Victoria VIRSCHI
Legal Officer
  • +373 22 843 601
  • victoria.virschi@crjm.org
Selected publications
  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • CRJM anunță un concurs pentru: Funcția: Consilier juridic; Contract: pe perioadă determinată (01 septembrie 2019 – 30 iunie 2020), cu o mare probabilitate de extindere sau oferire a unui contract pe termen nedeterminat; Localitatea: Chişinău, Republica Moldova. Cerinţe: a)studii universitare în domeniul dreptului; b)posedarea cunoştinţelor bune în domeniul justiţiei şi drepturilor omului;c)posedarea fluentă a limbilor română şi engleză. Cunoaşterea limbii ruse sau a altor limbi de circulaţie internaţională constituie un avantaj; d)folosirea calculatorului în activitatea zilnică şi posedarea la nivel avansat a MS Office, Windows şi internet; e)bune abilități de comunicare, prezentare, planificare, organizare;f)posedarea dreptului de a munci în Republica Moldova.Atribuții: Principalele sarcini ale juristului țin de: a)Cercetare și analiză; b)Advocacy;c)Activități de instruire;d)Reprezentare. Fișa de post a funcției este anexată.Condiții de muncă: a)mediu de lucru confortabil; b)posibilități de dezvoltare profesională; c)salariu motivant, care depinde de calificarea şi experienţa persoanei; d)program deplin de lucru 9:00 – 18:00; e)regim de muncă cu un grad sporit de flexibilitate. Persoanele care corespund cerințelor sunt rugate să expedieze prin email CV-ul care să conțină contactele a cel puțin două persoane de referință și o scrisoare de motivare până la 10 august 2019, ora 23.59, la adresa: application@crjm.org. Selectarea va fi făcută în bază analizei CV-urilor și scrisorilor depuse, urmată de o probă scrisă și interviu. Doar candidaţii preselectaţi vor fi invitați pentru testare și interviu. Informații suplimentare pot fi obţinute prin expedierea unui e-mail la aceeași adresă. Prin depunerea dosarului, candidatul consimte implicit verificarea de către CRJM a informației furnizate de candidat. ATENȚIE – în cazul în care nu sunteți de acord ca CRJM să verifice informația la actualul angajator, vă rugăm să mențio-nați expres acest fapt în scrisoarea de motivare. Explicarea motivului nu este necesară.
  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Peter Vlad Ianusevici studied "Social and Economic Psychology", "History of Religions" and "Italian Culture and Civilization" at Georg-August University of Göttingen, Germany. He attended various psychological specializations in neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) and he is a NLP trainer accredited by the German Association of NLP-DVNLP. Peter Vlad is psychologist specializing in client-centered therapy by Carl Rogers and Process Management at the Technical University in Lemgo, Germany.

    Since2001 he is a Business Trainer in Communication, working with companies and institutions in Germany, Republic of Moldova, and Romania.

    Peter Vlad is the founder of "Academy Nicolae Dumitrescu" - one of the first social businesses in Moldova.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • The signatory organizations and representatives deeply regret the manner in which the Constitutional Court acted between 7 and 9 June 2019, generating an unprecedented political crisis in the Republic of Moldova. The Constitutional Court issued a decision, three judgments and two opinions that failed to rely on the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova and its own case-law, as stated by the National Platform of the Civil Society Forum of the Eastern Partnership on 9 June 2019, and confirmed by the Venice Commission opinion published on 24 June 2019. By taking these decisions, the constitutional judges have caused an irreparable harm to the reputation of the Constitutional Court of Moldova.  The only solution to restore the confidence and the authority of the Constitutional Court will be the immediate resignation of the constitutional judges Raisa APOLSCHII, Veaceslav ZAPOROJAN, Artur REŞETNICOV and Corneliu GURIN.

    The summary of the Constitutional Court acts undertaken between 7-9 June 2019

    Between 7-9 June 2019, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Moldova adopted a decision, three judgements and two opinions, thus creating an unprecedented constitutional crisis. Afterwards, on 15 June 2019, the Court revised all of its acts adopted between 7-9 June 2019. Initially, towards the end of the day on 7 June 2019, the Court issued a decision, providing without any reason, that the three-month term in which the Moldovan President can dissolve the Parliament, in case there is no possibility to form the Government or there is legislative blockage, is in fact 90 days. As a result, the Court has basically reduced the real time to allow the political parties from the Parliament to negotiate the formation of the Government. This decision was issued following an application lodged by the President Igor DODON on 22 May 2019.

    On the second day, on Saturday, 8 June 2019, the Court adopted three judgments, concluding that the competence of a dissolved Parliament is different from the one of a Parliament with an expired mandate, therefore the dissolved Parliament cannot adopt any legislative act. Consequently, through another judgement issued on the same day, the Court declared as unconstitutional the act of the Parliament nominating Zinaida GRECEANII as Speaker and also declared unconstitutional ab initio all the acts voted by the newly-elected Parliament of 10th Legislature, that has been formed following the parliamentary elections from 24 February 2019. By its third decision, the Court declared as unconstitutional the President Igor DODON decree, on nominating Maia SANDU for the Prime Minister’s office, as well as the decree to form the new Government and the government led by Maia SANDU, voted the same day by the Parliament. The main arguments highlighted by the Court were based on the fact that the deadline to form the Government expired on 7 June 2019, calculating 90 days from the day of parliamentary elections’ validation, meaning 9 March 2019. The Court explained the application of the 90 days’ term by referring to an article from the Civil Code, which states that half a month equals 15 days. The Court also justified that the Parliament dissolution is a sanction applied for the inactivity of the political powers to form the Government or for creating a legislative blockage. For this reasons, any act adopted by the Parliament on 8 June 2019 could not be considered valid.

    On the third day, 9 June 2019, the Court adopted two opinions. According to the first opinion, issued at 8:30 a.m., the Constitutional Court suspended Igor DODON from the position of President of the Republic of Moldova, for his failure to dissolve the Parliament at the expiration of the three-months term allocated to form the Government. At the same time, the Court appointed Pavel FILIP as an interim president and instructed him ask the Constitutional Court to determine the circumstances that justify the dissolution of the Parliament and to set the date of the Parliamentary snap elections. On the same day, Pavel FILIP requested the Constitutional Court to establish the circumstances of the Parliament dissolution. The request was accepted by the Constitutional Court at 10:30 a.m.

    The Court issued these three judgments and two opinions on weekend days, on Saturday and Sunday, upon the applications submitted by the MPs from the democratic party, submitted just one day before, or the same day as the judgements / opinions were issued. The representatives of the Parliament and the President were not invited to attend the Court’s hearings, nor their opinions were presented. The Democratic Party members where the only ones attending these hearings.

    On 15 June 2019, the Constitutional Court revised and annulled their acts adopted from 7 to 9 June, “considering the de facto situation in the Republic of Moldova, particularly the announced transfer of power to the Government of Prime Minister Maia SANDU and of the coalition formed in the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova.” The Court, also emphasized “that judgment was meant to be a source of social peace, rule of law, democracy, as well as a safeguard of a proper framework of human rights protection, by combating a political crisis of great magnitude”. On 20 June 2019, Mihai POALELUNGI resigned as a judge and the President of the Constitutional Court.

    The way in which the Constitutional Court acted on 7, 8 and 9 June 2019, by issuing thes3e arbitrary decisions, shocked the society. The means by which these judgments were reviewed on 15 June 2019 totally undermined the role of the Constitutional Court as the guarantor of the Constitution. All these decisions were taken unanimously by the Constitutional Court judges.

    The summary of the main observations of the Venice Commission

    Upon the request of the Council of Europe Secretary General, the Venice Commission, an independent body of the Council of Europe, accepted to review the Constitutional acts from 7-9 June 2019 On 24 June 2019, the Venice Commission issued an opinion on the constitutional situation in the Republic of Moldova, referring in particular to the conditions for the dissolution of Parliament. The Venice Commission exceptionally accepts the analysis of acts of a Constitutional Court only when the functioning of the constitutional body can significantly affect the democratic functioning of state institutions. We emphasize that only the Constitutional Court, in its current composition, through the acts which are clearly against the rule of law, has led to their examination by the Venice Commission. This constitutes an enormous regress and should have obviously determined the constitutional judges to resign.

    In its opinion published on 24 June 2019, the Venice Commission concluded that when issuing the rulings and opinions on 7-9 June 2019, the Constitutional Court failed to respect its own procedures and the principle of equality of the parts. These procedures have been examined exclusively with the exclusive participation of the democratic party MPs, with an extraordinary speed, which did not give reasonable opportunity for the other parties to basically participate, without providing any justification for such a hurry. The Commission did not find any justification for the fact that the Constitutional Court ruled on the application of the President of the Republic of Moldova on the Government's forming deadline only on 7 June 2019, although the application was lodged on 22 May 2019. The applications submitted by the Democratic party MPs on 8 and 9 June, were considered and examined as a matter of high priority by the Court, often on the same day. The Commission found that, in fact, the crisis and the instability increased as a result of the coordinated actions between the Democratic Party and the Constitutional Court from 7 June 2019, which were implemented with an extreme haste. The Commission stressed that any constitutional body must firstly respect their own procedures and the principle of equality of the parties to ensure its confidence.

    The Commission found that the interpretation by the Constitutional Court of the President's obligation to automatically dissolve the Parliament immediately after the expiration of the three-months term, regardless of whether or not a vote of confidence has been made for the formation of the government and regardless of the consultation with parliamentary parts, is incoherent with both the wording of Article 85 of the Constitution and with its purpose as established by the Constitutional Court of Moldova in its previous rulings (the judgement from 1st October 2013). The Commission concluded that on 7 or 8 June 2019, there were clearly no conditions met by the Constitution for the dissolution of the Parliament.

    The Venice Commission found that for the first time in its decision of 7 June, the Constitutional Court added a non-reasoned indication in brackets that the three months’ term equal 90 days, a method of interpretation that would have absurd implications on the duration of a year (one year = 360 days). The Commission noted that the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Moldova failed to explain why it did not refer to the more pertinent provisions in the Civil Code, according to which the three-month term would expire on 10 June 2019 because three months expired on 9 June, a day of Sunday, but according to the general provisions of the Civil Code (Article 388 paragraph 1), the term is prolonged until the end of the next working day.

    The Venice Commission stressed that the temporary suspension of the President Igor DODON on 9 June 2019 and the appointment of the Prime Minister as an interim office holder is not grounded in the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova. The Commission also found a very important thing for the constitutional mechanisms in the Republic of Moldova, namely that the application by the Constitutional Court of the "temporary suspension" mechanism (known in society as "the 5-minute President") for his/her failure to fulfill an obligation based on Article 90 paragraph (3) of the Constitution, is contrary to the Constitution.

    Conclusions and requests

    The Venice Commission is the most prestigious and credible European body in constitutional matters, whose opinion should be strictly considered by the Republic of Moldova, especially in view of the still-evolving nature of our democracy.

    We stress our deep concern about the (in)dependence of the Constitutional Court, which was signaled by 17 NGOs in December 2018, when three Democratic party affiliated persons were appointed by the Superior Council of Magistracy, the Government and the Parliament as judges of the Constitutional Court. The way in which the Constitutional Court acted on 7-9 June, in an obvious tandem with the democratic party MPs, as also found by the Venice Commission, shows an obvious political affiliation and lack of impartiality of the Constitutional Court judge, which seriously affects the impartiality of the whole institution. The absurd interpretation of the three-month term as a 90-day period denotes a lack of legal minimum knowledge or an intentional intent or a gross negligence on the professional capacities of the Constitutional Court judges. Through these acts, the current judges have unprecedentedly discredited the institution of the Constitutional Court. We reiterate the appeal of 19 June 2019 addressed to Mr. Veaceslav ZAPOROJAN to resign as a constitutional judge.

    In this context, we call on to those four constitutional judges who still have constitutional mandates - Raisa APOLSCHII, Veaceslav ZAPOROJAN, Artur REŞETNICOV and Corneliu GURIN - to immediately resign. By your resignation, you will allow the appointment of the new constitutional judges, which will have the important task to restore the confidence in the role of the Constitutional Court as the guarantor of the Constitution.

    In the absence of the resignation from the respective judges, we ask the Parliament to urgently establish a Commission composed from representatives of political parties, local and international notorious experts, in order to find a solution to dismiss the current judges, to investigate their actions through the existence or non-existence of a componence of an offense and the appointment of new constitutional judges in a transparent and merit-based manner.

    The public appeal is available here

    Signatories:

    1. Amnesty International Moldova,
    2. Association for Participatory Democracy „ADEPT”,
    3. Association for Efficient and Responsible Governance (AGER),
    4. Foreign Policy Association (APE),
    5. Association of Independent Press (API),
    6. Center „Acces-info”,
    7. Center „Contact”,
    8. Center for Investigative Journalism
    9. Legal Resources Centre from Moldova (LRCM)
    10. Center "Partnership for Development"(CPD)
    11. MD
    12. CPR Moldova
    13. Expert-Grup
    14. Est-European Foundation
    15. Human Rights Embassy
    16. (IDIS) „Viitorul”,
    17. Institute for Public Policy (IPP)
    18. Institute for European Policies and Reforms (IPRE)
    19. Promo-LEX
    20. Transparency International Moldova

    The list of signatories remains open

     

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Mai multe organizații ale societății civile își exprimă satisfacția în privința faptului că în Republica Moldova incertitudinea cu privire la legitimitatea Guvernului și a majorității parlamentare a luat sfârșit, iar transferul de putere a avut loc fără violență. Declarațiile noului Guvern privind fortificarea democrației, reformarea justiției și combaterea corupției sunt deosebit de încurajatoare și sperăm mult că acestea se vor materializa în reforme reale.

    În ultimii ani, democrația din Republica Moldova a fost în declin. Acest fapt a fost resimțit pe deplin de către societatea civilă. Fosta guvernare a redus considerabil implicarea societății civile veritabile în procesul decizional, a încercat crearea unei societăți civile paralele, a sabotat eforturile noastre, a lansat atacuri împotriva ONG-urilor incomode și chiar a încercat să limiteze finanțarea externă a ONG-urilor. Scopul acestor acțiuni a fost discreditarea și scindarea organizațiilor societății civile. Noi sperăm că aceste practici sunt în trecut și că la astfel de acțiuni nu se va mai recurge niciodată.

    Ne exprimăm speranța că noua majoritate parlamentară și noul Guvern vor intensifica colaborarea cu organizațiile societății civile. Considerăm că deținem un nivel de expertiză care trebuie să fie valorificat în interesul cetățenilor Republicii Moldova. Pe această cale, ne exprimăm deschiderea de a coopera cu autoritățile noi, în domeniile noastre de expertiză. De asemenea, vom monitoriza cu atenție politicile promovate de guvernare și vom reacționa, inclusiv public, la orice deviere de la angajamentele asumate și standardele democratice și de bună guvernare.

    Organizațiile semnatare de asemenea speră că noua majoritate parlamentară și noul Guvern vor crea condițiile necesare pentru dezvoltarea societății civile din țară și vor facilita realizarea rolului ei în societate. În acest sens, îndemnăm noile autorități să întreprindă în principal următoarele:

    1. asigurarea implementării eficiente a Strategiei de dezvoltare a societății civile 2018-2020;
    2. sporirea transparenței procesului decizional, în special la nivelul Guvernului și Parlamentului, implicarea organizațiilor societății civile în elaborarea principalelor documentele de politici. Excluderea practicii defectuoase de adoptare a proiectelor de legi și altor acte normative, inclusiv modificarea acestora, fără asigurarea consultărilor publice cu toate părțile interesate;  
    3. adoptarea în lectură finală a proiectului Legii cu privire la organizațiile necomerciale, în versiunea curentă (după prima lectură);
    4. îmbunătățirea mecanismului 2% și a celui cu privire la filantropie și sponsorizare, în sensul înlăturării barierelor tehnice nerezonabile și încurajării contribuabililor să susțină sectorul neguvernamental;
    5. asigurarea finanțării de stat existente a ONG-urilor în bază de transparență și condiții egale;
    6. detalierea cadrului legal cu privire la antreprenoriatul social și cumpărarea serviciilor sociale;
    7. clarificarea procedurii privind contractarea de către autoritățile publice a serviciilor prestate de ONG-uri;
    8. investigarea obiectivă a atacurilor nefondate îndreptate împotriva organizațiilor societății civile, în vederea sancționării făptuitorilor și prevenirii unor fapte similare;
    9. Încurajarea și susținerea ONG-urilor în vederea promovării și apărării valorilor democratice în regiunea transnistreană, precum și elaborarea unor mecanisme de protecție al apărătorilor drepturilor omului de pe ambele maluri ale Nistrului.

    Apelul integral este disponibil aici. 

    Organizațiile semnatare:

    1. Amnesty International Moldova
    2. Asociația de reabilitare a invalizilor din RM (ARIM)
    3. O. Eco-Răzeni
    4. Asociația Internațională a Păstrătorilor râului Nistru „Eco-Tiras”
    5. Asociația Femeilor Profesioniste și de Afaceri din Moldova (BPW Moldova)
    6. Asociația Obștească BIOS
    7. Asociația pentru Guvernare Eficientă și Responsabilă (AGER)
    8. Asociația Presei Independente (API)
    9. Asociația Promo-LEX
    10. Centrul de Analiză și Prevenire a Corupției (CAPC)
    11. Centrul de Drept al Femeilor
    12. Centrul de Informații GENDERDOC-M
    13. Centrul de Instruire și Consultanță Organizațională (CICO)
    14. Centrul pentru Jurnalism Independent (CJI)
    15. Centrul de Investigații Jurnalistice (CIJ)
    16. Centrul de Resurse Juridice din Moldova (CRJM)
    17. Centrul International La Strada Moldova
    18. Centrul pentru Politici și Analize în Sănătate (Centrul PAS)
    19. Comunitatea Watchdog.md
    20. Consiliul Național al Tineretului din Moldova (CNTM)
    21. CPR Moldova
    22. Expert-Grup
    23. Fundația pentru Dezvoltare
    24. Institutul de Politici Publice (IPP)
    25. Institutul pentru Politici și Reforme Europene (IPRE)
    26. Piligrim-Demo
    27. REC Moldova
    28. RCTV Memoria
    29. Terra-1530
    30. Uniunea Organizațiilor Invalizilor din Republica Moldova UOI RM
    31. Coaliției Naționale „Viața fără Violență în Familie
  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) today expressed concern at recent developments in Moldova which are effectively paralyzing governance in the country.

    During the past week, the Constitutional Court has ordered the dissolution of Parliament, suspended its functioning and invalidated its subsequent acts, including the appointment of a government and speaker, and has triggered the removal of the President.

    The ICJ is particularly concerned at the excessively swift procedure through which the Constitutional Court reached its decisions to dissolve Parliament, remove a sitting President of the Republic and replace him with the Prime Minister. The ICJ calls attention to the unhelpful timing of the Constitutional Court ruling that was issued on the very day it identified as the end of the Parliamentary term, depriving Parliament of the clarity needed to exercise its powers.

    These developments occur against the background of the manifest deficiencies in the institutional independence of the Moldova judiciary which were documented in a recent ICJ report.

    In the report issued in March 2019, the ICJ highlighted the problematic appointment in 2018 of three judges of the Constitutional Court in circumstances that did not ensure a sufficient level of transparency, during an electoral campaign and without an open competition process. The report noted that the three appointed judges have previously been Prosecutor General, director of the intelligence service and chair of the legal committee of Parliament, part of the then ruling political majority.

    The ICJ welcomes the announcement by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe that the Venice Commission has been asked to issue an urgent opinion on the constitutional crisis.

    “The rule of law is the common ground on which constitutional conflicts must be solved”, said Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser of the Europe Programme of the ICJ. “We call on all institutions and parties in Moldova to seek a solution that squarely complies with the rule of law and the international law and standards to which Moldova has subscribed. In this regard, we urge all parties concerned to wait for the opinion by the Council of Europe Venice Commission in this matter and to reconsider the situation in light of its findings.”

    Background

    The Constitutional Court, in decisions issued on 7, 8 and 9 June 2019, held that Parliament should be dissolved for having been unable to establish a government within three months of the end of the previous Government’s term of office.

    The decisions triggered the removal from office of the President of the Republic, Igor Dodon, for having refused to dissolve Parliament.  This led to the interim appointment of Pavel Filip, as acting President of the Republic.

    The Court also declared unconstitutional and void any act issued by Parliament after 7 June.

    Neither Parliament nor President Dodon have accepted the decisions of the Constitutional Court on their removal or on the validity of their acts, nor do they consider as legitimate the appointment of Pavel Filip as acting President.

    Parliamentary factions constituting the current majority in Parliament had reached a deal to form a coalition government and appointed a speaker and Prime Minister.

    According to the Constitutional Court’s interpretation of article 85 of the Constitution, these agreements failed to respect the three-month deadline.

    Others have put forward different interpretations of when the deadline of the three months period to appoint a Government would elapse, and of the obligation of the President of the Republic to dissolve Parliament.

