at the foundation of a police state, where the repressive bodies hold the entire power,” said Vitalie Nagacevschi. The jurist says that such a bill could be proposed only if the Superior Council of Magistrates groundlessly refuses to hold accountable a judge. At the same time, Vitalie Nagacevschi considers that the problem of flagrancy could not be neglected – when the Council is asked to give its consent the information could be leaked and the flagrancy would be compromised. Under such circumstances, the law could be amended so that it provided for the flagrancy to be ascertained before notifying the Superior Council of Magistrates and without its consent. But the judge should be held accountable only after the Council gives its consent. Otherwise, taking into account the policemen’s ability “to find” arms or drugs in anyone’s pocket, the already frail independence of the judiciary will be further undermined, Vitalie Nagacevschi said. [Victor Pantaru, probationer lawyer at the Bar Association “Hanganu, Tanase & Partners”,] said that the given amendments are aimed at subduing and subordinating the judicial system to the executive power. He said that the changes are nor necessary because article 16 of the Law on the Constitutional Court and article 19 of the Law on the Status of Jude establish a balanced legal framework that provides certain guarantees to the judges and certain instruments to the prosecutors for indicting them. “The present rules say that the judges do justice, while the cases of corruption are an exception. If the proposed amendments are introduced, the corruption will become a rule and the justice an exception,” said Victor Pantaru. He considers that the judges can solve the given problem by notifying the Constitutional Court after the Parliament passes the amendments. [Info-Prim Neo Note:] The parliamentary commission for appointments and immunities is examining a bill for amending a number of legislative documents concerning the status of judge. Under the proposed amendments, the General Prosecutor can take legal action against judges without the consent of the Superior Council of Magistrates and, depending on the case, of the chief of state or of the Parliament, only by notifying the Council. The Ministry of Justice, who drafted the bill, argued that the amendments will help exclude the misinterpretation of the legislation regarding the inviolability of judges, which gives the judges a special status and many times this makes the immediate investigation of judges, even in cases of flagrant offences, practically impossible.