The Superior Council of the Judiciary shall appoint judges until mandatory retirement without any further evaluation. If there are reasonable suspicions of integrity issues or of legal violations, the Council may instruct the Judicial Inspection to check the candidate. If the suspicions are not confirmed, the Council shall ensure the appointment of the judge until mandatory retirement. The clarifications are contained in a Constitutional Court decision issued in response to an inquiry by the ex-lawmaker and currently Justice Minister Sergiu Litvinenco.

Litvinenco asked the Court to clarify how the Council can refuse to propose the President a judge to be appointed until mandatory retirement.

In a separate application, ex-judge Nicolae Pasecinic complained that a provision of the Law on Judges affects the independence of judges appointed until mandatory retirement.

The Court held that the Constitution does not explicitly give the Council a discretionary power to appoint judges until mandatory retirement. However, such a power can be inferred from the principle of judicial self-administration, as well as on the basis of the constitutional text:, which says that they “shall be are appointed by the President of the Republic of Moldova on the Council’s proposal”.

“A judge could fail not only because he or she does not meet the conditions of the law, but also because the Council can reject him or her to its discretion, despite being positively evaluated by the Evaluation Board,” said Constitutional Court chair Domnica Manole during a press briefing. The Court held that a discretionary power of the Council to decide on the appointment of judges until mandatory retirement would not be justified.

The decision is irreversible and not subject to appeal. Constitutional judges Serghei Țurcan and Nicolae Roșca had dissenting opinions, but they haven’t been published yet.