    Article 85 of the Constitution states:

    (1) In the event of impossibility to form the Government or in case of blocking up the pro­cedure of adopting the laws for a period of three months, the President of the Republic of Moldova, following consultations with parliamentary fractions, may dissolve the Parliament.

    (2) The Parliament may be dissolved, if it has not accepted the vote of confidence for setting up of the new Government within 45 days following the first request and only upon declining at least two requests of investiture.

    (3) The Parliament may be dissolved only once in the course of one year.

    (4) The Parliament may not be dissolved within the last six months of the term of office of the President of the Republic of Moldova nor during a state of emergency, martial law or war.

    See original press release here

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Democratic standards significantly deteriorated in Moldova in the past three years. The June 2018 local elections in the capital of Chisinau, won by an opposition candidate from the political Block ACUM, were arbitrary annulled by judges. In November 2018, the European Parliament expressed its grave concern with backsliding in relation to democratic standards “resulting in the Republic of Moldova being a state captured by oligarchic interests with a concentration of economic and political power in the hands of a small group of people exerting their influence on parliament, the government, political parties, the state administration, the police, the judiciary and the media and leading to highly unsatisfactory implementation of legislation with little benefit for the citizens”.

    Parliamentary elections took place on 24 February 2019. They were carried out based on a mixed electoral system changed in 2017 by the Democratic and Socialists Parties against a broad national consensus and against Venice Commission recommendations, favoring the two parties, and with unprecedented use of administrative resources favoring the ruling Democratic Party. The elections were considered fair and competitive by OSCE/ODIHR and recognized by local actors.

    The Constitutional Court validated the results on 9 March 2019. The art. 85 para. 1 of the Constitution provides for a 3-month term for the Parliament to appoint the Government. The President of the country, after consulting the parliamentary groups,  is entitled to dissolve the Parliament if the 3-month term expired. According to the general legal rules and previous practices, 3 months would expire at the end of 3 calendar months from the event, in this case 9 June 2019. The Constitutional Court also highlighted that the scope of this constitutional provision is to avoid an institutional crisis or conflict between state powers (Judgement 30/2013, para. 73).  

    Following February elections four major political actors entered the new Parliament, none with a sufficient number of mandates to form a governing coalition and appoint the Government: Party of Socialists (35 seats out of total 101), the Democratic Party (led by oligarch Plahotniuc, 30 seats), ACUM block (i.e. Now!) (led by Maia Sandu and Andrei Nastase, 26 seats), and the party of a convicted oligarch Shor (7 seats). The positions of three main actors seem irreconcilable: Socialists, represented by President Dodon, campaigned for closer relations with Russia and its Eurasian Union, ACUM campaigned against state capture by Plahotniuc and for closer relations with the EU, while the ruling Democrats were ready to form a unity government to preserve power at any cost. Almost three months of uncertainty and fruitless attempts to establish a functional alliance followed. A solution to avoid new elections was only negotiated and agreed upon after visits and mediation by envoys from the EU (Johannes Hahn), US (Brad Freden), and Russia (Dmitri Kozak).

    CONSTITUTIONAL COURT DECISION OF 7 JUNE 2019, ARBITRARILY REDUCING THE TERM FOR INVESTING A GOVERNMENT

    On Friday, 7 June, in the afternoon, when an agreement between the Socialists and ACUM became probable, the Constitutional Court, composed mostly of Democratic Party affiliates, declared that the deadline for forming a new government is midnight of 7 June. Though the art. 85 para. 1 of the Constitution provides a three-month timeline from the date of validation of election results (9 March) for forming a government, the judges interpreted that the deadline expires 90 days later (midnight 7 June), rather than on Sunday, 9 June. No clear reasoning was provided for this interpretation. The Court also instructed President Dodon to dissolve the parliament immediately.

    CHANGE OF GOVERNMENT. COUP D'ETAT VS DISMANTLEMENT OF THE CAPTURED STATE

    The Socialists and ACUM rejected the Court’s ruling and, in a last-ditch effort to resolve the post-electoral stalemate, convened the Parliament on Saturday, 8 June. The parties finalized and signed a “temporary political agreement for the de-oligarchization of Moldova.” That very same day, the newly formed majority of 61 MPs voted the Socialists’ leader Zinaida Grecianii as Speaker of the Parliament. Immediately after, the President of Moldova nominated Ms. Maia Sandu as Prime-minister candidate. In the same day, the Parliament voted for the new Government led by Maia Sandu. The Parliament also voted a declaration on Moldova being a captured state and voted for dismissal of the leadership of key state institutions.

    The Parliaments’ decisions and the Presidential decree of nomination of the Prime-minister were immediately contested to the Constitutional Court by the outgoing ruling Democratic Party. In less than an hour, the Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional the Parliament’s decisions on election of its Speaker and appointment of the new Government, as well as the Decree of the President for nomination of the Prime-minister, pushing the country in an extremely volatile situation of duality of power, marked by uncertainty and risk of a clash between opposing political forces.

    The Democratic Party accused President Dodon and the new government of coup d’état. On Sunday morning, 9 June, the Constitutional Court suspended President Dodon due to his refusal to dissolve the Parliament, and appointed the ruling prime minister Pavel Filip, the Deputy-President of the Democratic Party, as acting President, who immediately dissolved the Parliament and called for snap elections on 6 September.

    DUALITY OF POWER

    Moldova is now in a new stalemate. On the one hand, the Parliament continues to convene and voted for a set of anti-corruption reforms. On the other hand, Plahotniuc’s ruling government refuses to cede power, and its position is supported by the Constitutional Court. The Democrats organized protests in Chisinau on Sunday and their supporters have surrounded the key law enforcement agencies and the Government. Democratic Party also called for removal of President Dodon and early Presidential election. Plahotniuc’s media released compromising videos where President Dodon acknowledges receiving funding from Russians.

    The Democratic Party protesters are preventing the new Government officials’ access to the main Government institutions. On 10 June, the Government led by Maia Sandu held its sitting in the Parliament’s building. The chief of police declared allegiance to the Democratic Party government. Several local authorities have declared their collaboration with the new Government.

    The EU, US and Russian Ambassadors were present at the parliamentary session on Saturday, and supported the appointment of the new government. However, no foreign leader has formally congratulated Maia Sandu, instead their bland statements are calling for national dialogue.

    The conflict between the two opposing parties will probably continue escalating in the following days. Clashes between opposing protesting crowds are very likely, as well as between newly-appointed officials and law enforcement. Officials at all levels will be declaring their fealty to either side, which could lead to further clashes at local levels.

    The new Government’s primary aim is to take control of state institutions currently under full command of Plahotniuc, adopt swift anti-corruption and electoral reforms, and relaunch relations with the EU, IMF and World Bank. New parliamentary elections are expected to be called under a reformed electoral system.

    The National Platform of the Civil Society Forum of the Eastern Partnership, which includes 86 active NGOs, issued a declaration on 9 June, calling national and international actors to recognize thst developments in Moldova

  • TAKING INTO ACCOUNT the recent political events in the Republic of Moldova;

    CONSIDERING the judgments and decisions of the Constitutional Court of 7, 8 and 9 June 2019,  

    CONSIDERING the Parliament’s decisions of 8 and 9 June 2019;

    CONSIDERING the major differences between the parliamentary fractions of the Democratic Party of Moldova (PDM) on the one hand, and the Socialists Party of the Republic of Moldova (PSRM), the Political Party Platform Dignity and Truth (PPDA) and the Party Action and Solidarity (PAS), the last two forming the Bloc ACUM, on the other hand;

    QUALIFYING as necessary and positive the declarations of the political forces of the Republic of Moldova of 8 June 2019 on maintaining the public order;

    POINTING OUT the  need for respecting by all political forces, as well as the Constitutional Court and the judicial system, of the legislation, the democratic principles and the rule of law;

    UNDERLYING the role of the Constitutional Court as a guardian of the respect of the Constitution and its role to contribute to a proper functioning of the public authorities, separation of powers, checks and balances among these, resolution of political disputes and not their amplification;

    RECALLING the Eastern Partnership membership status of the Republic of Moldova and the documents signed with development partners;

    BEARING IN MIND the important role of the civil society from Moldova in consolidating the rule of law, sustainable social and economic development of the country, as well as the role of the National Platform of the Civil Society Forum of the Eastern Partnership;

    CONDEMNING the manifest deviations from the text and spirit of the Constitution and the procedure of the Constitutional Court in the recent days;

    The National Platform of the Civil Society Forum of the Eastern Partnership declares:

    We are struck by the manner in which the Constitutional Court acted on 7, 8 and 9 June 2019. The Constitutional Court has interpreted the 3 month period from which the President of the country can dissolve the Parliament as being equal to 90 days, although any period expressed in months, according to the general legal rule, represents a calendar month. De facto, by this interpretation, the term during which the Parliament ca vote laws and appoint a Government, was reduced from 9 June to 7 June 2019. The decision of the Constitutional Court was issued at the end of the working day of 7 June 2019, which is, according to the Court, the day on which the term has expired. The Constitutional Court was requested  to decide on this matter back on 22 May 2019, as a matter of priority.

    In addition, the Court has interpreted the right of the President of the country to dissolve the Parliament as an obligation, without analyzing if the other conditions imposed by the Constitution (consultation of parliamentary fractions) for dissolving the Parliament had been met. On 8 June 2019, the Constitutional Court issued two judgments declaring unconstitutional the Parliament’s decisions on electing the Parliament’s Speaker and nominating the Prime-Minister. The judgements were issued in less than an hour from the moment the Parliament’s decisions were adopted, which were not yet signed and published. No independent judge can annul an act/document without having seen it. Moreover, the judgments of the Constitutional Court of 8 June 2018 were adopted without hearings and without consultation of the authorities, requirements imposed by the Code of Constitutional Jurisdiction.

    On 9 June 2019, at the PDM request from 8 June 2019, the Constitutional Court has suspended the President of the country Igor Dodon from his function, attributing the right to dissolve the Parliament to the ex-Prime Minister, the deputy-president of the PDM, Pavel Filip. This judgment was adopted before 10:30am, in the absence of the authorities and the authors of the request, in a hearing that lasted less than 5 minutes. The hearing was not announced in advance, no information was available about the submitted request. The Constitutional Court has suspended the activity of the President of the country, even if an official request to dissolve the Parliament had not been submitted. Previously, the President Igor Dodon has announced the convening of the parliamentary fractions for 10 June 2019 to discuss the dissolving the Parliament.

    The Constitutional Court activity of 7, 8 and 9 June 2019 confirms that it has compromised its constitutional role, acting exclusively in the interest of one political party. 17 NGOs, have expressed their concern about the Constitutional Court in December 2018, when three persons (50% of the Court) affiliated to PDM were appointed in a non-transparent manner.

    In this context, the National Platform of the Civil Society Forum of the Eastern Partnership:

    1. Encourages the Constitutional Court to urgently revise its decisions adopted on 7, 8 and 9 June 2019 and to return to legality. In order to reestablish the trust in the Constitutional Court and stabilize the situation in the country, we encourage all constitutional judges to resign;
    2. Calls on all political forces in Moldova to respect the constitutional provisions and act using strictly legal instruments, without destabilizing the socio-political situation;
    3. Requests the state institutions and all public officials to respect and act only according to the legal provisions and respect their legal attributions, not to allow interferences or any illegal meddling with their activity;
    4. Calls on all citizens of the Republic of Moldova to act calmly, to renounce at hate speech and instigation of violence, while those willing to protest, to do so only peacefully;
    5. Recognizes as legitimate the activity of the Republic of Moldova’s Parliament of 10th legislature, including since 8 June 2019, which has a full mandate regarding the validation of the results of the next parliamentary elections;
    6. Requests all public central and local authorities’ leaders, public officials and state employees to recognize the legitimacy of the Parliament of 10th legislature, of the Government sworn in on 8 June 2019 and collaborate with the authorities legally constituted of the Republic of Moldova for ensuring good governance, deescalating the situation and respecting the will of the people expressed at parliamentary elections of 24 February 2019;
    7. Requests the international development partners of Moldova to recognize the legitimacy of the Parliament of 10th legislature, of the Government sworn in on 8 June 2019 and collaborate with the authorities legally constituted of the Republic of Moldova for reestablishing the political dialogue, deescalating the situation and respecting the will of the people of Moldova expressed at parliamentary elections of 24 February 2019.

    Romanian version of the declaration can be downloaded here

    English version of the declaration can be downloaded here 

    The National Platform of the Civil Society Forum of the Eastern Partnership includes 86 active NGOs from the Republic of Moldova, from areas like good governance, human rights, economic development, environment, energy, youth and social policies, syndicates and employers’ unions etc.

    ***

    The statements of international development partners of Moldova on the political situation in the Republic of Moldova

    • European Union

    (08/06/2019)  "Following the decisions taken by the Parliament and in light of the ensuing developments, the European Union calls for calm and restraint. Democratically elected representatives must find the way forward for the Republic of Moldova through dialogue."

    Statement available here

    (09/06/2019)  „The European Union takes good note of the decisions taken yesterday by the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova, including on the formation of the government coalition. The European Union stands ready to work with the democratically legitimate government, on the basis of a mutual commitment to reforms and to the core principles enshrined in our Association Agreement. The respect for the rule of law and democracy should remain the pillars of our relations. This is also foremost what the citizens of the Republic of Moldova expect and deserve.In light of the developments following the decisions taken yesterday by the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova, the European Union strongly reiterates its call for calm and restraint. Dialogue between democratically elected representatives must remain the key to finding a solution to the current political crisis.”

    Statement available here

    • U.S. Embassy Moldova

    (09/06/2019)  "The United States calls on all Moldovan parties to show restraint and to agree on a path forward through political dialogue. The February 24 parliamentary elections were competitive and respected fundamental rights. The will of the Moldovan people as expressed in those elections must be respected without interference. Ensuring a prosperous and democratic future for Moldova and its citizens is a shared goal the United States will continue to support."

    Statement available here

    • Council of Europe, Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General

    (09/06/2019)  "I am extremely concerned by the latest developments in Moldova. I call on the democratically elected Parliament, the legitimate Government and all political forces to act with restraint and responsibility. Recent decisions of the Constitutional Court are difficult to understand and seem to be arbitrary in the light of the text of the Constitution and of international rule of law standards. In a democratic state everybody must respect the Constitution, in case of uncertainty a good objective advice is always needed. Therefore I decided today in my capacity of Secretary General to request an urgent opinion of the Venice Commission on the latest decisions, including on the conditions of dissolution of the Moldovan Parliament.”

    Statement available here 

    • NATO

    (09/06/2019)"NATO is following with concern the political crisis in the Republic of Moldova. We call on all political forces in the country to exercise calm and restraint, and to resolve their differences through dialogue, in full respect of the rule of law."

    Statement available here

    • OSCE Chairperson-in-Office Miroslav Lajčák

    (09/06/2019)  "The OSCE Chairmanship is following the political crisis in the Republic of Moldova with great concern. The citizens of the Republic of Moldova need a political solution to the current crisis and stability to ensure the European path of the country.”

    Statement available here

    • President of Romania, Claus Iohannis

    (09/06/2019)  "Romania, as a state holding the Presidency of the Council of the European Union and firmly supporting the European path of the Republic of Moldova, appeals to all political forces to respect the democratic process and the will of the citizens expressed through the vote in the elections in February 2019. The citizens of the Republic of Moldova need a politically negotiated solution that will ensure their prosperity, continue reforms and strengthen the pro-European path. "

    Statement available here 

    • Russian Embassy in the Republic of Moldova

    (08/06/2019)  "We support the efforts of the parliamentary parties to form a functioning coalition and to create a government able to ensure sustainable civil peace and sustainable development of the Republic of Moldova in accordance with established democratic norms."

    Statement available here  

    (10/06/2019)   "Moscow welcomes the formation of a ruling coalition and government in the Republic of Moldova. We are focused on working together with the democratically elected authorities of Moldova to restore mutually beneficial Russian-Moldovan relations in various fields in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation of 2001."

    Statement available here 

    • Canadian Embassy in the Republic of Moldova

    (09/06/2019)  "We encourage all political parties and institutions in Moldova to engage in dialogue to resolve the current impasse. Any resolution should follow international democratic standards, the rule of law, and reflect the democratic will of the Moldovan people.”

    Statement available here

    • Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine

    (09/06/2019)  "We invite the political forces in power in the Republic of Moldova to act according to the legal framework, to resolve the disputes through the political dialogue, in order to avoid a power struggle. Important for the country and security in the region is the prevention of external interference aimed at implementing the Russian federalization scenario of the country."

    Statement available here 

    • Joint declaration of France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Poland and Sweden

      (10/06/2019) "France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Poland and Sweden have noted with close attention the recent developments in the Republic of Moldova. Following the Parliamentary elections, a democratically elected Parliamentary majority has taken important decisions including the formation of a government. In the current constitutional crisis, we see and support the Parliament of Moldova, as the representative of the people of Moldova, and as the best place to discuss all political issues including controversial ones.”

    Statement available here

    • Switzerland

    (10/06/2019)  "Switzerland welcomed the Parliamentary elections of February 24, which were competitive and generally respecting fundamental rights. The expression of the will of the Moldovan people in those elections must be respected. The Parliament of the Republic of Moldova has decided last Saturday to elect a new speaker and to form a new government. Switzerland is looking forward to continuing the implementation of its development cooperation assistance. Following the latest political development, Switzerland calls all political parties and institutions to engage in a peaceful dialogue to resolve this political crisis. Calm and restraint shall prevail for the benefit of all Moldovans."

    Statement available here  

    • Helsinki Commission Chairman Rep. Alcee L. Hastings

               (12/06/2019) “I am watching developments in Moldova with concern. Moving the goalpost because one party doesn’t like the outcome of an agreement does not reflect the commitment to democracy we expect to see in an OSCE participating State. I applaud the formation of a democratically legitimate coalition and look forward to supporting the Euro-Atlantic aspirations of the Moldovan people.”

    Statement available here 

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • EXTENSION OF THE CALL FOR PROPOSALS: in continuation of the tender advertisement dated 4 April 2019 for COMMISSIONING A GENDER ANALYSIS OF THE JUDICIARY IN MOLDOVA, the LRCM hereby extends the tender submission date to 20 May 2019.

    The total budget for the overall assignment activity should not exceed the amount of USD 8,000 (including any relevant travel, accommodation or consultancy costs).

    1. BACKGROUND

    The Republic of Moldova is part to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, the Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. The Republic of Moldova is also bound, under the EU-Moldova Association Agreement, by the EU norms and standards in the field of non-discrimination. The EU-Moldova Association Agenda for 2017-2019 provides that equality and gender issues should be addressed as a crosscutting priority.

    In the national legislation, the principle of gender equality is enshrined in the Law no. 5 on ensuring equal opportunities between men and women of 9 February 2006. Other legal norms on equality and non-discrimination are contained in the art. 16 of the Constitution and the Law no. 121 on ensuring equality of 25 May 2012. In the justice sector, the 2011-2017 Justice Sector Reform Strategy did not have specific objectives and activities meant to promote gender equality in the justice sector. The Government adopted also the Strategy for ensuring equality between women and men in the Republic of Moldova for 2016-2020. The draft National Development Strategy “Moldova 2030”, Objective 8 related to ensuring good governance based on rule of law, includes integration of gender dimension in the development of public policies in all spheres of life and accountability of public institutions for effective implementation of gender equality. All the mentioned acts establish the minimum requirements for ensuring gender equality and provide a legal basis for promoting and strenghtening gender equality.

    Representation of men and women in the Moldovan judiciary is almost equal. From the total number of judges, 52,3% are men and 47,7% - women. In comparison, in 2008, only 33,6% of the judges were women. However, most of the leading positions are held by men: the president of the Superior Council of Magistracy, the president of the Supreme Court of Justice, the president of the Constitutional Court. Also, the presidents of the four Courts of Appeals are men. The appointments and promotions in the judiciary should be done on the merit-based principle. There is no public document or guideline emphasizing gender equality as a priority for judicial appointments and career. Gender-based stereotypes and prejudices might also play an important role in appointments and career of judges. There is a need to carry out a baseline gender analysis of the judiciary in Moldova.

    1. PURPOSE OF THE ASSIGNMENT

    Legal Resources Centre from Moldova (LRCM)[1] seeks to contract a consultant/ team of consultants (Consultant) to carry out a gender analysis of the judiciary in Moldova and to present it during a public event in Chisinau, Moldova under the Institutional Support for Organizational Development Project, funded by Sweden.

