The bill on the institution of the unanimous vote of the Supreme Council of Magistrates when repeatedly fielding the same candidates for the post of judge runs counter to the recommendations of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. In a news conference at IPN, director of the Association for Efficient and Responsible Governance Olesea Stamate said the international normative documents do not provide for the institution of unanimous vote for naming judges at national level.
In the same news conference, Igor Botan, executive director of the Association for Participatory Democracy (ADEPT), said the Moldovan legislation does not contain provisions about the categories of Government or Parliament decisions that must be adopted by a unanimous vote. “It is surprising that such approaches are adopted. First of all, those who propose such things should know what a majority of votes means. Unanimity means consensus, involvement in a voluntary project that would afterward become institutionalized,” he stated.
According to the ADEPT director, the initiative of a group of lawmakers concerning the unanimous vote when repeatedly fielding judges hides something. It’s not clear why a higher quorum, namely the unanimous vote, is required for the judiciary, especially because the Supreme Council of Magistrates didn’t have a uniform practice as regards the number of votes needed to adopt decisions.
The legislative initiative was submitted to Parliament. Civil society called on the legislative body to hold public debates on this bill before putting it to the vote.
