MAE to sue Moldova in European Court

The European Action Movement (MAE) intends to sue the Republic of Moldova in the Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights claiming its rights to freedom of assembly and fair trial have been violated following the refusal of the Justice Ministry to approve amendments to the statute of the Movement, a rejection upheld by an appellate court ruling. MAE president Anatol Petrencu today told a news conference at Info-Prim Neo that the refusal came despite the Movement's compliance with the recent modifications to the Political Parties' Law. The MAE held a congress in June to amend its bylaws by changing, among other, its status from social-political movement to political party, as required by the law. “After a long period of delays, the Ministry of Justice refused to register the new statute, citing provisions of the Civil Code and other acts, which exceed the scope of the legal framework for political parties. We have petitioned the Ministry and even picketed the Ministry's building in an attempt to gain the attention of Minister Vitalie Parlog. We even sent him a letter demonstrating that the Ministry's refusal has no legal grounding”, said Petrencu. After the MAE challenged the rejection in court, appellate judge Mihai Ciugureanu on October 20 dismissed the MAE's appeal as groundless and ruled in favor of the Ministry. The Movement considers that the judge acted in self-interest when pronouncing that decision, suggesting that he was paving the career path for his daughter, Carolina Ciugureanu-Mihailuta, who was nominated by the Communist MPs for the post of the children's ombudsman. “No doubt it was an arrangement, bearing in mind that the MAE is in opposition to the present ruling party. It looks that the father is taking care that his daughter enters Parliament as an ombudsman”, Anatol Petrencu explained. Vitalie Nagacevschi, the lawyer for the MAE, said he would have sought the disqualification of Judge Ciugureanu, had he known at that time about the story with his daughter. “We are sure, however, that Judge Mihail Ciugureanu knew that fact and he should have stepped aside taking into account the political implications of the case”, the lawyer argued. He added: “This suit is also a litmus paper that shows how democracy works in Moldova. It is obvious that everything is done to prevent democratic, opposition parties from growing and from running in the 2009 parliamentary race”. Nagacevschi believes the MAE now plays the role of a mine spotter. “Drawing parallels to this lawsuit, one may predict how the Ministry of Justice is going to act with regards to other opposition parties which will seek approval of their amended statutes.” Though Ciougureanu's decision is final, it still may be appealed both in the Supreme Court of Justice and the European Court. “We believe we will have to face certain problems at the Supreme Court, too, bearing in mind the political implications this case has. We will try to use this case as a proof of the fact that the democratic rules are not yet working in Moldova”, said Nagacevschi.