     The gender analysis will provide an understanding of existing gender inequalities and its causes in the judiciary in Moldova. In this sense, the gender analysis should establish a baseline situation by having a clear picture of differences and gaps in the following key issues, as a minimum:

    • The level of representation of men and women across the judiciary, according to the age pyramid, at different occupational levels and levels of jurisdiction;
    • Potential and/or assessed impact of legislation, judicial policies, regulations, programmes and practices in gender mainstreaming in judicial recruitment and career;
    • Level of work and life balance both de jure and in practice for men and women in judiciary, including availability and use of parental leave and flexible work arrangements by men and women;
    • Assessment of equal pay for equal work or work of equal value;
    • Gender mainstreaming in institutional budgets of courts in Moldova;
    • Gender bias, gender stereotypes or discriminatory practices expressed in behaviours, believes, attitudes embodied by judicial staff and authorities as part of the judiciary’s workplace culture (gender equality culture);
    • Gender balanced representation in decision making processes in judiciary administration;
    • Gender and collegial relationships / internal and workplace culture affecting or encouraging gender equality within the judiciary;
    • Actions related to international co-operation through continuously sharing knowledge, lessons learned and good practices on gender equality and mainstreaming initiatives in gender equality in judiciary;
    • Sexual harassment policies, awareness and preventive practices within the judiciary;
    • Attitudes concerning the equal representation of women and men in the Moldovan judiciary;
    • Internal and external factors affecting the level of gender equality;
    • List of recommendations in order to mainstream gender equality approach in the judiciary in Moldova.
    1. METHODOLOGY OF THE ANALYSIS

    The Consultant will elaborate the methodology for the analysis using both quantitative and qualitative approaches. LRCM expects the Consultant to use the following methods: desk review of the relevant legislation, regulations, practices, statistics, relevant reports and individual interviews and/or focus groups, as well as other methods as deemed appropriate by the Consultant. The Consultant shall consult the methodology with LRCM prior to initiating the evaluation. 

    1. WORKING METHOD WITH LRCM

    The LRCM team will work with the Consultant and will provide technical and logistical assistance to the Consultant in conducting the assignment. In particular, the LRCM team will present the relevant information for the analysis, such as legislation, including translations, if necessary, or summaries, reports, surveys and statistics, will arrange the interviews / focus groups and other necessary activities for the purpose of the assignment. Additional data can be collected by the LRCM team at the request of the Consultant. The LRCM will provide comments on the draft assessment report, will translate it into Romanian, if necessary, and will organize the public event to present the final assessment.  

    1. KEY DELIVERABLES

    The Consultant shall provide the following deliverables, depending on the services provided:

    • Methodology, including research questions and interview/focus groups guides;
    • Draft gender assessment report, including recommendations for gender equality and mainstreaming in the judiciary;
    • Final gender assessment report, including final recommendations;
    • Presentation of the gender assessment report during a half-day public event in Chisinau, Moldova, including a PPT presentation.

    All deliverables shall be presented in English or Romanian. The exact report format will be agreed upon with the Consultant prior to commencing the assignment.

    The final report (as well as previous documents) must be of very high quality, including language. The findings, analysis, conclusions and recommendations should be thorough and the link between them should be clear. The recommendations should be concrete and realistic and presented in a logical structure following on their importance and level of details. Minimum quality standards will be required to proceed to the disbursement.

    1. TIMELINE

    The period of assignment will be up to 15 days, depending on expert’s fees and methodology, from May to July 2019, with the final analysis to be delivered by 15 September 2019. The presentation event will take place in October 2019.

    1. REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CONSULTANT

    The Consultant (company or individual) shall correspond to the following requirements:

    1. University degree in law, social sciences or another relevant field. A master or PhD degree in these fields or gender studies will be considered as an advantage;
    2. 5 years’ experience in promoting gender equality. Experience in promoting gender equality and mainstreaming in the justice system will be considered as an advantage;
    3. Knowledge of analytical methods and tools for mainstreaming gender in the justice system or related areas will be considered an asset. Knowledge and experience of Moldova or the Central and East European region is an advantage;
    4. Excellent writing, reporting and communication skills;
    5. Proficiency in English. Command of the Romanian language will be considered as an advantage.

     

    1. APPLICATION PROCESS

    Interested Consultants should submit their proposals via email to application@crjm.org by 25 April 2019, including the following components:

    • Cover letter and CV, including links or attached two most relevant similar assignments;
    • An outline of the envisaged methodology for the assignment (outlining the overall approach and suggested methods, including a proposed plan of action with timelines, potential challenges and ways to overcome);
    • Financial offer in USD, with the breakdown of costs (consultancy fee per number of anticipated working days, including costs for per diems, accommodation, local travel for visit in Moldova. LRCM will cover costs for 2 (two) return flights). For Moldovan candidates, if selected: a. companies are invited to send their financial offers including VAT, with possibility to render services at 0% VAT upon submission by the Beneficiary of the confirmation package, and b. individual candidates – net amounts. For foreign individual candidates / companies, if selected, the tax resident certificate issued by the relevant tax authority of the country of origin will be requested. Upon presentation of the certificate of residence for tax purposes based on the Convention for the avoidance of double taxation, the Consultant will have the sole responsibility for the payment of all applicable taxes (income, payroll, unemployment, etc.) relating to Consultant and Consultant’s employees arising from payments to be received.

    Disbursement and payment modalities will be agreed upon by both parties and specified in the contract with the Consultant. 

    For any clarifications on the assignment, please email Sorina MACRINICI at sorina.macrinici@crjm.org.

    1. EVALUATION

    The cumulative method will be applied in the evaluation of the applications. The contract will be awarded to the candidate achieving the highest cumulative score from the technical and financial parts of the proposal. The technical proposal accounts for 70% of the total score and the financial proposal will account for 30% of the total evaluation score.

    The offers will be evaluated based on the following criteria:

     

    Criteria

    Max. point

     

    Technical

     

    Envisaged methodology and plan of action for the assignment

    30

    Relevant degree (university degree in law, social sciences or another relevant field. A master or PhD degree in these fields or gender studies will be considered as an advantage)

    10

    Relevant professional experience: gender field and justice field (5 years’ experience in promoting gender equality)

    15

    Record of participation in an assignment of similar size and degree of complexity

    10

    Knowledge and experience in Moldova / Central and East European region

    5

    In the event of any potential or existing conflict of interest, the tenderers must declare it by completing a free-form conflict of interest declaration.

    Terms of reference can be downloaded here. 

    [1] The Centrul de Resurse Juridice din Moldova(CRJM) / Legal Resources Centre from Moldova (LRCM) is a not-for profit non-governmental organization based in Chişinău, Republic of Moldova. The LRCM promotes an independent, efficient, and accountable judiciary, respect of human rights, an enabling environment for civil society and democracy. For that end, we identify problems with systemic impact, bring them into the public agenda, propose solutions, react to abuses and mobilize partners for changes in good. In achieving these aims, LRCM combines policy research and advocacy in an independent and non-partisan manner. LRCM was registered in 2010. More information on LRCM activity is available at www.crjm.org/en.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Centrul de Resurse Juridice din Moldova (CRJM) dă start înscrierii la Școla de vară – 2019 „Democrația aplicată”.

     

    Evenimentul se va desfășura în afara mun. Chișinău, în perioada 1 – 6 iulie 2019 și este destinat studenților/telor și proaspeților/telor absolvenți/te ai facultăților de drept, jurnalism, psihologie, relații internaționale, științe politice și administrative sau alte domenii conexe, care sunt interesați/te în promovarea democrației în Republica Moldova.

     

    Prin intermediul Școlii de vară, CRJM își propune să transmită participanților/telor informații și abilități practice cu privire la principiile democrației, statului de drept și instrumentele de implicare civică, de combatere a corupției și de protecție a drepturilor omului etc.

     

    Formatori în cadrul evenimentului vor fi experți naționali și internaționali.

     

    Participarea la Școala de vară este gratuită. Cheltuielile de transportare, cazare și alimentare vor fi acoperite de CRJM. Locul desfășurării va fi comunicat ulterior persoanelor selectate.

     

    Candidații/tele urmează să corespundă următoarelor cerințe:

     

    • Să fie student/ă al anului III-IV sau proaspăt/ă absolvent/ă la una din facultățile menționate mai sus;
    • Să cunoască limba română;
    • Să fie disponibil/ă să participe la școala de vară pe întreaga durată a evenimentului;
    • Să completeze formularul de participare (click aici pentru a accesa formularul) până la 30 aprilie 2019.

     

    Prioritate va fi acordată candidaților care nu au participat la edițiile anteriore ale școlii „Democrația aplicată”.

     

    Despre rezultatele selecției, candidații vor fi notificați după data de 6 mai 2019. Pentru întrebări suplimentare ne puteți contacta la adresa electronică: <ahref="mailto:daniel.goinic@crjm.org">daniel.goinic@crjm.org .

     

    Experiența participanților/telor din edițiile anterioară ale Școlii „Democrația aplicată” poate fi vizualizată aici și aici.

     

    Acest eveniment este organizat în cadrul proiectului „Suport instituțional pentru dezvoltarea organizației” susținut de Suedia.

  • Процентное отчисление, также известное как Закон о 2% или механизм 2%, представляет собой процесс, с помощью которого физические лица, являющиеся налогоплательщиками, могут направлять 2% от годового подоходного налога в неправительственные или религиозные организации страны.

    Процентное отчисление является формой косвенной поддержки, оказываемой государством некоммерческому сектору, и возможностью, посредством которой налогоплательщики участвуют в управлении государственными деньгами, сообщая государству, что делать и куда направить 2% от их налога.

    Механизм 2% - это не пожертвование, которое люди осуществляют из своих денег. Это деньги, которые удерживаются из доходов и ежегодно выплачиваются государству в виде подоходного налога. Если налогоплательщик решит направить 2% в какую-либо организацию, государство получит 98% налога, а 2% пойдут в организацию, которую он решил поддержать.

    Налогоплательщики могут направить 2% только в организации, зарегистрированные в Перечне получателей процентного отчисления, доступного по ссылке здесь.

    Процентное отчисление осуществляется в момент подачи декларации о подоходном налоге. Таким образом, любое лицо, желающее направить 2%, должно подать декларацию о подоходном налоге, даже если работает только в одном месте и не обязано, согласно Налоговому кодексу, подавать декларацию о подоходном налоге. Декларация подается ежегодно, в период с 1 января по 30 апреля, в любом отделении Государственной налоговой службы.

    Для подтверждения процентного отчисления, налогоплательщик должен подать декларацию своевременно, не иметь долгов по подоходному налогу и осуществить процентное отчисление в пользу одной единственной организации из Перечня получателей 2%.

    В 2019 году, после налоговой реформы, проведенной осенью прошлого года, отчисление 2% осуществляется посредством заполнения двух деклараций о подоходном налоге:

    Чтобы направить 2% в некоммерческую организацию, физическое лицо, являющееся налогоплательщиком, должно заполнить формы CET15 и CET18 необходимыми данными и указать в факультативном разделе, предназначенном для осуществления процентного отчисления, 13-значный фискальный код (IDNO) организации-получателя. Код можно найти в Перечне получателей 2%. В форе CET15 фискальный код организации-получателя указывается в ячейке M2, а в форме CET18 - в ячейке M1.

    Формы СЕТ15 и СЕТ18 можно получить:

    • в любом отделении Государственной налоговой службы;
    • на веб-странице https://servicii.fisc.md/formulare.aspx, c возможностью их загрузки и заполнения;
    • на веб-странице https://servicii.fisc.md/: вариант доступный для обладателей электронной или мобильной подписи. В этом случае форма уже будет предварительно заполнена информацией, которой располагает Государственная налоговая служба.

    Декларацию о подоходном налоге можно подать:

    • лично: в любом отделении Государственной налоговой службы, независимо от места жительства физического лица, являющегося налогоплательщиком;
    • по почте: в этом случае декларации могут быть отправлены в любое территориальное отделение Государственной налоговой службы;
    • онлайн: с применением электронной или мобильной подписи.

    Более подробную информацию о механизме смотрите здесь: www.2procente.info.

     

     

     

     

     

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • CRJM, alături de alte 17 organizații non-guvernamentale, au publicat astăzi, 20 martie 2019, un document în care sunt documentate și analizate încercările de deteriorare a mediului de activitate al organizațiilor societății civile (OSC) din Moldova pe parcursul anului 2018. Documentul a fost denumit generic „Radiografia atacurilor asupra organizațiilor neguvernamentale”.

    Documentul a fost elaborat în contextul în care un număr din ce în ce mai mare de OSC-uri independente devin ținta numeroaselor acțiuni de discreditare și denigrare. O publicație similară a fost elaborată și în 2017 și viza perioada septembrie 2016 – decembrie 2017.

    Scopul principal al documentului este de a atrage atenția la pericolul atacurilor orchestrate asupra funcționării OSC-urilor și a determina autoritățile publice, instituțiile private și persoanele care susțin respectivele atacuri să se oprească și să permită OSC-urilor să activeze liber. De asemenea, acest document are scopul de a permite OSC-urilor să formuleze o reacție promptă la atacurile lansate împotriva lor. Atacurile în contextul prezentului document reprezintă în special declarații și acțiuni ale politicienilor, îndeosebi a celor aflați la guvernare, articolele și reportaje mass-media sau intervențiile publice care prezintă sectorul non-profit într-o manieră vădit negativă cu scopul discreditării imaginii acestora.

    Informația inclusă în document a fost obținută din resursele mass-media disponibile online și de pe rețelele de socializare, precum și din analiza cantitativă și calitativă a acestora.

    Versiunea română a documentului este disponibilă aici

    Versiunea engleză a documentului este disponibilă aici

    Versiunea rusă a documentului este disponibilă aici 

    Conferința de presă privind lansarea documentului „Radiografia atacurilor asupra organizațiilor neguvernamentale din Republica Moldova în 2018” poate fi vizualizată mai jos:

     

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • CRJM extinde termenul de aplicare la concurs până la 17 aprilie 2019. 

    Scopul concursului:

    În vederea fortificării capacităților instituționale ale organizației și dezvoltării abilităților de comunicare publică ale membrilor organizației, CRJM solicită oferte de preț pentru selectarea unui consultant/unei consultante sau echipe de consultanți care să livreze: (i) un training de public speaking și dicție pentru echipa CRJM și (ii) servicii de mentorat individual în domeniul public speaking și dicție. Această activitate va fi realizată în cadrul proiectului „Promovarea supremației legii prin monitorizare de către societatea civilă”, implementat cu suportul financiar al Agenției SUA pentru Dezvoltare Internațională (USAID).

    (i) un training de public speaking și dicție pentru echipa CRJM

    Training-ul de public speaking și dicție cu o durată  maximă de 16 ore urmează să se desfășoare în perioada aprilie – mai 2019 (în prealabil 17-18 aprilie 2019 sau 8-9 mai 2019). Perioada exactă urmează a fi stabilită de comun acord cu echipa CRJM și consultantul/consultanta/echipa de consultanți selectată. Trainingul va fi unul practic, implicând simulări de conferințe de presă, interviuri, discursuri la microfon etc, care să dezvolte abilitățile de comunicare publică ale echipei.

    În cadrul cursului de instruire este necesar să fie abordate în principal următoarele subiecte/ aspecte:

    • tehnici de elaborare și livrare a unui discurs public convingător și memorabil;
    • managementul emoțiilor
    • exerciții practice pentru îmbunătățirea dicției;
    • tehnici și strategii pentru îmbunătățirea limbajului non-verbal;
    • managementul audienței;
    • strategii de comunicare externă și comunicarea eficientă cu jurnaliștii.

    N.B. Consultantul/consultanta sau echipa de consultanți poate propune și alte subiecte considerate relevante scopului instruirii.  

    (ii) servicii de mentorat individual în domeniul public speaking și dicție.

    Consultantul / consultanta va livra servicii mentorat și improvizație în baza analizei prestațiilor publice ale membrilor echipei CRJM. Consultațiile personale vor avea o durată maximă de 4 ore per angajat/ă, pentru un număr total maxim de 10 persoane.

    Cheltuielile pentru organizarea sesiunilor vor fi acoperite de CRJM, consultantul / consultanta urmează să indice în oferta financiară doar costurile pentru pregătirea și livrarea trainingului și a orelor de mentorat, precum și cerințele specifice pentru logistica evenimentului (spre exemplu, cerințe specifice pentru sala de lucru, rechizitele necesare etc.).

    • Criteriile de selecție:
    • studii superioare în psihologie, comunicare, relații cu publicul, sau alte domenii relevante;
    • experienţa anterioară de elaborare și livrare a training-urilor și/sau orelor de curs pe comunicare publică (minim 3 ani);
    • metodologia de lucru propusă;
    • reputație și integritate personală/ corporativă;
    • oferta financiară.

    Prezentarea ofertelor:

    Ofertele pot fi prezentate de persoane fizice și/sau juridice. Oferta trebuie să fie datată și semnată de către ofertant/ă și expediată prin e-mail la application@crjm.org sau direct la sediul CRJM, str. A.Șciusev 33, Chișinău, MD-2001, până pe 2 aprilie 2019.

     Oferta va include:

    - Copia certificatului de înregistrare / extrasului pentru persoană juridică și CV-ul actualizat al candidatului / candidatei pentru persoană fizică, de rând cu scrisoarea de intenție, care va conţine în mod obligatoriu: (1) Lista training-urilor și/sau orelor de curs livrate în domeniul public speaking și dicție; (2) Numele şi datele de contact ale două persoane de referinţă;

    - Un proiect al planului de curs și mentorat (metodologia) – max. 1 pagină;

    - Oferta financiară cu indicarea prețului per zi pentru training/pregătire, prețului  per oră pentru servicii de mentorat, precum și costul total al serviciilor în dolari SUA. În cazul persoanelor fizice va fi indicat prețul net, iar persoanele juridice vor indica prețul cu aplicarea scutirii de TVA cu drept de deducere. Beneficiarul va prezenta ofertantului câștigător documentele confirmative pentru livrări cu aplicarea scutirii de TVA cu drept de deducere. Ofertele prezentate în altă valută vor fi convertite la cursul oficial al BNM din data limită pentru prezentarea ofertelor.

    - În cazul existenței unui conflict de interese, real sau potențial cu membrii sau angajații CRJM, candidatul / candidata se obligă să-l declare în baza unei declarații completate în formă liberă și anexate la ofertă.

    Pentru informații suplimentare, Vă rugăm să ne contactați la numărul de telefon 022 843601 ext.108 sau la adresa de e-mail: olga.burucenco@crjm.org

    Notă: CRJM își rezervă dreptul să nu aleagă niciun/nicio candidat/ă în cazul în care ofertele primite nu vor corespunde cerințelor sale.

    P.S. Doar candidatul/a, persoană fizică, selectat/ă urmează să justifice onorariul solicitat prin completarea unui formular cu indicarea onorariilor solicitate pentru servicii similare de la alți trei contractori, cu anexarea documentelor justificative.

  • În fiecare an, în perioada 1 ianuarie - 30 aprilie, persoanele fizice plătitoare de impozite pot direcționa 2% odată cu depunerea declarației cu privire la impozitul pe venit, cunoscută anterior și sub numele de Formularul CET15.

    Ca urmare a reformei fiscale din toamna anului 2018 și modificării pragurilor de impozitare salariale, Formularul CET15 a fost înlocuit cu Formularul CET18.

    Ca rezultat, în 2019, persoanele fizice plătitoare de impozite urmează să prezinte la Serviciul Fiscal de Stat două declarații cu privire la impozitul pe venit:

    Prin urmare, și persoanele fizice plătitoare de impozite  care doresc să direcționeze 2% către o organizație non-guvernamentală sau cult religios din țară, vor trebui să indice codul fiscal al organizației pe care doresc să o susțină (cele 13 cifre)  în ambele declarații: atât în Formularul CET15, cât și în Formularul CET18.

    În Formularul CET15, codul fiscal al organizației beneficiare va fi trecut în secțiunea a șasea (facultativă), în câmpul M2. Câmpul M1 nu va fi completat, va rămâne gol. În Formularul CET18, codul fiscal al organizației beneficiare va fi introdus în secțiunea a cincea (facultativă), în câmpul M1.

    Formularele CET15 și CET18 pot fi obținute:

    • de la orice direcție de deservire a Serviciului Fiscal de Stat;
    • de pe pagina web https://servicii.fisc.md/formulare.aspx, cu posibilitatea descărcării și completării lor;
    • de pe pagina web https://servicii.fisc.md/: opțiune valabilă pentru deținătorii semnăturii electronice sau mobile. În acest caz, la accesare, formularul va fi deja pre-completat cu informațiile de care dispune Serviciul Fiscal de Stat.

    Formularele pot fi depuse:

    • personal: la orice odirecție de deservire a Serviciului Fiscal de Stat, indiferent unde are viza de domiciliu persoana fizică plătitoare de impozite;
    • prin poștă: caz în care formularele pot fi expediate către oricare oficiu teritorial al Serviciului Fiscal de Stat;
    • online: cu aplicarea semnăturii electronice sau mobile.

    Reamintim că orice persoană care dorește să redirecționeze 2% trebuie să depună declarația cu privire la impozitul pe venit, chiar dacă este angajată într-un singur loc de muncă și nu are obligația, potrivit Codului fiscal, de a depune declarația cu privire la impozitul pe venit.

    Lista beneficiarilor mecanismului 2% pentru anul 2019 poate fi consultată aici.

    Mai multe detalii despre mecanismul 2% vedeți aici.

     

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) said today that Moldova remained a significant way from having a functionally independent judiciary, which is an indispensable element in the country’s capacity to deliver justice for its people and institutions.

