In connection with the spread of the COVID-19 infection, the Venice Commission transferred its meeting set for March 20 and 21 to June, but managed to adopt Joint Opinions of the Commission and the Directorate General of Human Rights and Rule of Law of the Council of Europe by a written procedure.
Among them is the Joint Opinion on the draft law on amending and supplementing the Constitution with respect to the Superior Council of Magistracy (SCM), IPN reports, quoting a press release of the Council of Europe.
The Venice Commission and the Directorate consider that the draft amendments to the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova could improve the independence, accountability and efficiency of the judiciary. As such, the amendments are generally positive and in line with the applicable international standards.
The Venice Commission and the Directorate welcome notably: the removal of the probationary periods for judges; the appointment of judges of the Supreme Court of Justice by the president (with a onetime veto). the regulation on functional immunity at the constitutional level; the statement in the Constitution that at least half of the members of the Council would be judges elected by their peers and that the judge members of the Superior Council should represent all levels courts of law; the consultative role of the Superior Council in the preparation of the budget of the judiciary.
The Venice Commission noted that it cannot but express its concern about the manner in which the four lay members of the SCM have just been elected, which seems to defeat the proclaimed aim of the legislative amendments of December 2019. In addition, these four lay members have been elected for a full mandate of four years, which hampers the positive impact which the constitutional amendments ought to have brought.
The recent legislative reforms and the manner in which they have been implemented do not meet the expectations of either the international community or the Moldovan society. The genuine aim and meaning of the constitutional reform under analysis becomes questionable. These nominations should take place after the adoption of the constitutional amendments, in a procedure which ensures transparency and sufficient safeguards against politicization, runs the document.
