The law providing the state with the right to take regress actions against the people whose activities have led to Moldova’s conviction by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) took effect about a year and a half ago. Nevertheless, such actions have not been taken and the authorities and experts continue to have different opinions: against which decisions they should take action and if, in general, the law is applicable. Info-Prim Neo specifies that the Law 238 came into force on 14 April 2006. It says that the state has the right to take regress actions against the persons whose activities, intentionally or through serious fault, constituted reason for adopting the decision regarding the obligatory payment of the sums awarded by ECHR or by agreement to settle the case out of court. The law also stipulates that the sums fixed by ECHR decision should be fully reimbursed, under court decision, by the persons that are to blame for the awarding of these sums that must be paid by Moldova. [Two lawyers, three decisions] Deputy Minister of Justice Niciolae Esanu said in March that no regress actions were taken because the law can be applied only to the ECHR decisions published after the respective amendments to the national legislation took effect. Esanu also said that during the respective period there were a few ECHR decisions and the procedures for taking regress actions could not be finalised. During recent public hearings, Prosecutor General Valeriu Gurbulea said that the law has not been yet implemented because of its retroactive effect. All the ECHR judgments passed so far are based on facts committed before this mechanism was approved. At the same time, he said that the Prosecutor’s Office has a subdivision that formulates conclusions over each case in which Moldova is found guilty. Gurbulea also said that the mechanism stipulated in the law is not very efficient because it first of all requires the existence of a conviction for an intentional offence and then the court can issue summons to repair the damage caused. The same position was expressed by the governmental agent Vladimir Rusu. He said that all the ECHR judgments passed until present concern the applications filed with the Court before 2006. As a result, only the facts committed after April 2006 which have led to Moldova’s conviction will be examined by the Prosecutor General under accusations of regress and these should be carefully monitored. On the other hand, Vladimir Turcan, chairman of the parliamentary commission for appointments and immunities, says that “all the sentences against Moldova passed by the ECHR after April 2006 can be examined by the Prosecutor General as regress cases. Contacted by Info-Prim Neo, lawyer Vitalie Nagacevschi, president of the Lawyers for Human Rights organisation, said that a judge cannot be held accountable for the fact that one of his decisions had as result the conviction of Moldova by the ECHR. Nagacevschi considers that the Prosecutor General and the Supreme Council of Magistrates should check the cases in which Moldova was found guilty by the European Court, examine the causes for conviction and see if these are objective or subjective. If there are subjective causes, they should analyse why the respective mistakes were committed: the judge is not proficient, the mistakes were committed on purpose or the overlooking can be explained in a way or another. Depending of the findings, there can be several solutions. A first solution would be the simple ascertaining of the facts, a second one to hold the judge disciplinarily accountable and a third solution to examine the qualification of the judge to see if he meets the requirements. Also, the judge can be dismissed or relegated. [The law is dead] Ultimately, the judge can be sued and if there are found the constitutive elements of a crime and he is sentenced, a regress action can be taken against him, the lawyer says. In the present form, the respective legal provision will not be effective, Nagacevschi says. First of all, the law extends to the facts that occurred after the law came into force. At the same time, a condition for holding the judge accountable is that he overlooked something through serious fault. There is another problem yet – who will ascertain this fact. The existence or absence of the guilt is established only by court sentence. Therefore, “the respective law is dead.” As a matter of fact, the law was conceived incorrectly says the expert, because the responsibility of the judges cannot be regulated by the law on the governmental agent. The cited source considers that the respective law was not needed because the Civil Code envisages the possibility of taking regress actions. For that reason, we can say that the law is inoperable. It should be noted that some decisions of the ECHR ascertain the inactivity of the governmental agent. But nobody raised the issue of his responsibilities. If it is proved that it was personal responsibility, all those paid from the budget should bear it – the judges, the ministers, the governmental agent, Nagacevschi said. [Meanwhile yet …] The ECHR found the Government of Moldova guilty of violating human rights in 67 cases. It ordered that Moldova should pay about 1.4 mln EUR or over 20 mln lei damages. About 40 of these decisions have been pronounced after the respective law took effect and 24 in the first seven months of this year. Another over 1,000 applications are now examined by the European Court. This is the largest number of applications per capita. It seems that the authorities started to worry about the large number of cases. A proof is the organisation of public hearings on this topic by two parliamentary commissions, but also the offering of more possibilities of preventing and finding torture cases to the ombudsmen. The issue of Moldovan justice’s freedom and independence is also tackled by Western partners, who say that Moldova lags behind in this area. On the other hand, independent experts say that the authorities’ inadequate approach to this problem will lead to more lost cases in the ECHR and to the population’s total mistrust in the Moldovan justice.