    The ICJ’s report launched today Only an empty shell”-The undelivered promise of an independent judiciary in Moldova”, sets out a number of specific recommendations for reform which with a view to achieving a fully independent judiciary and effective justice system.

    The report followed its field mission to Moldova in November 2018, which built upon the work of previous missions undertaken in 2004 and in 2012.

    "While many significant legislative reforms have been undertaken, judicial independence is far from being achieved in Moldova", said Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser for the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme, "Reforms are needed in the law, but more than that a change is needed the mindset and working culture of many judges themselves that must protect and promote judicial independence in all of their work".

    The ICJ acknowledged that important progress had been achieved in many areas, including in efforts to secure audio-recordings of all court hearings, the introduction of a system of random allocation of cases, and staff and salary increases for all judges.

    However, the ICJ has concluded that the implementation of the most crucial legal reforms is significantly lagging behind and often lacks political will and conviction.

    A culture of excessive hierarchy in the judiciary and of the judge remained prevalent among judges.

    The ICJ is concerned at reports that the Superior Council of Magistracy (SCM) – a judicial self-governance body - instead of playing its crucial role of defending the independence of the judiciary, institutionally and in respect of individual judges, has become an instrument of pressure on individual judges and a threat to their independence.

    "During our mission, we were presented with witness statements and stories of judges living often in a condition of fear: fear to express their opinions on the situation of the judiciary; and fear of criminal prosecution solely for issuing a decision contrary to the requests of the prosecutor’s office or of other powerful interests", said Massimo Frigo.

    Achieving judicial independence requires a change of attitude towards the judiciary from the executive and other sources of State and private power, but most importantly from the judiciary itself.

    Recommendations

    The ICJ report makes specific recommendations, including:

    • The bodies of governance of the judiciary and any institution in the Republic of Moldova, within the limits of their competence, should do their utmost to strongly and publicly encourage all judges not to fear pursuing their professional responsibilities independently within the boundaries of the rule of law. Transparency, pluralism and free, respectful and competent, even if critical, opinion should be the cornerstone of the judiciary in Moldova;
    • The composition of the SCM should be changed by removing the ex-officio membership of the Minister of Justice, Prosecutor General and the President of the Supreme Court of Justice. The number of judges from the first instance courts should be increased to ensure a greater level of representativeness;
    • The initial temporary appointment of judges for a five-year term should be abolished;
    • The judges of the Supreme Court of Justice should be appointed by the President, similar to the other judges, rather than by the Parliament;
    • The SCM decisions on appointment and promotion of judges must be publicly motivated based on objective criteria;
    • In order to ensure the transparency and accountability of the work of the SCM, its meetings should, as a rule, not be held behind closed doors, while the decisions of the SCM should include thorough reasoning in each case;
    • The SCM should encourage and not impede judges from participation in external events, allowing them to speak freely about the challenges in the judiciary, and do not limit them from commenting and proposing constructive recommendations to strengthen the independence of the judiciary and its effectiveness;
    • The Association of Judges should not be seen as a corporatist instrument, but as an umbrella institution acting openly and consistently for the defence of the independence of all judges. A pluralism of voices must be ensured in the judiciary, including by creating additional associations or groups to contribute to debate on strengthening the independence of the judiciary;
    • Disciplinary proceedings should not be linked to evaluations assessments, as they should relate only to disciplinary offences provided by international standards;
    • The criminal offence under article 307 from the Criminal Code (wilfully rendering a judgment, sentence, decision or ruling in breach of the law) constitutes a dangerous instrument of pressure on judges by the prosecution service and shall be abolished;
    • Hearings in criminal cases must be held in public and the decisions must be clearly delivered in public. The use of closed court hearings including, and particularly, in high-level criminal cases that raise matters of public interest is contrary to international standards on transparency of judiciary and the fairness of proceedings;
    • Investigative judges should enjoy full independence in practice;
    • The provisions that excluded the obligation on district court judges to provide reasons for their decisions in civil matters should be abolished and the Moldovan authorities should identify alternative solutions to the deflation of the civil courts’ workload.

    The full version of the report and full set of recommendations is available in English and Romanian.

    This report was prepared by the International Commission of Jurists within the framework of the project “Promoting rule of law in Moldova through civil society oversight”, implemented by the Legal Resources Centre from Moldova (LRCM), which is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents are the responsibility of the International Commission of Jurists and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID, the United States Government or LRCM.

    Romanian version of the report is available here. 

    English version of the report is available here.

    You can watch the livestream of the launching event below:

     Contacts:

    Massimo FRIGO, Senior Legal Adviser, Europe and Central Asia Programme, International Commission of Jurists, massimo.frigo@icj.org

     

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Ziua „Zero Discriminare” este marcată în fiecare an la data la 1 Martie, de la oficializarea acesteia în 2014 la inițiativa ONU.

    Toată lumea poate avea un rol în eliminarea discriminării şi poate încerca să facă diferenţa, într-o măsură mai mare sau mai mică. Campania #ZeroDiscrimination (#ZeroDiscriminare) este oportunitate de a solicita oamenilor de pretutindeni să promoveze şi să sărbătorească diversitatea, toleranţa şi incluziunea şi să acționeze împreună pentru a pune capăt discriminării.

    În ceea ce priveşte Republica Moldova, spre regret problema discriminării există. Acest fapt este confirmat atât de sondajele efectuate, cât și de statistica Consiliului pentru prevenirea şi eliminarea discriminării şi asigurarea egalităţii (CPEDAE), care relevă un număr crescând al plângerilor în care a fost constatată discriminarea.

    Numeroase organizaţii non-guvernamentale promovează activ această cauză prin diferite activităţi, pentru a evidenţia dreptul fiecărei persoane de a trăi în deplină demnitate, indiferent de vârstă, gen, orientare sexuală, naţionalitate, origine etnică, limbă, religie sau convingeri, sex, vârstă, dizabilitate, opinie, apartenenţă politică sau orice alt criteriu similar.

    CRJM contribuie activ la respectarea principiului egalității și nediscriminării și în scopul sporirii nivelului de informare a societăţii la acest capitol a efectuat anterior mai multe analize, printre care:

     

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • The Civic Coalition for Free and Fair Elections calls for the Central Election Commission to adopt and publish, as soon as possible, a decision to allow the citizens of the Republic of Moldova with expired identity documents, wherever they will vote, to vote based on their expired identity documents in the parliamentary elections of 24 February 2019, as long as their identity documents allow their identification.

    The Civic Coalition for Free and Fair Elections is concerned about the decision of 14 January 2019 of the Constitutional Court, which missed the opportunity to set equal voting conditions for all citizens of the Republic of Moldova regardless of their residence. That decision, however, does not set legal impediments for the Central Election Commission (CEC) to continue its practice of previous years and issue a decision allowing Moldovan citizens to vote based on their expired identity documents in the parliamentary elections of 24 February 2019, regardless of their residence.

    The CEC decision to allow citizens to vote based on their expired documents is very important and necessary for effectively ensuring the voting rights and the consistence with its previous practice in the parliamentary elections of 2010 and 2014 and the presidential election of 2016. The CEC’s practice of allowing the voting based on expired documents is legal and was upheld and confirmed by the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ) decision of 28 November 2014. CEC’s previous practice created a legitimate expectation among the citisenz that, in the parliamentary election of 2019, the CEC would allow voting based on expired identity documents again and, consequently, the citizens did not take actions in advance to renew their documents. Moreover, the government and the CEC did not carry out an extensive campaign to inform citizens about the intention to change this practice.

    The CEC decision to allow citizens to vote based on their expired documents will avert unreasonable denial of the right to vote to a considerable number of people, which otherwise could have major impact on the election results. For example, according to the CEC decisions that allowed the voting based on expired documents in the parliamentary elections of 2014 and presidential elections of 2016, in October 2016, there were 409,791 Moldovan citizens with expired passports, and in November 2014, there were approximately 155,232 Moldovans with expired identity cards and 241,746 Moldovans with expired passports. In 2019, even more citizens might have expired passports, just as in 2016 there were more that in 2014.

    The voting based on expired documents will facilitate the exercise of the right to vote. This is not going to create a threat of fraud or distortion of the election results, since, during the voting process, the identification of citizens with the voting right is done by checking the State Register of Voters, intended for collecting, storing, updating and analyzing data about Moldovan citizens aged 18 and above, including those from abroad, who are not forbidden from voting by law (Article 42 of the Electoral Code). The State Register of Voters is the only official source of personal data about the Moldovan citizens with the voting right, and it is updated automatically on a daily basis (points 5 and 18 of the Regulations on the State Register of Voters, approved by CEC Decision No. 2974 of 19 November 2014).

    The CEC has all legal grounds to adopt and publish, as soon as possible, a decision allowing Moldovan citizens with expired identity documents, wherever they will vote, to vote based on their expired identity documents in the parliamentary elections of 24 February 2019, as long as their identity documents allow their identification.

    The entire text of the public appeal is available here. 

    The Romanian version of the appeal is available here. 

  • Civil society organisations strongly condemn the way the Government of the Republic of Moldova violates legislation on transparency of the decision-making process. Thus, on January 29, 2019, a draft Government Decision on the modification of the Government Decision no. 705 of 11.07.2018 regarding the approval of the Technical Concept of the Automated Information System "State Register of Public Procurement" (SIA RSAP) (MTender) was published on the official page of the Ministry of Finance. The draft GD provides for the abrogation of points 8 and 13 of the abovementioned GD, and by this repeal it is proposed to maintain the previous SIA RSAP electronic procurement system (etender.gov.md), which, by HG 705, should have been used only as an archive. The rationale for this draft GD raises doubts. The authors point out that "the abrogation of the prenotated points is necessary given that the public procurement procedures initiated in the System approved by H.G. no. 355/2009 (i.e. the old SIA RSAP) are not yet completed and, at the same time, after their completion, the contracting authorities may make changes to the procurement contracts concluded following these procedures and the use of this system only as an archive will not ensure this”. It is true that a number of procedures launched through the old SIA RSAP (prior to the nationwide launch of the new AIS SRPP MTender) were not completed for the purpose of contract implementation. However, the old website does not provide for the publication of online contracts, thus it is not possible to modify them in the system. All changes are made on paper. Consequently, the argumentation of the authors is not pertinent.

    On the other hand, as it was mentioned above, the draft was published on the Ministry of Finance's website on January 29, 2019, with a deadline for collecting opinions until 13 February 2019. The next day, on January 30, 2019, this draft is included on the agenda of the Government meeting, and adopted accordingly. Such a flagrant violation of the law on decisional transparency is inadmissible.

    In the same context, we recall that at the end of 2018, Parliament approved the significant increase of thresholds for small value acquisitions, but these procurements are not subject to the provisions of the Public Procurement Law No. 131 and are totally non-transparent. These procurements are not currently executed through the new MTender system, nor is there an obligation for contracting authorities to publish small value contracts in the system. Thus, a significant part of the public budget is used in a totally non-transparent manner, this type of procurement being most often used to avoid transparent procedures by dividing procedures.

    Therefore, we reiterate the need to ensure maximum transparency of the use of public money, and we ask the Ministry of Finance to develop and submit for approval to the Government a draft decision that will replace the GD 665/2016 by which small purchases over the threshold of 50,000 lei must be conducted in compliance with minimum requirements of competition and transparency, indisputably by using the MTender system.

    At the same time, we urge public authorities to fully comply with the legislation on transparency of the decision-making process, and the Government and Parliament should not allow the adoption of normative/legislative acts that have been submitted for approval violating the existing rules.

    The declaration is available here.

    Signatories:

    • Association for Efficient and Responsible Governance (AGER)
    • Institute for Development and Social Initiatives IDIS "Viitorul"
    • Independent Analytical Center Expert-Grup
    • WatchDog.MD Community
    • Legal Resources Center from Moldova
    • East Europe Foundation
    • Institute for European Policies and Reforms
    • Institute for Public Policies
    • Transparency International-Moldova
    • Public Association ”Habitat”
    • Association for human rights Lex XXI
    • Public Association Solidary Parents

     

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • The Civic Coalition for Free and Fair Elections expresses its support for the national election monitoring mission conducted by Promo-Lex Association, rejecting the repeated denigrating attacks on the mission. During several electoral campaigns of different levels, which they have monitored in the country and abroad, the experts of the observation mission have demonstrated that they have the necessary qualifications in the field of election monitoring. 

    The findings and conclusions provided in two reports on the mission (reports no. 1 and no. 2) represent a consistent statement of facts and phenomena observed and reported in the course of several electoral campaigns, but which have not yet been settled. The approaching event of the parliamentary elections of 24 February 2019 only highlights harmful behaviours and practices that have been rooted over the years instead of being eliminated.

    The issues to which the detractors of the observation mission refer (see the press release of the Democratic Party of Moldova and statement of Ilan ȘOR (min. 16.00-16.50)) appear not because of the lack of any methodology or subjective attitude of the experts, but because of some confusion deliberately created by those who hold the levers of power. Namely they accept the instant practice by the political parties and their distinguished members of political activity, business, charity, media and propaganda, religious activities, etc. This kind of interspersed activity creates such a confusion that even the most perfect methodology cannot clear out.

    Our approach as citizens is based on the most simple and healthy methodology - common sense. We believe that we have been forming a pool of voters, a seamless quality, since the declaration of the independence of the Republic of Moldova. That is why we ask ourselves and ask the detractors - what methodology is required to understand unequivocally the provisions of Article 1811 of the Criminal Code, which expressly refers to electoral corruption: "Offering or giving money, goods, services or other benefits in order to determine the voter to exercise or not to exercise his/her electoral rights during parliamentary, presidential, local elections or at the referendum"?

    If we accept another interpretation of Article 1811, that some acts constitute acts of corruption only if done on the Election Day, then don’t we offend the citizens, qualifying them as some amnesiacs, who do not remember who their "benefactors” were, which political parties and party leaders organized free of charge concerts with the participation of superstars, offered them packs with food products, gifts for young families, etc.? This kind of practice has been constantly reported by the observers, as well as the electoral folklore that makes them laugh. Therefore, there is an urgent need that the public authorities search for clear, unequivocal solutions to delimit political parties and their leaders in their activity concerning charity, religion, business and media propaganda. This is vitally necessary, because the legislation, in principle, provides for different forms of organization that can be used for exercising such activities. Also, it is required to have a clear delimitation between the governmental activity and that of the party. Especially as long as the parties represent social segments, and the Government administers the public affairs of the entire country.

    The declaration is signed by the member organizations of the Civic Coalition for Free and Fair Elections and is open for signature.

    Organizations that have subscribed to the declaration:

    • Centre for Journalistic Investigations (CIJ)

    Romanian version of the declaration is available here.

    English version of the declaration is available here.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Într-o notă de poziție elaborată în noiembrie 2018 și supusă dezbaterilor publice pe 10 ianuarie 2019, Centrul de Resurse Juridice din Moldova susține că  Procuratura Anticorupție ar trebui să investigheze doar corupția mare

    Documentul, elaborat de Centrul de Resurse Juridice în colaborare cu Expert Forum România, analizează competențele Procuraturii Anticorupție din Republica Moldova și propune limitarea acestora la cauzele de mare corupție. Or,  în prezent, Procuratura Anticorupție, dedică eforturi semnificative  pentru cauzele de corupție mică și are un volum mult prea mare de lucru pentru a permite procurorilor anticorupție să se concentreze pe cauzele complexe de corupție mare.

    În viziunea autorilor, lupta cu corupția mică nu este în măsură de a înlătura cauzele corupției într-o țară afectată de corupție endemică și, prin urmare, nu poate influența în mod determinant acest fenomen.  Având în vedere nivelul endemic al corupției din Republica Moldova, considerăm că acesta nu poate fi redus considerabil fără combaterea corupției de înalt nivel ca prioritate, pe lângă celelalte măsuri non-penale de luptă cu corupția.  

    Limitarea competențelor Procuraturii Anticorupție la cauzele de mare corupție o va ajuta să se concentreze pe cauzele de corupție mare, care necesită garanții sporite de independență, precum și metode și mijloace speciale, datorită complexității și intereselor implicate. O asemenea competență justifică menținerea unui organ specializat, cu statut special.

    Autorii documentului recomandă excluderea din competența Procuraturii Anticorupție a funcției de conducere a urmării penale în cauzele instrumentate de Centrul Național Anticorupție, investigarea escrocheriei și delapidării averii străine, a finanțării terorismului (dacă se menține în competența CNA) și  completarea listei de infracțiuni date în competența Procuraturii Anticorupție cu infracțiunea îmbogățirea ilicită.

    Dacă propunerile de mai sus sunt acceptate, volumul de lucru al procurorilor anti-corupție ar trebui să scadă semnificativ. Spre exemplu, în baza cifrelor pentru anul 2017, cel puțin 2003 cauze aflate în gestiune la conducerea urmării penale și cel puțin 55 de cauze aflate în exercitarea urmăririi penale (delapidări) nu se vor mai afla în sarcina procurorilor anticorupție.

    Nota de poziție „Procuratura Anticorupție ar trebui să investigheze doar corupția mare” este disponibilă aici. 

    Position paper: The Anti-Corruption Prosecution office should investigate only high-level corruption

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • The civil society organisations are deeply worried about the totally non-transparent way of appointing the latest three judges to the Constitutional Court by the Superior Council of Magistracy, the Government, and the Parliament. The consecutive and sudden early resignations, as well as the hasty, secret, and politically charged appointments denote the disregard for the importance of the High Court and deepens public distrust in its independence.

    The Constitutional Court is formed of six judges. Within three days, two judges of the Constitutional Court, Igor DOLEA and Victor POPA, suddenly and secretly submitted their resignations, even though their terms had not expired yet. At the same time, within four days, from 11 through 14 December 2018, the Superior Council of Magistracy (SCM), the Government, and the Parliament appointed three new judges to the Constitutional Court.

    On 11 December 2018, the SCM appointed Corneliu GURIN as a judge of the Constitutional Court. According to the SCM’s press release following its meeting on 11 December, the CSM took this decision in response to the request of the Chief Judge of the Constitutional Court regarding the resignation of Mr. Igor DOLEA from judicial office at the Constitutional Court and asking the SCM to appoint another judge to this institution. This topic was absent both in the agenda of the SCM meeting, supposed to be published 3 days before the meeting, and in the additional agenda. Contrary to previous practice, when the Court announced resignations the same day, neither the Constitutional Court, nor the SCM published any information about Mr. Igor DOLEA’s resignation on their websites. Judge Igor DOLEA's term expires on 12 February 2019. He resigned on 10 December 2018, two months before the end of his term. The following day, the SCM examined the request of the Constitutional Court’s Chief Judge regarding the vacancy of the judicial office and the appointment of a new judge. The SCM had not announced any competition for appointing a new judge. Corneliu GURIN acknowledged that he had decided to apply at the invitation of the Chairman and some members of the SCM. Mr. Corneliu GURIN’s candidacy was the only one examined by the SCM. The latest three constitutional judges appointed by the SCM had been identified on a competitive basis (for details, see SCM Decision No. 130/6 of 12 February 2013 on the appointment of Judges Tudor PANŢÎRU and Igor DOLEA and Decision No. 117/7 of 6 March 2018 on the appointment of Judge Mihai POALELUNGI).


    The following day, 12 December 2018, the Government appointed Artur REŞETNICOV as a judge of the Constitutional Court. Just as with the appointment of Corneliu GURIN by the SCM, this topic did not figure on the agenda of the Government’s meeting. It is worth noting that this office had been vacant since March 2018, when the current Justice minister Victoria IFTODI resigned from it due to her appointment as minister. 

    On 14 December 2018, with 54 votes, the Parliament appointed Raisa APOLSCHII, Parliament deputy from the Democratic Party and chair of the parliamentary Legal Committee for Appointments and immunities, as a judge to the Constitutional Court. As of 14 December 2018, the websites of the 2 Constitutional Court and the Parliament did not contain any public information about the vacancy of the office of constitutional judge from the Parliament.

    Corneliu GURIN, Artur REŞETNICOV, and Raisa APOLSCHII were appointed as constitutional judges for a six-year term in an unprecedented hurry and with disregard for any appointment procedure. There were no explanations of the nine-month vacancy of a position at the Constitutional Court and of the sudden appointment of Mr. REŞETNICOV by the Government, without a competition. The resignation of Judges Igor DOLEA and Victor POPA, immediately followed by the unexpected appointment of Mr. Corneliu GURIN by the SCM and Ms. Raisa APOLSCHII by the Parliament, also raises doubts as to the possible hidden interests behind these appointments.

    The signatory organisations deeply regret the sudden and non-transparent way of resignation of Constitutional Judges Igor DOLEA and Victor POPA and also disagree with the way the SCM, the Government, and the Parliament appointed Constitutional Judges Corneliu GURIN, Artur REŞETNICOV, and Raisa APOLSCHII, respectively. Such a way of appointing judges to an institution as important for the democracy and the rule of law as the Constitutional Court and its seemingly politicization are incompatible with the requirements of a functioning democracy. Moreover, this is a regression in comparison with previous practices of appointing constitutional judges.

    The signatory organisations call on the Superior Council of Magistracy, the Government, and the Parliament to develop transparent and merit-based procedures for the appointment of judges to the Constitutional Court.

    The English declaration is available here.

    The Romanian declaration is available here.

    SIGNATORIES:


    1. Legal Resources Center from Moldova (LRCM)
    2. Institute for European Policies and Reforms (IPRE)
    3. East European Foundation (EEF)
    4. Institute for Public Policy (IPP)
    5. CPR-Moldova
    6. Association for Efficient and Responsible Governance (AGER)
    7. Transparency-International Moldova
    8. Promo-LEX Association
    9. WatchDog.md
    10. Independent Journalism Center (IJC)
    11. Center “Partnership for Development”
    12. Institute for Strategic Initiatives (IPIS)
    13. Association of Independent Press (API)
    14. Centre for Investigative Journalism (CIJ)
    15. Amnesty International Moldova
    16. IDIS ”Viitorul”

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Legal Resources Centre from Moldova and Association for Participatory Democracy  developed an infographic with useful information on what should we know about integrity certificate. 

     

    Romanian version of the infographic can be downloaded here.

    English version of the infographic can be doawloaded here. 

  • In 2016 and 2017, several cases of high-level corruption were brought to court. The cases described below were disposed of with the application of Article 3641 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which provides for a commutation of prison term by 1/3 and of fine by 1/4 in case of admission of guilt.

    In all cases, the judges applied the minimal penalties provided by the Criminal Code, which they subsequently reduced according to Article 3641 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

    In none of the discussed cases, the person has not been convicted of imprisonment with execution.

    In three out of the four cases, after pleading guilty, the convicted persons were released from custody on judicial control.

    In three out of the four cases, the courts published anonymized versions of their decisions. Only in one case, two decisions – one of the trial court and one of the Supreme Court of Justice – were published in full, whereas the published version of the appellate court decision was also anonymized.

    The infographic can be downloaded here

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • LRCM has analysed the grand corruption cases of Vlad FILAT, Veaceslav PLATON and Ilan SHOR. The analysis below reveals issues demonstrating selective justice in these cases, such as the duration of preventive measures and criminal proceedings, place of detention, indictments and court findings, imposed punishments, etc.

     

    Infograhic can be downloaded here

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • The Legal Resources Centre from Moldova (LRCM) announces the organization of the Winter School - 2019 "Applied Democracy". The event, with a four days duration, will be held outside Chișinău, between 17 - 20 January 2019, and is designed for students and recent graduates of faculties of Law, journalism, international relations, political science and who are interested in promoting democracy in the Republic of Moldova.

    Through the winter school, LRCM aims to provide participants with information and skills on the principles of democracy, the rule of law and instruments of civic involvement for fighting corruption and protecting human rights, etc. The preliminary agenda of the event is available here.

    The experience of the participants in the previous edition of the "Applied Democracy" School can be found here.

    This event is organized within the project "Institutional Support for Organizational Development" implemented with the financial support of the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA).

  • On 30 October 2018, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), in case O.R. and L.R. v. Republic of Moldova (application no. 24129/11), found violation of the Art. 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) due to length of investigation of the April 2009 ill-treatment that took place in at the Chişinău General Police Commissariat. The ECtHR also found that the sanctions applied on police that applied ill-treatment were too mild.

    The case concerns two young women arrested by the police on 7 April 2009. They were taken to the Chișinău General Police Commissariat and forced by policemen to strip naked in front of a male police officer and make sit-ups. Prosecutors have started a criminal case against three policemen only 9 months later. One of the police officers was subsequently stripped of criminal charges on the grounds that his actions constituted administrative contravention. The other two officers were sentenced for ill-treatment to 5 years of suspended imprisonment.

    The ECtHR found that the investigation was not prompt. The criminal investigation was started after 9 months from the date when the information about the offense became public. Prosecutors did not react to this information and waited for the applicants’ complaint. The ECtHR reiterated that when an authority suspects a treatment contrary to Art. 3 of the ECHR, it must react ex officio.

    The ECtHR considered that the sanctions imposed to the police officers were incompatible with the obligation to prevent ill-treatment. The judges sanctioned the two police officers with the minimum sanction prescribed by the law (5 years of suspended imprisonment). The judges invoked that accused`s behavior was determined by aggression of police officers by protesters on 6 April 2009. Article 3 of the ECHR does not allow exceptions, even in the most extreme circumstances. The attempt of the Chișinău Court of Appeal to justify the minimum sanction applied to police officers by the fact that they were acting in a situation of mass disorder is regrettable. In fact, by suspending the enforcement of the imprisonment, the police officers were de facto exempted from any criminal liability. Moreover, during the proceedings, police officers were not suspended. The ECtHR also noted with concern that the indulgence towards the police officers accused of ill-treatment was not an isolated incident. The statistics for the years 2011 and 2012 suggest a general tendency of the Moldovan courts to protect state’s agents accused of ill-treatment.

    The third policeman, accused of the applicants' threat with using violence, was stripped of any criminal charges on the ground that his deed was an administrative offense (exceed of the duties). The administrative charges were also discontinued because the statutory time limitation expired. Judges refused to annul the prosecutor's decision to discontinue the criminal proceedings on the grounds that it would violate the principle that no one could be repeatedly punished for the same deed (Article 4 of Protocol 7 to the ECHR). The ECtHR found that, given the context in which the threat occurred, it amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. Prosecutors and judges have not motivated in any way why the deeds of the third policeman are contravention and not crime (Article 328 of the Criminal Code), even though the applicants have explicitly invoked this argument. Prosecutors were aware that, by discontinuing criminal charges, they exonerate the police officer of any liability, which is incompatible with the obligation to prevent ill-treatment. Interpretation of the prohibition to be repeatedly held liable for criminal offence, given by judges, is incorrect. This prohibition only refers to situations that have become "final". In the present case, there is no prior final decision to be held accountable.

    The ECtHR granted each applicant EUR 7,500 in costs and expenses and the total sum of EUR 1,500 for legal expenses. The applicants were represented before the ECtHR by Mr Vladislav GRIBINCEA, Executive Director of the Legal Resources Centre from Moldova.

  • The 2% mechanism gains recognition in the Republic of Moldova. According to the statistical report published by the State Tax Service in 2018, the total amount designated is twice as high as in 2017, and the number of beneficiaries of the 2% mechanism has grown by 30% - from 302 to 393 beneficiaries.

    According to published data, in 2018, 28,388 taxpayers, that is 34% more than in 2017, chose to designate 2% of income tax to a non-governmental organization or religious entity. The total amount validated in 2018 is 5,631,042.36 lei (about 287,886 Euro or 335,781 USD) and represents twice the amount validated in 2017. 92% of the total amount validated was directed to non-governmental organizations, and religious entities and their component parts received around 8% of the total amount.

    Of the total number of designations made, 90% (that is 25,518 designations) were validated compared to 76% in the previous year and only 10% (2,869 designations) were declared invalid for various reasons, compared to 24% invalidated last year. The main reasons for invalidating the amounts were similar to those of last year: taxpayers had income tax arrears in previous years or had arrears for the income tax in the current year, impossibility to identify the beneficiary of the amounts according to the List of 2% Beneficiaries by the Ministry of Justice.

    The largest designated amount reached this year again the Association of Veterans and Pensioners of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Moldova and represents about 30% (1,691,298.75 Lei) of the total amount validated in 2018, and the lowest amount is 1.13 lei received by the Religious Community "Saint Hierarch Nicholas" from Floreşti.

    The most active taxpayers were home-based persons in Chisinau, accounting for about 26% (7,296 taxpayers) of the total number of taxpayers who designated 2% and whose designation was validated.

  • On 4-6 December 2018, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe will examine the measures taken by the Republic of Moldova to implement the Corsacov cases group (26 judgments of European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) rulings on police ill-treatment and non-investigation of ill-treatment). The Government of the Republic of Moldova committed itself to the Committee of Ministers to reduce the phenomenon of torture.

    In this context, on 22 October 2018, the Legal Resources Centre from Moldova (LRCM) forwarded to the Committee of Ministers a communication on Moldova's guarantees against ill-treatment and the impact of measures taken by authorities to prevent ill-treatment.

    LRCM urged the Committee of Ministers to ask the Moldovan authorities:

    1) transfer of the personnel of the temporary detentions facilities from the Ministry of Interior to the Ministry of Justice;

    2) install video cameras in all police temporary detention facilities;

    3) improving the quality of investigations regarding allegations of ill-treatment and treating these cases with priority;

    4) ensure that persons suspected of ill-treatment are immediately suspended from their duties and remain so throughout the investigation;

    5) amendment of the Criminal Procedure Code to provide access to the victim of ill-treatment to material of the criminal investigation, as well as the exclusion of compulsory psychiatric examination of all victims of ill-treatment;

    6) reviewing the practice of conviction in cases of ill-treatment and the application of appropriate sanctions;

    7) generate accurate statistical data on ill-treatment cases, including on the length of investigations and judicial proceedings, the suspension from the office of suspects and the penalties imposed.

    In 2016, the LRCM forwarded another communication on this subject to the Committee of Ministers.

    *  *  *

    Non-commercial organizations and complainants can communicate to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on measures taken to enforce ECtHR rulings and prevent similar violations in the future. For more details on how to make these communications click here.

  • Several civil society organizations consider that the forced removal of Turkish citizens on 6 September 2018 was politically-driven and done in violation of national laws and international treaties on human rights. A month after this event, the authorities' answers regarding the legality of the removal of Turkish citizens continue to raise many questions. In the absence of clear arguments confirming that there really existed a risk of a threat to national security, there is a strong presumption that the operation carried out by the authorities took place out of political interests and it actually was a camouflaged extradition at the request of the Turkish authorities.

    Signatories request:
    1. the authorities of the Republic of Moldova to request the President of Turkey the return to the Republic of Moldova of all Turkish citizens illegally removed from our country and to prevent such situations in the future;
    2. the Prosecutor General to initiate criminal prosecution to bring to justice all those who have committed violations in connection with the "removal" of the seven Turkish citizens;
    3. the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova to organize public hearings and publish all relevant information on this operation;
    4. the authorities of the Republic of Moldova to grant asylum and other protection measures necessary for the families members of the "removed" persons and other foreign citizens in similar situation, especially in the context of Turkish President Recep Tayyp ERDOGAN visit, on 17-18 October 2018.

    Appeal in Romanian is available here.

    Signatory organizations:

    1. Legal Resources Centre from Moldova (CRJM)
    2. Amnesty International Moldova
    3. Journalistic Investigation Centre (CIJ)
    4. Association for Efficient and Responsible Governance (AGER)
    5. Institute for development and social initiatives “Viitorul”
    6. ”WatchDog.MD” Community
    7. Transparency International Moldova (TI-Moldova)
    8. Institute for Public Policy (IPP)
    9. Promo-Lex
    10. Centre for Independent Journalism (CJI)
    11. Center for Analysis and Prevention of Corruption (CAPC)
    12. Association of Independent Press (API)
    13. CPR Moldova
    14. GENDERDOC-M
    15. Law Center of Lawyers (CDA)
    16. Center Partnership for Development (CPD)
    17. Institute for European Policies and Reforms (IPRE)
    18. Independent Analytical Center Expert-Grup
    19. Rehabilitation Centre for Torture Victims "Memoria"
  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • The National Integrity Commission (NIC) was set up in 2012 to check the integrity of civil servants and persons of public dignity and to prevent corruption by verifying the wealth of these persons. In 2016, the institution was reorganized into the National Integrity Authority (NIA).

    From 2013 until 2017, NIC initiated 1,185 control files and issued 398 decisions of various violations. Most violations relate to the declaration of assets and property (42%) and to the existence of conflicts of interest (41%). 49 files which request the decisions annulment were examined by the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ). Out of the 49 files for the period 2013-2017, the SCJ maintained the NIC decisions in 32 cases, and in another 17 cases the SCJ annulled the NIC's decisions.

    The main findings resulting from the SCJ judgments are:

    • Concerning the decisions of the NIC for the period 2013-2016, out of 12 acts abrogated by the SCJ, 2 referred to deputies in the Parliament, 3 - to the heads of the central public authorities, 1 to a judge etc., and out of the 21 decisions upheld by the SCJ, 7 referred to mayors / deputy mayors / district presidents, 9 - to civil servants, 4 to heads of central public authorities, etc.
      • SCJ has adopted contradictory decisions in similar cases and with a similar estimative value of undeclared goods;
      • Cases of incompatibility were interpreted differently when the function was remunerated.
    • The highest rate of conflicts of interest was reported among the heads of local authorities - 4 cases, and the highest rate of incompatibilities was certified among civil servants with leading positions in central public authorities and local public authorities - 5 cases.

    More details on SCJ decisions are available in the infograph below.

  • Civil society makes an essential contribution to the development and realization of democracy and human rights, in particular by participating in public life and ensuring transparency in decision-making.


    In this context, the Legal Resources Centre from Moldova (www.crjm.org) analyses the transparency in the decision-making process at the level of the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova. The analysis aims to investigate the extent to which the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova ensures transparency in decision-making.

    As a citizen or as an NGO representative you had for sure interactions with the Parliament, or you have encountered situations where public data was not sufficiently clear to you. Your experience is valuable to us and we urge you to share it with us. Please answer to our questionnaire available here: https://goo.gl/X1B3Vc.

    The deadline for completing the questionnaire is October 10, 2018.

    Thank you for your involvement!

  • On 27September 2018, the Legal Resources Centre from Moldova (LRCM) organized a public event to discuss the analysis of the Strategy for the recovery of funds misappropriated from the banking system of the Republic of Moldova during 2007-2014, presented by the authorities in June this year. At the event were invited representatives of the Parliament, the Government, the National Anticorruption Center, the National Bank of Moldova, the judiciary, the development partners and the civil society. From the public authorities, only the Government and the National Integrity Authority honored the invitation.

    Vladislav Gribincea, Executive director of the LRCM, said at the event that, after analyzing the Recovery Strategy, it is not clear who approved the document and the degree of commitment to its successful implementation. At the same time, almost 4 years after the end of the fraud, the exact sum misappropriated from the banking system is not known. The strategy also does not mention the fact that, after three years of investigation, no single leu of the stolen money has been returned yet.

    The analysis finds that at least 20% of the amounts stolen from the banking system are not investigated in general. Although the stealing of at least 13.3 billion lei has been found, prosecutors are seeking recovery of only 10.7 billion, as 2.6 billion have been already recovered by selling the assets of the liquidated banks. Prosecutors report that 5.2 billion lei have been identified, although judges of the first instance have found that there is no evidence of 2.5 billion lei defrauded by Mr. Shor, that is about half of the amount with which prosecutors operate. Similarly, the authorities report receiving a sum of 2.7 billion lei from Ilan SHOR, although there is no court decision to collect this amount. At the same time, almost four years after bank fraud ended, the theft of about 38% (5.1 billion lei) of the stolen amount is still investigated by prosecutors.

    The authors of the analysis believe that the Strategy is more of an advocacy tool, including because it was drafted and made public on the eve of the Moldovan leadership visit to Brussels. Also, the Strategy mostly concerns activities already covered by legislation, fact that cast doubt on the practical value of the Strategy in investigation of the fraud.

    The full text of the Analysis of the strategy for the recovery of funds misappropriated from the banking system of the Republic of Moldova is available here.

    The video recording of the presentation event of the Analysis of the strategy is available here.

     

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • The Legal Resources Centre from Moldova analyzed the Strategy for the recovery of funds misappropriated from the banking system of the Republic of Moldova during 2007-2014, which was presented by Moldovan authorities in June 2018. LRCM found that, although Moldova has a strategy for recovery of funds misappropriated from the banking system, it is not clear who approved the document and what is the degree of commitment to its successful implementation. It is not exactly known what amount has been stolen from the banking system. The strategy does not mention the fact that, after three years of investigations, no single leu out of stolen money has been returned yet.

    The analysis finds that at least 20% of the amounts stolen from the banking system are not investigated in general. Although the stealing of at least 13.3 billion lei has been found, prosecutors are seeking recovery of only 10.7 billion, as 2.6 billion have been already recovered by selling the assets of the liquidated banks. Prosecutors report that 5.2 billion lei have been identified, although judges of the first instance have found that there is no evidence of 2.5 billion lei misappropriated by Mr. Shor, that is about half of the amount with which prosecutors operate. Similarly, the authorities report receiving a sum of 2.7 billion lei from Ilan SHOR, although there is no court decision to collect this amount. At the same time, almost four years after bank fraud ended, the theft of about 38% (5.1 billion lei) of the stolen amount is still investigated by prosecutors.

    The authors of the analysis conclude that, as a rule, such strategies are not made public to ensure the effectiveness of investigations. That Strategy was made public at a press conference in June this year, on the eve of the Moldovan leadership visit to Brussels. The country's leadership used the document as an advocacy tool. These issues raise doubts about the independence of the institutions that made the Strategy public, but also about their involvement in political games. These disclosures, along with the fact that the Strategy mostly concerns activities already covered by legislation, cast doubt on the practical value of the Strategy in investigation of the fraud.

    The full text of the Analysis of the strategy for the recovery of funds misappropriated from the banking system of the Republic of Moldova is available here.

     

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • On 13 and 14 September 2018, LRCM organized two training workshops on the application of the 2% mechanism (2% Law) for civil society organizations (CSOs) from Cahul and Căușeni regions. The purpose of the workshops was to enable local non-governmental organizations to capitalize the benefits of the 2% Law.


    Workshops focused on explaining the 2% mechanism (registration procedure, steps, terms, involved institutions) as well as on the use of amounts and reporting. Other topics covered accountability and sanctions applied by responsible bodies, CSOs and taxpayers' access to information, as well as the opportunity to plan and implement a 2% information campaign that is so important for achieving results.


    The training sessions were organized within the project "Promoting the rule of law in Moldova through civil society oversight", implemented by the Legal Resources Centre from Moldova with the financial support of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).


    List of resources about the 2% Law is available here.


    Presentation of the trainers is available here.


    We recall that between 1 and 30 September 2018, CSOs can register in the List of 2% Beneficiaries by submitting a request to the Ministry of Justice.


    More details about the registration procedure can be found here.

     

  • On 12 September 1997, the Republic of Moldova became a party to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The Republic of Moldova committed to respect the rights guaranteed by it and recognized the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

    From 1997 to 31December 2017, the ECtHR registered more than 13,400 applications against Moldova. At 31 December 2017, 1,348 of them (10,1%) were still waiting to be examined. As regards the number of pending applications, Moldova ranks 11th out of the 47 ECHR member countries.

    To date, the ECtHR issued 381 judgments in Moldovan cases, of which 27 in the first 8 months of 2018. The most frequent violations found by the ECtHR in Moldovan cases are non-execution of judgments, ill-treatment, inadequate investigation of ill-treatment and deaths, imprisonment in bad conditions, irreparable quashing of irrevocable court rulings.

    Based on the judgements and decisions of the ECtHR issued by 31December 2017, the Republic of Moldova was obliged to pay compensation of over EUR 16,300,000.

    In order to increase the level of information of the society about the activity of ECtHR in Moldovan cases, the Legal Resources Centre from Moldova (LRCM) carried out analyzes for the years 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017. To facilitate the application of ECtHR standards at national level and to avoid similar deviations in future, the LRCM prepared a summary of all violations found by the ECtHR in the Republic of Moldova until 31 December 2017.

    Similarly, LRCM analyzed the impact of the measures taken at national level to implement ECtHR rulings. LRCM has produced reports in this respect for the years 1997-2012 and 2013-2014.

    All ECtHR case law, including translations into Romanian, is available on the ECtHR website.

  • Signatory organizations are concerned about the way seven Turkish citizens have been detained and have to be expelled from the Republic of Moldova. Expulsion of these persons to Turkey denotes an imminent danger to lives and security of these persons and the risk that they will not benefit a fair trial.

    In a press release issued in the morning of 6 September 2018, the Information and Security Service (ISS) informed on carrying out of a complex national security threat prevention operation in several localities in the country. The actions have been carried out by the ISS Antiterrorist Centre. In another press release, the ISS confirmed the declaration by the competent bodies as undesirable of seven foreign citizens suspected of relations with an Islamist group, about which there are clues that it is carrying illegal actions in many countries, who will be expelled from the territory of the Republic of Moldova. The press release makes reference to the fact that the actions of these citizens have been subject to monitoring for a period of time and, once the existence of the risk to national security has been confirmed, it has been decided that these persons should immediately leave the territory of the Republic of Moldova. The ISS has collaborated in this case with special services of other states. Finally, the ISS came up with a specifying statement stating that the information which appeared in the public space was completely false, that none of the seven persons was a minor, that the persons were not detained, but had been already expelled from the country.

    The information available in mass-media reveals that the detained citizens are nationals of Turkish origin, among whom are the Deputy Director of "Orizont” Lyceum and other employees of the "Orizont" Lyceum network. They were requested to present their identification documents and the reason for their arrest was not explained to them. Among the detained persons was a minor of 16 years, who was released in an hour. At 14:00 it was not clear whether these persons were on the territory of the Republic of Moldova or were extradited.

    This is a second attempt by the state institutions to expel the administration of "Orizont" Lyceum. In 2017 the Turkish authorities requested the closure of “Orizont” lyceums in the Republic of Moldova. On 31 March 2018, the director of the institution was detained and heard regarding some circumstances that were subject of a criminal case. The director of the lyceum, Turgay ŞEN, would have been suspected in a case that was started in November 2017 on the grounds of "terrorism financing”. The director of the lyceum has applied for asylum in the Republic of Moldova. At the same time, he considers that the criminal case was opened at the order of the leaders of the Republic of Moldova in the interest of the Turkish leadership in response to the financing of repair works of the Presidency building in the sum of over 10 million Euro, fully ensured by the Turkish Government. Several schools from other countries have been subject to similar actions on the grounds that they would have been supported by Fethullah Gulen. The latter is a former ally of the Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who lives in exile in the United States since the late 1990s and is accused by the leadership of Turkey of being behind the attempted coup d'état on 15 July 2016. The clergyman is at the head of a vast network of NGOs and schools around the world and has opened several educational institutions over the past decades.

    The signatory organizations condemn the fact that the persons are detained without explaining the reason for their detention. It seems that the intention of the Moldovan authorities is to expel the detained persons to Turkey right now. Given that the detained persons have been in the Republic of Moldova for a long time, their expeditious and unannounced expulsion is not justified and betrays hidden political interests. The detained persons can be expelled only to Turkey, where they are most likely to face an unfair trial and an imminent danger of being tortured. We request the Moldovan authorities to consider seriously the real danger to which they might subject these persons in case of their expulsion to Turkey, to act in the spirit of the law, to allow proper judicial control of the expulsion decision and to ensure that their decisions are not influenced by political interests.

    Signatory organizations:

    • Legal Resources Centre from Moldova,
    • Promo-LEX Association

    The English version of the statement is available here

    The Romanian version of the statement is available here

  • Between 1-30 September 2018, the Ministry of Justice invites eligible non-commercial organizations in the country to submit applications for registration to the percentage designation mechanism (2% Law). The 2% Law is a mechanism that allows taxpayers to designate 2% of the amount of income tax earned in the previous year to non-governmental organizations acting in the public interest and to religious entities. Pursuant to Government Decision No. 1286 of 30 November 2016, approving the Regulation on the percentage designation mechanism, the Ministry of Justice receives annually the applications for registration in the 2% beneficiaries list, checks the compiance with the eligibility requirements of the applicant organizations, prepares and regularly updates the List of beneficiaries of the 2% Law.


    For the 2% mechanism can apply:

    1. public associations, foundations and private institutions performing public utility activities, according to art. 30 of Law 837 on Public Associations;
    2. religious cults and their constituent parts carrying out social, moral, cultural or charitable activities, according to art. 15 of Law 125 on Freedom of Conscience, Thought, and Religion.

    Are eligible to participate in the 2% mechanism non-commercial organizations that:

    • Operate for at least one year until filing the application for registration in the List of 2% beneficiaries;
      • have no debts to the national public budget for previous tax periods (the situation regarding debts is verified by the Ministry of Justice, without the obligation to submit any certificate by the organization).
      • declare on their own responsibility that they did not support, and during the valorisation of the sources obtained after the percentage designation, they will not support the activity of a political party, a social-political organization or a candidate for elections, within the meaning of the Electoral Code.

    N.B. Organizations wishing to be registered in the List of 2% beneficiaries are NOT required to hold public utility status issued by the Certification Commission attached to the Ministry of Justice but must demonstrate that they practice public utility activities.

    In order to be registered in the List of beneficiaries, organizations will submit an application that can be downloaded here: Download the application form.

    The application may be filed either by post or at the Ministry of Justice at 31 august 1989, no. 82, MD-2012, mun. Chișinău, and in electronic format at secretariat@justice.gov.md.

    The application is to be signed directly by the head of the organization or the legal representative by enclosing the copy of the power of attorney.

    Organizations that have already been included in the List of 2% beneficiaries for 2018 do not have to submit repeatedly applications for registration.

    The Ministry of Justice will check the presence of the debts and will offer 10 days for the payment of debts, subject to the exclusion from the List of 2% beneficiaries. Based on the List of 2% beneficiaries, in 2019, individuals will choose the organizations to which they will designate 2% of the income tax. By the end of 2018, the Ministry of Justice will examine the organizations' requests and publish the List of 2% Beneficiaries for 2019.

    The application form can be downloaded here. 

    Additional information on the 2% mechanism and the registration procedure.

     

     

  • Signatory organizations express their deep disappointment regarding the way the authorities of the Republic of Moldova have exercised their duties in connection with the protests and public demonstrations that took place in Chisinau municipality on 26-27 August and 1 September 2018. We will highlight some of the key issues that we consider important for the public knowledge and in relation to which we request the authorities to take the necessary measures.

    In a joint statement, the signatory organizations:

    1. condemn the way the authorities acted as regards the protests in the Great National Assembly Square (Piața Marii Adunări Naționale - PMAN) and ask the Mayor's office of Chisinau municipality and the police to provide public explanations shortly as to why they allowed the Shor Party the organization of demonstration in the PMAN on 26 August 2018, even if it did
      not submit a prior declaration. The police and the Mayor's office of Chisinau municipality should have provided to Shor Party either another place for demonstrations or a shorter period for
      holding it, so that their demonstration did not to coincide with the other two protests (announced for 13:00 and 14:00 respectively) given the imminent risk of altercations and the absence of prior declaration regarding the Shor Party demonstration. Allowing Mr. Shor demonstration has in fact created situations of provocations and altercations among the participants, which would have given the police „legal” reason to intervene forcefully against the participants in the protest.
    2. condemn restriction of the journalists’ access to the events of 26-27 August 2018 and police inaction when the representatives of Shor party have pushed the journalists off. We reiterate the statement by media NGO's of 28 August 2018 on preventing journalists from covering the events of 26-27 August and request the competent authorities, first of all the Prosecutor General's Office and the Ministry of Interior, to investigate promptly and impartially the cases reported in the statement.
    3. condemn the way the police dispersed the protesters at the Stefan cel Mare monument in the morning of 27 August 2018 and the brutal way in which the protesters were dispersed, despite the fact that they were peaceful and in a much lower number than the policemen, presenting no danger to the lives and security of the latter
    4. condemn and qualify as illegal the dispersal of the civic group of protesters OccupyGuguță and seizure of their goods in the morning of 27 August 2018.
    5. condemn and qualify as excessive the actions of the police and of the Government administration on 1 September 2018 against the participants in the Centenary March.
    6. are concerned and require the Ministry of Interior to explain the presence of the persons in civilian clothes alongside the police without the possibility of identifying them and the way how to identify the policemen in balaclavas.

    Signatory organisations reiterate that the peaceful protest is an important method of showing disagreement with certain public policies. The way in which the protest is conducted and the conduct of public authorities at the protest is an important indicator of the state of democracy in a state. The conduct of the public authorities of the Republic of Moldova during the protests of 26-27 August and the demonstration of 1 September 2018 raised many serious questions. Organisations request the competent public authorities - in particular the Mayor's office of Chisinau municipality, the Ministry of Interior and the Prosecutor General's Office - to provide a comprehensive analysis of the events of 26-27 August and 1 September 2018, thoroughly investigate all complaints regarding those events and publish the results of the analysis and investigations within a short period of time.

    Signatory organizations:

    • Legal Resources Centre from Moldova
    • Amnesty International Moldova
    • Association for Participatory Democracy “ADEPT”
    • Association for Efficient and Responsible Governance
    • Association of Independent Press
    • Foreign Policy Association
    • Centre for Investigative Journalism
    • Centre for Independent Journalism
    • Rehabilitation Centre for Torture Victims "Memoria"
    • National Environmental Centre
    • WatchDog.md Community
    • CPR Moldova
    • Institute for European Policies and Reforms (IPRE)
    • Institute for Public Policy
    • Pilgrim-Demo
    • Transparency International – Moldova

    English version of the statement is available here

    Romanian version of the statement is available here

    Russian version of the statement is available here

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • The Legal Resources Centre from Moldovan (LRCM) invites representatives of the civil society organizations fom the vicinity of Căuşeni and Cahul districts to participate in a training seminar to facilitate the application of the percentage designation mechanism (2% Law). The purpose of the workshops is the ability of civil society organizations (CSOs) to capitalize on the benefits of the 2% Law.

    The workshops will take place on 13 September 2018 in Cahul and on 14 September 2018 in Căușeni.

    The beneficiaries of the training can be representatives of CSOs: public associations, foundations, private institutions, religious cults and their component parts, who have not previously participated in the LRCM 2% mechanism trainings.


    The training sessions are organized within the project "Promoting the rule of law through civil society oversight", implemented by the Legal Resources Center of Moldova with the financial support of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

     

     

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Civil society organizations, signatory hereto, express their concern and condemn the adoption of the new draft law (no. 284) on voluntary declaration and fiscal facilitation, which essentially represents a new attempt to amnesty the capital obtained from dubious sources. The presentation of this measure as an element of comprehensive tax reform without an impact assessment that is mandatory in such situations also raises suspicions. It appears that the intention of fiscal amnesty is disguised by tax reforms, some of them being long awaited for by business circles or welcomed by citizens. The fiscal amnesty, however, will deepen and encourage corruption, a consequence that we do not want as a society.

    So far the Ministry of Finance fought vehemently for every MDL that could have been lost as a result of tax incentives. Now, however, the authorities have launched a new legislative initiative entitled small tax reform” without a conclusive impact analysis, implying significant changes in numerous domains, including the untouchable" one that concerns the mandatory contributions to the social fund. Contrary to the recommendations of the IMF and the World Bank, on 24 July 2018, the authorities launched a reform with unpredictable consequences for the national economy, as well as for the relations with external donors.

    The political risk of multiple tax incentives provided by the so-called „small tax reform“ cannot be justified, unless these are intended to cover the amnesty of capital provided by the draft law no. 284, promoted in parallel and urgently in the Parliament.

    Draft law no.284 on voluntary declaration and fiscal facilitation does not clearly specify the pursued aim. There is no explanation regarding the objective conditions that require this law and the intended purpose is missing as well. A conclusive impact analysis has not been carried out, and the practice of capital amnesty at a reduced price of only 3% compared to standard fees is contrary to international practices in this domain, implying major risks of negative social impact and stimulating the increase in tax exemption.

    The draft law was approved by the Government on 25 July 2018, put on the agenda of the Parliament on 26 July 2018 and already adopted in both readings by 56 votes of MPs from Democratic and European People's Parties. The day before, the draft received the positive opinion of the Parliament Committee for economy, budget and finance.

    We should recall that a similar draft law was proposed in 2016, and it was strongly criticized both by the community of experts and civil society, as well as by international bodies. The return to the amnesty regime for accumulated and undeclared capital, with such an insistency and despite negative evaluations on the side of international bodies, is an indicator of promoting interests of some groups infiltrated into the political environment.

    It is indisputable that the amnesty of the capital is a counter-productive measure, encouraging for those who receive income from corruption and crime and discouraging for bona fide citizens and tax payers. In fact, the existence of such draft laws indicates that the Government is unable to ensure the verification of the origins of assets and income and refuses to undertake measures and efforts to ensure this process.

    The tax reform laws with such significant implications have been promoted with disregard to the democratic processes and without rigorous technical expertise indispensable for such reforms. Public hearings on this draft law did not exist and the process of launching and validating of the draft law on voluntary declaration and fiscal facilitation is done in a lightning-like regime, with direct violations of democratic processes, lack of transparency and the exclusion of the civil society. No public consultations were organized. The anti-corruption expertise has not been elaborated either, although it is mandatory under Law no. 100 on normative acts.

    Such hurry is even more unacceptable in the case of a draft law on which both civil society and the development partners of our country have expressed negative opinion less than two years ago. The lack of impact analysis documents, as well as totally opposite statements by the Prime Minister and the Chair of the Parliament Committee for economy, budget and finance, denote a superficial approach without technical expertise of the draft law. This approach is on the edge of political adventurism and involves major risks of fiscal and budgetary instability for the following periods.

    To reduce the risks of a tax reform, a number of principles shall be respected.

    • Ensuring a democratic process, decision-making transparency and broad public consultations with sufficient deadlines for reactions and opinions of interested persons and organizations;
    • Rigorous assessment of the impact of the proposed tax reform measures;
    • Abandonment of tax amnesty laws in any form in the situation of massive corruption and embezzlement of public funds;
    • Tax reform should improve social equity and contribute to a decent living for the citizens of the Republic of Moldova.

     The signatory organizations:

    1. Condemn the adoption by the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova of the draft law on voluntary declaration and fiscal facilitation;
    2. Request the President of the Republic of Moldova not to promulgate the adopted law;
    3. Call for the involvement of the IMF, WB, EU, GRECO and Moneyval with the view to examine this legislative initiative in terms of compatibility with the international and bilateral commitments undertaken by the Republic of Moldova in relation to each of the partners.

    The declaration in Romanian is available here.

    The declaration in English is available here.

     

    Signatory organizations:

    Independent Analytical Centre Expert-Grup

    Legal Resources Centre from Moldova (LRCM)

    Centre for the Analysis and Prevention of Corruption (CAPC)

    Centre for Policies and Reforms (CPR)

    Institute for European Policies and Reforms (IPRE)

    Promo-LEX Association

    Eco-TIRAS International Environmental Association of River Keepers

    WatchDog.MD Community

    AO BIOS

     

  • Civil society organizations condemn the hate speech and threats made by Ilan SHOR, the mayor of Orhei and the president of the political party "Shor", to journalists and political opponents. This behavior is incompatible with democracy, instigates hatred and violence. It can not be left unsanctioned by the authorities.

    On July 20, 2018, during an event organized by the "Shor" party, several sympathizers of Ilan SHOR protested in Chişinău at the headquarters of two political parties in connection with the alleged closure of social shops.

    In a speech addressed to his sympathizers, placed on the social networks and widely publicized, Ilan ŞOR came up with threats against the journalists and leaders of two opposition political parties.

    The signatory organizations believe that the statements made go beyond the limits of freedom of expression, because public threats of physical injury and bodily harm done by a politician are inadmissible in a democratic society. This discourse is based on intolerance, which is based on political views and is a hate speech that is unacceptable in a democratic society. Authorities must prevent and sanction such behavior.

    In this context, civil society organizations:

    • Are in solidarity with the media organizations that have condemned the threatening statements addressed to journalists by Ilan SHOR.
    • Ask the Prosecutor General's Office to investigate the statements made by Ilan SHOR in terms of incitement to hatred.
    • Call on law enforcement agencies, public authorities and electoral authorities to take all necessary measures to prevent and stop the hate speech which, in the perspective of electoral campaigns, can become extremely dangerous for society.
    • Ask the police to ensure the exercise of the right to freedom of expression and to prevent acts of physical and verbal violence against protesters or by protesters. It calls on political parties, their leaders, their representatives and their sympathizers to respect democratic norms and the decency of public discourse, keeping it within acceptable limits of democracy and human dignity.

    Signatory organizations:
        Amnesty International Moldova (AIM)
        Legal Resources Centre from Moldova (CRJM)
        Promo-LEX
        Rehabilitation Centre for Torture Victims "Memoria"

    The declaration in romanian is available here.

     

  • The 2017 was the first year in Moldova when individual taxpayers had the right to designate 2% of their income tax to a noncommercial organization. Legal Resources Centre from Moldova made an analysis on the results of the first year of implementation of the 2% mechanism.

    In the first year of implementation, 484 noncommercial organizations (413 associations, foundations and private institutions and 71 religious cults and component parts) have registered in the List of 2% Beneficiaries. Only 302 of them (about 62%), received percentage designations, 86% (260) of which are NGOs, and about 14% (42) - religious entities. The total number of organizations registered in the first year represents about 5% of the total number of non-commercial organizations registered in the Republic of Moldova.

    In 2017, 21.204 taxpayers designated MDL 4,140,868.43 (circa USD 244,588/EUR 210,090) to the beneficiary organizations. They represent about 10% of the total number of taxpayers who filed their income declarations in due time (1 January – 2 May 2017). On the average, in 2017, each taxpayer designated MDL 195 (USD 11.51 / EUR 9.89).

    Only 68% of the amount designated by the taxpayers were transferred to the beneficiary organizations (MDL 2,821,243.60 (approximately USD 166,642 / EUR 143,138).) About 24% of the number of designations and 32% of the designated amount (MDL 1,319,624) were invalidated because of the debts on income tax, not paid by taxpayers for the current or previous years.

    After the validation of the designations, 90% of the amounts went to the NGOs (MDL 2,543,114.45), and 10% to the religious entities (MDL 278,129.15). The largest amount received by an organization in 2017 was MDL 1,374,555.89 (USD 81,190 / EUR 69,739), which represents 49% of the total amount validated. The beneficiary of this amount is the Public Association of Veterans and Pensioners of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Moldova.

    The complete information on the first years of the implementation of the 2% mechanism is available here.

    The report was drafted within the project "Promotion of the 2% designation mechanism in the Republic of Moldova" implemented with the support of the European Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ECNL) and FHI360 Moldova and was possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

    The report in Romanian is available here

    The report in Russian is available here

     

    Note: According to the official exchange rates as of June 25, 2018: USD 1 = MDL 16.93; EUR 1 = MDL 19.71, http://bnm.md/en/content/ratele-de-schimb.

     

  • On 12 July 2018, the European Union (EU) awarded the tangible achievements and initiatives of civil society organizations at national, regional and local level that had a lasting and positive impact on democracy, economic development and social cohesion in the Republic of Moldova and have promoted European values. Project competition was organized on the basis of a nomination or self-nomination process, aiming at identifying the best actions undertaken with EU support.

    The Legal Resources Centre from Moldova (CRJM) was one of the evening's award winners. The project "Promoting equality – Strengthening the agents of change", implemented between 1 February 2014 and 31 January 2016, in partnership with the Euroregional Center for Public Initiatives (ECPI), was awarded the special mention "ADVOCACY FOR CHANGE".

    The project aimed at raising the awareness of the population on the equality and non-discrimination in the Republic of Moldova as well as to empower teachers, social workers and the legal community so that they subsequently act as agents or factors of change in society, because they are able to prevent discriminatory actions and attitudes and to multiply the correct message in their communities.

    More information on the results achieved within the project can be found here.

    Watch the EU Gala for Civil Society:

  • The member organizations of the National Platform of the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum, signatories to this Statement, express their deep concern and indignation regarding the current Government’s shrinking from the responsibility for the failure of the justice sector reform and shifting it to the development partners and civil society.

    On 5 July 2018, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the political crisis in Moldova following the invalidation of the mayoral elections in Chisinau. The European Parliament, among other things, expressed its grave concern over the further deterioration of democratic standards in Moldova, as well as regarding the lack of independence of the judiciary, urging the European Commission to suspend budgetary support and macro-financial assistance for the Republic of Moldova. The High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the European Commission, Federica Mogherini, confirmed the decision to put on hold the disbursement of the first tranche of the macro-financial assistance reserved for the Republic of Moldova.

    On 6 July 2018, the Ambassador of the European Union (EU) and the ambassadors of EU member states to Chisinau met with the Prime Minister Pavel Filip and the members of the Cabinet to inform them about the EU position after the invalidation of elections in Chisinau. After the meeting, the Delegation issued a brief statement.

    On 7 July 2018, the Cabinet of the Republic of Moldova issued a press release with its own clarifications regarding the meeting of 6 July. According to the press release, the resolution of 5 July 2018 is wrongful towards the Government and is politically charged, noting that „[…] all commitments to receive EU funding have been fulfilled, and the decision to suspend the funding is unjustified and represents an interference into the internal policy of the Republic of Moldova”. Moreover, the press release states that the Prime Minister has called the attention of the EU Ambassadors to the fact that „if things are not going as they have to in the justice sector, it is the responsibility of both the Government and the European partners as well as of the representatives of civil society who participated in the implementation of the justice sector reform“. The Prime Minister also noted that the information sent by the EU Delegation to Chisinau to the European officials is incomplete and asked for „this approach to be revised and notes sent to be objective".

    In this context, we express our grave concern and indignation regarding:

    • the way in which the Cabinet and the Government as a whole has chosen to react to the resolution of the European Parliament of 5 July 2018 and to the EU position on the invalidation of the election results in Chisinau municipality and the unprecedented language to which a high-ranking official of the Republic of Moldova has resorted, making unfair accusations regarding the way of the EU Delegation to Chisinau is informing the European officials, even giving instructions to foreign diplomats regarding what kind of information they should send to the EU institutions.
    • the Government’s shrinking from the responsibility for the state of affairs in the justice sector, shifting the responsibility for the failures of the justice sector reform to development partners and civil society representatives.

    We have to draw Government and public opinion’s attention to the fact that the responsibility for justice sector reforms rests only with the national authorities - the Parliament, the Government and, to a large extent, with the judiciary. The Cabinet, the parliamentary majority and the current Government as a whole bear the greatest responsibility for not promoting systemic reforms and policies aimed at ensuring the independent functioning of the judiciary and law enforcement institutions that are free from the influence of affiliated economic and political groups. They also bear responsibility for not using all the tools available to the Government and the Parliament to prevent the enforcement of court decisions that attack the fundamental right of citizens to elect and be elected. Dangerous practices have been instituted in the judiciary, and political influence on judges and prosecutors, a common phenomenon for the entire state apparatus, has increased.

    The press release of the Government of the Republic of Moldova of 7 July 2018 states that the Government will remain firmly committed to the European path, the only viable strategic direction for modernizing the country.

    In this context, we recall that the fundamental values on which the European Union is based, shared by all Member States and assumed by the Republic of Moldova under the Association Agreement with the EU, are: human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and human rights.

    Therefore, we urge the Government and all the authorities of the Republic of Moldova to respect these values, to abandon the practices established in recent years that are contrary to these values and to ensure the implementation of these values into life in the interests of the citizens of the Republic of Moldova. 

     

    Declaration in Romanian is available here.

    Declaration in English is available here.

    Declaration in Russian is available here.

     

    Signatories:

    Legal Resources Centre from Moldova

    Institute for European Policies and Reforms

    Association of Independent Press

    Transparency International Moldova

    Institute for Development and Social Initiatives „Viitorul”

    "MilleniuM" Training and Development Institute

    Foundation for Development

    Eco-Tiras International Association of River Keepers

    BIOS Public Association

    Expert-Grup

    Association Terra-1530

    Centre for Policies and Reforms

    Foreign Policy Association

    Institute for Public Policy

    Association for Efficient and Responsible Governance

    Foundation for Education and Development

    Est Europe Foundation

    Centre for Independent Journalism

    Labour Institute

    Association of Professional and Business Women

    National Youth Council of Moldova

    Ecological Movement from Moldova

    National Association of European Trainers from Moldova

    International Centre “La Strada”

    National Environmental Centre

    National Roma Centre

    Union of Organizations for Disabled from Moldova

    Association for Rehabilitation of the Disabled from Moldova

    Promo-LEX Association

     

    (the list is open for signing)

     

     

  • Between 28-30 June 2018, the Legal Resources Centre from Moldova (LRCM) organized an advanced training seminar for lawyers and trainee lawyers in the field of European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

    The training program was conducted over three days and aimed at training lawyers and trainee lawyers in the area of ​​ rules for application to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), issues regarding the fairness of criminal proceedings, guarantees of art. 6 ECHR on criminal charges and the contradictory nature of criminal proceedings.


    The trainers in the seminar were Vladislav GRIBINCEA, Executive director of LRCM, and Dragoş CUCEREANU, lawyer, ECHR Registry.

    On the first day of the seminar were made the theoretical presentations, and the other two days were dedicated to simulating the procedure before the ECtHR based on three practical cases. The participants were divided into three groups and in this format elaborated the "Government's observations", "the complainant's remarks", presented the cases in the "hearings" before the "EctHR” and elaborated "ECtHR rulings" based on each practical case. Each group of participants had a distinct role in each practical case.

    The seminar hosted 23 lawyers and 1 trainee lawyer, and was conducted in collaboration with the Lawyers Training Center and was possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) within the project "Promoting the rule of law in Moldova through civil society oversight”, implemented by the Legal Resources Centre from Moldova.

  • On June 27, 2018, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted Resolution 2226 (2018) and Recommendation 2134 (2018) on new restrictions on the activities of NGOs in the Member States of the Council of Europe.


    These documents were adopted on the basis of a report by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights describing the hostile climate in which NGOs operate in some member states of the Council of Europe. The report mentions the attempts of the Moldovan authorities in 2017 to introduce restrictive provisions on NGO funding.


    The Parliamentary Assembly have asked the member states of the Council of Europe, inter alia:
    • To revise and repeal or amend legislation that hampers the free and independent activity of NGOs and ensure that this legislation is in line with international human rights instruments regarding the rights to freedom of association, freedom of assembly and of expression;
    • Not to adopt new laws that lead to unnecessary and disproportionate restrictions and financial burdens on NGO activities;
    • Ensure that NGOs can seek, receive and use transparent funds and other resources, whether domestic or foreign, without discrimination or unauthorized impediments;
    • Ensure that NGOs are effectively involved in the consultation process on new legislation concerning them and other issues of particular importance to society, such as the protection of human rights;
    • Provide a favorable environment for civil society, in particular by refraining from any harassment (judicial, administrative or fiscal), negative public discourse, scandal campaigns against NGOs and intimidation of civil society activists.

    One of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Assembly to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe is to establish a mechanism for receiving alerts on restrictions imposed on NGOs and to enhance cooperation with them.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • The Legal Resources Centre from Moldova has developed a social video clip that explains to the general public what is the conflict of interest and the procedure for notification of authorities about such situations. The clip comes to highlight the duty of dignitaries or civil servants to avoid or declare conflicts of interest in the exercise of public function.

    The spot was launched in order to increase the level of public awareness of the conflict of interest and the authorities' notification procedure. At the same time, the clip urges citizens to report to the head of the public organization in which they work or to the National Integrity Authority if they know cases where civil servants are in conflict of interest, thus helping to reduce the number of undeclared conflicts of interest.

    The spot is available in Romanian (with subtitles in Russian) and can be viewed below:

    The video clip was realized within the project “Empowering Moldovan Civil Society to Demand Justice” implemented by the Legal Resources Centre from Moldova with the financial support of the US State Department through the State Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs of the United States Embassy in Moldova.

     

  • 35 civil society organizations urge Parliament to adopt in final reading the draft law on Non-Commercial Organizations (NCOs) without accepting amendments that would conceptually change the draft law, in particular on issues related to the limitation of freedom of expression, the possibility of promoting public policies or to access external funds. A public appeal in this regard was sent to Parliament on May 16, 2018.

    The work on the draft of the new law on non-commercial organizations began two years ago, in close collaboration with civil society representatives. The draft law was approved by the Government without amendment, and on May 3, 2018, was adopted in first reading by the Parliament.

    The resulting document limits the authorities' possibility to exert pressure on NCOs and excludes existing prohibitions in the current law on the constitution of NCO by certain categories of persons. The project also shortens the registration deadline of the NCO, excludes the possibility of abusive refuses of registration and limits the possibility of unjustified forcible liquidation of the NCO. The document does not contain any limitations on the external financing of the NCO. Also, the project offers a wide discretion to the members of the NCO regarding the internal organization, the competencies of the governing bodies and the activity of the organization. The bill establishes the absolute prohibition for NCOs to support candidates in elections, but does not forbid the honest criticism of candidates and their platforms.

    At the same time, the signatory organizations note that during the discussions held on May 3, 2018 in the Parliament plenary, the MPs had many objections to the draft law. In addition, from posts on some politicians' social networks, it appears that it might be proposed to modify the draft to limit the possibility of external financing of non-commercial organizations that promote public policies.

    Civil society organizations urge Parliament to adopt the draft law on NCOs in final reading, and any proposal to amend the draft law to be promoted in a transparent manner and with the involvement of representatives of the non-governmental sector in discussions on the draft's preparation for adoption in second reading.

    The full text of the appeal is available here.

     

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • La data de 31 martie 2017, Amnesty International Moldova, împreună cu alte organizații neguvernamentale din domeniul drepturilor omului, au organizat o acțiune publică, care a avut ca scop de a le aminti guvernanților că victimele din 7 aprilie 2009 încă mai așteaptă să li se facă dreptate și că în 9 ani nu s-a făcut nici un efort pentru a-i pedepsi pe cei vinovați de maltratarea protestatarilor.

    La 7 aprilie 2009, demonstrațiile post electorale din capitala Republicii Moldova, Chișinău, au escaladat și câteva sute de persoane violente dintre miile de manifestanți pașnici au pătruns cu forța în sediul Președinției și cel al Parlamentului. Poliția a reținut în total peste 600 de protestatari și sute au fost bătuți în timpul reținerii și în secțiile de poliție aglomerate.

    Evenimentele traumatizante din aprilie 2009 au scos la lumină mai multe probleme sistemice subiacente, care facilitează tortura și alte rele tratamente în Republica Moldova. Eșecul de a face dreptate, la 9 ani de la abuzurile flagrante din aprilie 2009, este o dovadă clară că problema fundamentală a impunității pentru cazurile de tortură, tratamentele inumane și degradante rămâne nerezolvată.

    Organizațiile semnatare CONSTATĂ că la nouă ani de la aceste evenimente, Guvernanții aleg amnezia selectivă.

    Asociațiile semnatare CONDAMNĂ inacțiunea statului de a deferi justiției vinovații de comiterea actelor de tortură și relele tratamente din cadrul evenimentelor din aprilie 2009, condamnă nerespectarea drepturilor, discriminarea și ignorarea constantă a victimelor torturii până în prezent.

    Organizațiile semnatare sunt ÎNGRIJORATE că persoanele cu funcții de răspundere, implicate în organizarea sau favorizarea acțiunilor de tortură din aprilie 2009, au rămas la putere, în diferite forme și/sau beneficiază de impunitate, fiind în mod surprinzător achitate de către instanțele de judecată: polițistul Ion Perju, învinuit de omorârea protestatarului Valeriu Boboc, a evadat, iar persoanele cu funcții de răspundere, care au admis tortura în masă, rămân a fi promovate în funcții. Generalul Gheorghe Papuc s-a făcut bancher, comisarul Valentin Zubic a ajuns în slujba unui partid politic, șeful poliției municipale Vladimir Botnari asigură securitatea Î.S. „Moldtelecom”, iar Petru Corduneanu, Artur Reșetnicov și alții s-au făcut aleși de popor.

    Asociațiile semnatare DEZAPROBĂ neexecutarea Hotărârii Parlamentului nr. 159, din 08.07.2010, „Asupra raportului Comisiei de anchetă pentru elucidarea cauzelor și a consecințelor evenimentelor de după 5 aprilie 2009”, prin care instanțelor competente li s-a ordonat „să verifice legalitatea acțiunilor fiecărui polițist, procuror și judecător, care a judecat protestatarii pașnici în comisariatele de poliție și au admis tortura în masă”, însă nu s-a făcut nimic pentru executarea acestei hotărâri:

    http://lex.justice.md/index.php?action=view&view=doc&lang=1&id=335365

    Este profund REGRETABIL că zeci și sute de victime ale torturii au rămas traumatizate pe viață și fără niciun suport real din partea statului, cu excepția unor compensații bănești, care au fost stabilite incomparabil de mici comparativ cu prejudiciul cauzat. Legea Nr. 137/2017 „Cu privire la reabilitarea victimelor” s-a dovedit a fi ineficientă și rămâne doar pe hârtie, fără mecanisme de implementare. Iar Comentariul General nr. 3/2012 la art. 14 al Convenției ONU împotriva torturii (CAT) al Comitetului ONU împotriva torturii, tratamentelor inumane și degradante a fost ignorat. Este inadmisibil, ca multiplele obligații internaționale ale Republicii Moldova în vederea „toleranței zero” față de tortură rămân a fi ignorate până în prezent indiferent de recomandările și standardele din diverse rapoarte anuale internaționale cu privire la Republica Moldova.

    Acțiunea publică de astăzi este o acțiune de comemorare. Atâta timp cât dreptatea pentru victimele din aprilie 2009 rămâne o problemă nerezolvată, autorii acțiunilor de tortură și alte rele tratamente vor beneficia în continuare de impunitate. Cazul recent al regretatului Andrei Brăguță a demonstrat încă odată că nimic nu s-a schimbat, iar eforturile raportate la ONU și Consiliul Europei sunt cu regret nule, nu au nici un efect, deoarece sistemul a mai omorât un om în august 2017 în condiții similare. Ne întrebăm, cine este următorul, dragă STAT de (ne)DREPT?

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • This document provides information on the worsening operational environment of civil society organizations (CSOs) in Moldova, where increasingly more independent CSOs become the target of numerous mudslinging and defamation actions.

    The main purpose of the document is to draw attention to the danger of orchestrated attacks on CSOs, and to determine public authorities, private organizations, and individuals to stop supporting those attacks and let CSOs operate freely. This document also aims at enabling CSOs to design timely response to attacks against them.

    The term “attacks” as used in this document refers particularly to media articles or public interventions that present the nonprofit sector as promoting the interests of foreign countries or serving the interests of political parties. Some of these attacks take the form of direct administrative crackdown
    on CSOs by driving them out of policy-making process or by launching legislative initiatives aimed at deteriorating the CSOs' working environment.

    The document is available here. 

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • On 5 February 2018, a press release was published on the website of the Prosecutor General's Office, which states that during the year 2017, judges authorized 3,142 prosecutors' applications regarding the tapping and recording of conversations and images. The press release also states that during the past year, a non-governmental organization provided information according to which "telephone tapping is being used too often, running to tens of thousands" and "this information being analyzed ... and compared to the real state of things, obtained from legal and public sources, there have been proven great differences”. In October 2017, the Legal Resources Centre from Moldova (LCRM) published an infographic with statistical data regarding the interception of telephone conversations in the Republic of Moldova between 2006 and the first semester of 2017. LCRM compiled this table based on statistical data published by the Agency for Administration of Judicial Courts (AAJC).

    The data used by the Prosecutor General's Office differs considerably from the data published by the AAJC, which has the task to collect and publish judicial statistics. The AAJC report on judicial statistics for 2017 is not yet available. Still, the statistical report for the first nine months of 2017 is available. According to it, between 1 January and 30 September 2017, the courts accepted 9,471 prosecutors' requests to authorize interception of telephone conversations. It is surely clear that other interceptions have been also authorized during the last 3 months of 2017.

    The number of telephone tapping for 2017 published by the Prosecutor General's Office (3,142) is at least 3 times lower than the nine-month figures of 2017 published by the AAJC (9,471). The difference between the official statistics of the AAJC and the data used by the Prosecutor General's Office raises serious concerns that are to be explained by these institutions.

    Addition (7 February 2018): Following several requests to clarify the difference between the data submitted by the Prosecutor General's Office and the AAJC regarding the number of requests for authorization of telephone interceptions, we reiterate that this should be done by the concerned institutions. It should be noted that there is a difference between the data provided by the Prosecutor General's Office in its annual activity reports and those presented by the AAJC for several years regarding the number of requests for the authorization of telephone interceptions (see, for example, the annual Prosecutor General's Reports for 2016, 2015, 2013, 2012, 2011). Perhaps the difference could be explained either by the different data collected or by the fact that the data collected by the Prosecutor's Office are incomplete. The judicial statistics collected by the AAJC reflect all the prosecutors' requests to intercept the communications filed with all the courts. The Prosecutor General's Office may collect the data about the initial requests for authorization, but not about the requests for the extension of the interception. According to the Criminal Procedure Code, interception is allowed for a limited time and, respectively, in one criminal case there may be several requests to extend the interception, for each a separate court authorization being issued.

    In any case, even 3,142 authorizations, the number with which the Prosecutor General's Office operates, is too high for the Republic of Moldova, as mentioned by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Iordachi and others v. Moldova, in 2009. Moreover, this number is higher than the number of interceptions authorized in 2014 in the United Kingdom (2,700), a country with a population 21 times bigger than that of the Republic of Moldova and with an increased risk of terrorist incidents. The number of telephone interceptions in the Republic of Moldova is annually increasing, which is confirmed both by the statistical data used by the Prosecutor General's Office and by the AAJC.

  • The Independent Think Tank ‘Expert-Grup’, the Association for Participatory Democracy ‘ADEPT’ and the Legal Resources Centre from Moldova, with the support of USAID, finalized the process of monitoring the implementation of Priority Reform Action Roadmap undertaken by the Government and the Parliament for the period of July – 31 December 2017. The experts monitored the implementation of priority policies in two core areas:

    (i) development of good governance and rule of law, with a focus on the public administration reform, justice and anti-corruption and fundamental rights and freedoms; and

    (ii) economic development and functioning market economy, with a focus on the governance of the financial and banking sector; investment and business climate; agriculture and food safety; education, culture, science; and social programs.

    The monitoring exercise concluded that about one half of the actions covered by the Priority Reform Action Roadmap were implemented, with the level of implementation estimated to about 55%: of the total of 51 planned actions, only 28 were implemented. Furthermore, 10 of implemented actions were rated as ‘implemented with concerns’, with reasons ranging from non-observance of the decision-making transparency to content-related issues requiring substantial improvements. At the same time, 22 actions, or 43% of the total, were initiates, but not completed. The main reasons for breaking deadlines are too ambitious timeliness, as well as public administration reform that temporarily affected the pace of reforms in general and the implementation of measures set out in the Roadmap in particular.

    The highest level of implementation was estimated in the field of ‘Governance in the financial and banking sector’. Thus, of the 8 actions planned in this field, 6 actions were implemented without deficiencies, 1 – with deficiencies and 1 – initiated but not completed. Such a high level of implementation is the result of the pro-active orientation of the institutions from this sector (particularly the NBM), including in the context of the Memorandum with IMF. In contrast, the field ‘Justice and fight against corruption’ registered the weakest progresses – 9 of 10 planned actions were initiated but not completed. The causes of such a negative performance are probably related to poor institutional capacity, weak political will and too ambitious timeliness. In the field of ‘public administration reform’, 5 of 6 planned actions were implemented with concerns. The main reason is that this reform, although implemented at a relatively high pace, is not based on functional reviews and empirical evidences, being thus perceived rather a political reform.

    On a general note, the experts expressed concerns about the increasing use of roadmaps as instruments for policy planning and boosting reforms. The problem is that this Roadmap does not contain performance indicators and does not provide for the allocation of financial resources for its implementation. In addition, the document foresees urgent actions, which need to be implemented in the short run without any reference to the development visions at sectoral level and without taking into account the already adopted strategies, which can undermine their implementation. At the same time, inclusion, in the Roadmap, of some actions already provided for in the existing sectoral action plans but with different deadlines creates confusions for implementing institutions. Thus, the frequent use of roadmaps reveals a deficient management in public institutions or a weak political will, which mobilizes only under the influence of certain external factors. Experts recommend giving up at or using such roadmaps in exceptional circumstance. The authorities should respect the decision-making process rules in developing, adopting and implementing effectively the public policy documents.

    Event video recording is available below:

    (En) Monitoring report on the implementation of the Priority Reform Action Roadmap (5th July – 22nd November 2017) 

    (RO) Monitoring report on the implementation of the Priority Reform Action Roadmap (5th July – 22nd November 2017)

    (RU) Monitoring report on the implementation of the Priority Reform Action Roadmap (5th July – 22nd November 2017)

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • On 31 October 2017, the Ministry of Justice has submitted for coordination a draft law the declared aim of which is the improvement of the investment climate, attraction of foreign investment and reduction of pressure on business environment by the law enforcement bodies. The signatory organizations did not know about the elaboration of this draft law until 31 October 2017.

    Numerous initiatives that cannot have anything in common with the declared aim of the draft are among the proposed amendments. On the contrary, they are unjustified and undermine the fight against corruption and the investigation of previously committed economic frauds. These include a new ground for exempting from criminal liability, a new ground for suspending the enforcement of imprisonment, prohibition to arrest persons for crimes sanctioned with less than 5 years of imprisonment, widening of the powers of the Anti-corruption Prosecutor's Office and increasing the number of criminal cases transferred into the exclusive competence of prosecutors. The powers of enforcement bodies that concern sanctioning are also substantially changed.

    The draft stipulates that the person is released from criminal responsibility for committing economic crimes only once, if s/he recovers the damage and pays a fine to the state. In similar situations, the judge is required to apply the suspension of imprisonment for many economic crimes. Among the offences when these provisions can be applicable are the illegal practice of entrepreneurial activity, tax evasion, manipulation and abuse with securities, violation of shareholders' rights or unauthorized access to telecommunications networks. In the initial version, the draft provided that these provisions also apply to illegal crediting, fraudulent bank administration or obstruction of supervision in the banking system. However, even with subsequent changes, the remaining amendments can have a number of negative consequences for the financial and banking environment, reforms initiated in the sector or even for the intention of potential strategic investors to come to our country. The de facto decriminalization of crimes related to securities, especially those relating to the keeping of the stock holders' registers, will further reduce the ability of the state to guarantee private ownership and the investors' rights, which is the main element of a safe investment climate. It is unacceptable that the numerous raider attacks of the recent years and the embezzlement of property in a fraudulent way as well as intermediaries are exempted from criminal liability.

    De facto, the draft prohibits the arrest of persons accused of economic crimes. Investments cannot be attracted by providing facilities to crooks. On the contrary, it will also be a sign of discouragement to business people of good faith. Moreover, a state that has been the victim of a huge bank fraud and numerous raider attacks should, on the contrary, should tighten sanctions for such deviations in order to discourage any new attempts of this kind. Introducing these amendments at the moment could seriously hamper the work of the competent authorities as regards the investigation of the banking fraud and proper accountability of those guilty of the fraud.

    At the same time, we have been struck by the fact that although the draft states as its purpose the facilitation of the business environment, it changes the powers of the bodies responsible for investigating the cases of corruption. Contrary to international recommendations, small corruption, which is now investigated by the NAC, is transferred into the exclusive competence of anti-corruption prosecutors. This will distract them from cases of high level corruption and will further increase the workload of anti-corruption prosecutors, impeding the fight with the high level corruption. The draft does not justify this amendment in any way. Moreover, this amendment is contrary to the basic concept of the legislative reform of the Prosecutor's Office voted in 2016. This change was not discussed with prosecutors beforehand. The Prosecutor General Office and civil society organizations have earlier requested the Ministry of Justice not to promote it, but unsuccessfully.

    Previously, civil society organizations have asked the Ministry of Justice to remove the above issues and even have made a public position note. The National Anti-corruption Centre as well provided a negative opinion on the draft (NAC corruption expertise opinion of 1 December 2017). The absence of justification, alongside with the insistence with which the draft is promoted, suggests that the draft law pursues a different purpose than the declared one.

    The signatory organizations strongly request the Ministry of Justice and the Government to:

    1. Withdraw the draft law regarding the „decriminalization of economic crimes“;
    2. Set up a representative working group with the involvement of all stakeholders, including civil society, development partners and the business community with the view to develop legislative solutions to the real problems faced by the business community;
    3. We also call on the development partners of the Republic of Moldova to follow closely the initiative regarding the "decriminalization of economic crimes".

    The signatory organizations:

    • Association for Participatory Democracy (ADEPT)
    • Association for Efficient and Responsible Governance (AGER) Association of Independent Press (API)
    • „Acces-info” Centre
    • Independent Analytical Center „Expert-Grup” Centre for Analysis and Prevention of Corruption (CAPC) GENDERDOC-M Information Centre
    • Journalistic Investigation Centre (CIJ)
    • Legal Resources Centre from Moldova (CRJM) Center Partnership for Development (CPD) WatchDog.MD Community
    • CPR Moldova
    • Centre for Independent Journalism (CJI) Institute for Public Policy (IPP)
    • Institute for Development and Social Initiatives „Viitorul” (IDIS „Viitorul”) Institute for European Policies and Reforms (IPRE)
    • Promo-LEX
    • Transparency International-Moldova

    The entire text of the appeal is available here in English. 

    The entire text of the appeal is available here in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • The Independent Analytic Centre ”Expert-Grup”, the Association for Participatory Democracy ”ADEPT”, and the Legal Resource Centre in Moldova, with the support of the USAID, have initiated the monitoring process of the Priority Reform Action Roadmap implementation. The aim of this exercise is to offer the public an independent opinion about the process of the reforms’ implementation by the Government and the Parliament and also increase the level of governance accountability. The mid-term evaluation is performed for the period between the date of signature of the document on July 5, 2017 until November 22, 2017. As stated by the authors of the document, it was designed to synchronize the efforts of both institutions to implement a series of urgent commitments under the EU-Moldova Association Agreement, as well as to expedite some reforms to strengthen relations with the International Monetary Fund and other development partners.

    As a matter of fact, the Roadmap aims to strengthen the confidence of development partners and the citizens in government by promoting a number of priority policies in two core areas: (i) development of good governance and rule of law, with a focus on the public administration reform, justice and anti-corruption; and fundamental rights and freedoms; and (ii) economic development and ensuring a functioning market economy, with a focus on the governance of the financial and banking sector; investment and business climate; agriculture and food safety; education, culture, science; and social programmes.

    Although the authorities have been fully engaged in implementing the Priority Reform Action Roadmap, there are multiple delays in the process and numerous concerns in terms of content and procedure. Of those 51 actions covered by the Roadmap, 26 were planned for the monitored period (July - November), of which only 11 were implemented, while others are still under implementation. Furthermore, of those 11 implemented actions, 4 were rated as "implemented with concerns", while reasons ranged from non-observance of the decision-making transparency to content issues requiring substantial improvements. The main reasons for breaking deadlines are too ambitious timelines, as well as public administration reform that temporarily affected the pace of reforms in general and the implementation of measures set out in the Roadmap in particular.

    The objective with the highest level of implementation of 50%, refers to the improvement of the investment and business climate. Followed by the financial-banking sector on the one hand, and education, culture, science on the other, with the level of implementation at 25% each.

    Referring to the specific actions in each category, the following results can be mentioned:

    • In the field of Public Administration Reform, of the 6 monitored actions, 2 actions were implemented with concerns, 3 actions are in negative progress and 1 action is in positive progress.
    • In the field of Justice and Anti-Corruption, of those 10 monitored actions, 8 are in positive progress, and 2 are in negative progress.
    • In the field of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, of the 9 monitored actions, 5 are in positive progress, 3 are in negative progress and 1 implemented without concerns.
    • In the field of Governance in the Financial and Banking Sector, of the 8 actions monitored, 2 were implemented without concerns, 5 are in positive progress and 1 is in negative progress.
    • In the field of Improving Investment and Business Climate, of the 10 actions under monitoring, 4 actions were implemented without concerns, 1 action was implemented with concerns, 1 action is in negative progress, 3 actions are in positive progress and 1 action was not initiated.
    • In the field of Agriculture and Food Safety both monitored actions are in positive progress.
    • In the field of Education, Culture, Science of the 4 monitored actions, 1 was implemented with concerns and 3 are in positive progress.
    • In the field of Social Programmes, of the 2 actions under monitoring, 1 action is in positive progress, and 1 action is in negative progress.

    Monitoring report on the implementation of the Priority Reform Action Roadmap (5th July – 22nd November 2017) in English is available here. 

    Monitoring report on the implementation of the Priority Reform Action Roadmap (5th July – 22nd November 2017) in Romanian is available here. 

    Monitoring report on the implementation of the Priority Reform Action Roadmap (5th July – 22nd November 2017) in Russian is available here. 

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Legal Resources Centre from Moldova (LRCM) contributed to a recently launched policy paper on the activity of Legal Think Tanks in six European countries. The policy document ”How Legal Think Tanks provide, or fail to provide knowledge to Governments in Central and Eastern Europe” presents common conclusions, best practice examples and recommendations offered by experienced Legal Think Tanks from Slovakia, Hungary, Czech Republic, Poland, Ukraine and Moldova on how to improve good governance by ensuring interaction with the stakeholders in the policy making process.

    The policy document findings show that despite local differences in the region, the activity of Legal Think Tanks enriches the public debate and makes the governance process more participatory. Hence there are historical and current examples of valuable contribution of think tanks to public policy making and law-making, there are also similar challenges pertaining to interactions between Legal Think Tanks and governments, especially in countries where governments challenge the liberal democratic model. The document presents further recommendations to Legal Think Tanks, to the governments and the donor community, on how to cooperate and engage in real and continuous dialogue to develop programs that would ensure stability and quality of social important work in the region.

    The policy document ”How Legal Think Tanks provide, or fail to provide knowledge to Governments in Central and Eastern Europe” is available here.

    This Policy Paper was prepared by LRCM and INPRIS within the project “Legal Think Tanks and Government – Capacity Building” supported by the International Visegrad Fund (visegradfund.org).

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • The Parliament of the Republic of Moldova approved on 20 July 2017 the Law No 154 on Amendments and Addenda to Some Legislative Acts, which changed the electoral system by switching from the proportional electoral system to a mixed one.

    Article III of the Law No 154 obliges the Government to establish the National Commission for the Establishment of Permanent Single-Member Constituencies within 30 days, term which expired on 20 August 2017.  Contrary to the obligation mentioned above, the Government did not establish the National Commission within the deadline stipulated by the Law. However, on 18 August 2017, two days before the deadline, the Ministry of Justice launched for public consultations a draft Regulation on the operation of the National Commission for the Establishment of Permanent Single-Member Constituencies. The Regulation provides neither the nominal structure of the Commission, nor the duration of its mandate. Instead, the draft Regulation stipulates how the Commission should be established and organised, the rights and obligations of its members, the duties of the Commission’s Chairperson and Secretary. Concurrently, the draft establishes how to organise and conduct the Commission’s meetings, and how to adopt its decisions.

    Article 74(3) of the Electoral Code, in the version issued after the adoption of Law No 154 of 20 July 2017, states that the independent Commission for the Establishment of Single-Member Constituencies shall act under its own regulation, approved by the Government. Accordingly, the Government’s initiative to regulate the activity of a commission, which, pursuant to the law, is presumed to be independent and should draw up its own Activity Regulation, which should only technically be approved by the Government, is nothing but a direct interference in the work of this body and an intention to suppress its independence.

    Civil society representatives reiterate the position that granting the right to set up permanent single-member constituencies to a political body, namely the Government, which is subordinated to the parliamentary majority, and the failure to include the boundaries of the single-member constituencies in the Electoral Code are major deficiencies of the mixed electoral system approved by Law No 154 of 20 July 2017. Besides, we point out other shortcomings of the draft Regulation to be taken into account by the established Commission when drafting its own Regulation as follows: the introduction of a new position for the Commission’s members, the unfinished member revocation procedure, the limitation of the number of representatives of civil society organisations and so on.

    However, we welcome and recommend that, when developing its own Regulation, the Commission take into account the suggestion of the Ministry of Justice to include in its composition members with consultative voting rights from other relevant entities: central public authorities, extra-parliamentary political parties, civil society organisations, etc. We also believe that developing a Calendar Plan is a useful tool that can be taken forward, but it is better for it to be mandatory for a good and orderly operation.

    The entire declaration is available here (in English).

    The entire declaration is available here (in Romanian).

    The entire declaration is available here (in Russian).

    Signatories:
    1. Promo-LEX Association
    2. Legal Resources Centre from Moldova (LRCM)
      
  • Transparenţa și eficienţa Consiliului Superior al Magistraturii din Republica Moldova: ianuarie 2015 – martie 2016
  • Increasing the accountability of the government of Moldova in its efforts to implement the Priority Reform Action Roadmap, 2nd semestre, 2017 and contribute to the continuity of reforms, in order to bring Moldova on the path of sustainable and inclusive development.

  •  Sorina Macrinici: „O putere nouă care i se dă cetăţeanului”
  • Ilie Chirtoacă despre restricțiile propuse de ministerul justiției asupra activității unor ONG-uri finanțate din exterior.
  • Soluţii pentru un cadru legal adecvat necesităţilor organizaţiilor necomerciale
  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Ghid pentru persoane fizice privind desemnarea procentuală (Legea 2%)
  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Organizațiile societății civile își exprimă profunda îngrijorare în legătură cu decretul Președintelui Republicii Moldova privind eliberarea din funcție a judecătoarei Domnica MANOLE.

    La 4 iulie 2017, Consiliului Superior al Magistraturii (CSM) a declarat judecătoarea Manole incompatibilă cu funcția de judecător și a propus Președintelui Republicii Moldova eliberarea acesteia din funcție. Judecătoarea Manole a contestat hotărârea CSM la Curtea Supremă de Justiție (CSJ) și a solicitat suspendarea hotărârii CSM până la examinarea cauzei. CSJ a respins repetat cererile de suspendare a hotărârii CSM, deși fără această suspendare judecătoarea urma a fi eliberată din funcție în termen de 30 de zile. Contestarea la CSJ este unicul mijloc judiciar de a verifica legalitatea hotărârii CSM. Prima ședință pentru examinarea contestației împotriva hotărârii CSM a fost stabilită pentru 4 august 2017, ora 10. Judecătoarea Manole a informat Președinția despre contestația depusă, solicitând în mod expres Președintelui să nu emită decretul până la soluția CSJ. Cu toate acestea, la 21 iulie 2017, Președintele a emis decretul de eliberare a doamnei Manole din funcția de judecător, decret care a fost publicat la 28 iulie 2017.

    Societatea civilă este îngrijorată de graba cu care Președintele a emis decretul de eliberare din funcție. Era logic ca acesta să aștepte soluția cauzei care este pe rolul CSJ, mai ales că există dubii serioase privind legalitatea propunerii CSM de eliberarea din funcție a judecătoarei Manole. Anterior, în situații similare, Președintele aștepta decizia CSJ. Mai mult, la 5 iulie 2017, mai multe organizații ale societății civile și-au exprimat profunda îngrijorarea în legătură cu hotărârea CSM privind declararea incompatibilității judecătoarei Domnica MANOLE cu funcția de judecător și au solicitat Președintelui Republicii Moldova să nu promulge decretul de eliberare din funcție a judecătoarei Manole. Graba cu care s-a emis decretul de această dată indică cel puțin spre o ignorare a recursului judiciar de protecție a drepturilor judecătoarei și transmite un mesaj de intimidare a judiciarului.

    Societatea civilă face apel  către toate autoritățile naționale să respecte independența sistemului judiciar, care este un pilon al unui stat de drept și democratic.

    Totodată organizațiile semnatare fac apel către organizațiile internaționale, în special Consiliul Europei, Uniunea Europeană și Organizația Națiunilor Unite, de a monitoriza starea justiției și de a interveni prin mijloacele proprii fiecărei organizații pentru a opri deteriorarea stării justiției din Republica Moldova.

    Textul integral al declarației este disponibil aici. 

    Semnatari:

    1. Alianța INFONET
    2. Ambasada Drepturilor Omului
    3. Amnesty International Moldova
    4. Asociația ADR Habitat
    5. Asociația Antreprenorilor cu Dizabilități din Republica Moldova „Abilități Europene Fără Limite"
    6. Asociația Femeilor Avocate din Republica Moldova
    7. Asociația pentru Guvernare Eficientă și Responsabilă (AGER)
    8. Centrul Analitic Independent Expert-Grup
    9. Centrul de Informare și Documentare privind Drepturile Copilului din Moldova
    10. Centrul de Investigații Jurnalistice
    11. Centrul de Reabilitarea a Victimelor Torturii „Memoria”
    12. Centrul de Resurse Juridice din Moldova (CRJM)
    13. Centrul Parteneriat pentru Dezvoltare
    14. Comunitatea "WatchDog.MD"
    15. CPR Moldova
    16. Eco-TIRAS
    17. Institutul de Politici și Reforme Europene (IPRE)
    18. Institutul de Politici Publice
    19. Terra-1530
    20. Transparency International Moldova

     

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • The legislation of the Republic of Moldova on non-governmental organizations is obsolete, failing to provide sufficient protection against abuses. In spring 2016, the Minister of Justice, Mr. Vladimir CEBOTARI, accepted the proposal of several civil society organizations to improve the legislation on non-governmental organizations and established a working group to this end, composed of representatives of non-governmental organizations and the Ministry of Justice.

    The group worked for more than a year and prepared a draft law intended to replace the Law on Public Associations and the Law on Foundations. This draft is in line with the best international standards and practices and may represent, if adopted, a step forward in ensuring a sustainable and independent associative sector in the Republic of Moldova. The draft was endorsed by international experts and subjected to public consultations with participation of non-commercial organizations held on 14 September 2016 by the Ministry of Justice. During its activity, the working group enjoyed independence and was not subject to undue influence by the leadership of the Ministry of Justice or any other authorities. The draft Law on non-governmental organizations is ready to be promoted for adoption.

    Last week, the representatives of NGOs, members of the above-referenced working group, received from the representatives of the Ministry of Justice, part of the same group, a proposal to complete the draft with three additional articles (Articles 28-30) presented by the Minister of Justice.

    The additions include "special provisions on political activity of non-governmental organizations", which significantly limit the activity of non-governmental organizations and establish prohibitions for their direct or indirect foreign financing. These restrictions refer to organizations that contribute to development and promotion of public policies intended to influence the legislative process. At the same time, these restrictions apply to the organizations that, according to the initiative, could participate or intervene in political activities, electoral campaigns, electoral programs, support political parties, their leaders or candidates, promote them or any other actions undertaken by them, either jointly or separately, both, in elections within the meaning of the Electoral Code or matters subject to a referendum, or beyond elections. These organizations will be prohibited even from accessing the 2% mechanism.

    The adjustments also aim at additional financial transparency rules for all organizations that benefit from financing outside the Republic of Moldova. They should submit to the Ministry of Justice quarterly and annual financial reports, even though such reports are submitted monthly and annually with the Tax authorities of the Republic of Moldova. Moreover, the NGOs should publish other reports confirming the origin of the organization's funds and revenues, and of the members of its management bodies as well. Additionally, organizations will have to submit a written declaration on incomes and expenditures ratio for "political activities" to the Ministry of Justice and the Central Electoral Commission and publish it on their website.

    For breach of the above requirements, the Ministry of Justice will apply sanctions to the non-governmental organization and to the members of its management bodies. Some of the provided sanctions are a financial penalty in the amount of the monthly salary fund of the organization or in the amount of the material value of which the financial organization benefited in committing the breach, whichever is greater, as well as the liquidation of the organization, based on a court decision.

    On 6 July 2017, the members of the working group convened in a meeting with the Minister of Justice.  At this meeting, Mr. Cebotari mentioned that the proposed additions are designed to avoid the external influence on the policy of the Republic of Moldova, which is exercised, including by means of external financing of non-commercial organizations which are focusing on state policies or are supporting, directly or indirectly, initiatives of political parties. The Minister suggested to improve the text proposed by him. The representatives of the Ministry of Justice in the working group informed the representatives of NGOs from the working group that the final version of the daft to be promoted will be decided by the Ministry of Justice.

    The signatory organizations consider that the proposals of the Minister of Justice cannot be supported in any way, because they are contrary to the international standards and are endangering the entire associative sector and democracy in the Republic of Moldova.

    This initiative is contrary to the international standards, which do not allow such limitations for the NGOs activities. A recent analysis by the Venice Commission reveals that such limitations exist only in three member states of the Council of Europe - Russia, Hungary and Azerbaijan. Recently, the Venice Commission had a critical attitude on Hungarian law. The limitations proposed by Mr. Cebotari are even more restrictive than those in Hungary, a country that does not impose an absolute ban for foreign funding of NGOs. Moreover, the minister's initiative is contrary to the very purpose for which the drafting of new legislation was initiated. The working group was created to improve and not to worsen the working environment of non-governmental organizations. If Minister’s intention was communicated from the outset, no non-commercial organization would have accepted to get involved in drafting such a draft Law. Furthermore, this initiative was announced at the latest possible moment, despite the fact that the same Minister created the working group more than a year ago.

    The proposals represent an attack on non-governmental organizations that are active in promoting public policies or any other activities to develop participatory democracy. The absolute majority of Moldovan NGOs benefit from funds provided by development partners. Such measures will deprive the majority of active NGOs in the country of financing and the foreign political organizations and foundations working in the Republic of Moldova would be forced to cease their activity. Therefore, this will affect thousands of people directly benefiting from the NGOs activity and the functioning of democracy itself in the Republic of Moldova.

    The proposed provisions are contrary to the Association Agreement between the Republic of Moldova and the European Union, which encourages the involvement of all relevant stakeholders, including civil society organizations, in developing policies and reforms in the Republic of Moldova. We must recall that the state of the Republic of Moldova itself benefits from continuous financial support from the development partners. Thus, restricting external financing for the non-governmental sector is at least disproportionate.

    Furthermore, for 20 years the legislation of the Republic of Moldova has not provided for such prohibitions. Due to the fact that legislation had not provided for such bans, the associative sector in Moldova developed considerably over the past two decades. This confirms that the danger invoked by the Minister of Justice as an argument for promoting the initiative does not exist. The draft law elaborated by the working group already sets limits to the NGOs' involvement in elections in line with best international practices. The proposed additions go much further, excessively limiting the activity of NGOs both during and after elections.

    This initiative comes at a time when we are witnessing a regress in the environment of non-governmental organizations activity, including due to attacks against several civil society activists. Also, the statement made by the President Igor DODON on 26 May 2017 on the usefulness of promoting provisions limiting foreign funding of NGOs, similarly to Hungary, cannot be ignored. We would like to believe that this incident does not represent the policy promoted by the government regarding NGOs.

    In the light of the foregoing, the signatory organizations call on:

    1. the Minister of Justice, to give up the initiative to limit financing of the activity of NGOs from outside, as well as any other initiatives aimed at limiting their activity, and to send the draft Law drafted by the working group to the Government for approval as soon as possible;
    2. the Government and Parliament to vote the draft law on non-governmental organizations drafted by the working group without introducing provisions that will limit the activity of NGOs. Any delay in promotion of this draft will be treated by us as an implicit confirmation of a policy of limiting the activity of the associative sector;
    3. diplomatic community and development partners of the Republic of Moldova to closely monitor the situation of civil society in the Republic of Moldova and the initiatives to suppress the activity of the associative sector in the Republic of Moldova, and to take all measures to ensure that the civil society organizations working environment and freedom of the press do not worsen.

    Note: The draft law, with the additions proposed by the Minister of Justice (Art. 26-28) was published in the afternoon of 11 July 2017 after the above declaration was issued, and is available here. 

    The English version of Declaration can be downloaded here.

    The Romanian version of Declaration is available here.

     The signatory organizations: 
    1. Alliance INFONET
    2. Alliance of NGOs active in the field of Social Protection of Child and Family*
    3. Alliance Organization for People with Disabilities from the Republic of Moldova
    4. Students Alliance of Moldova
    5. Human Rights Embassy
    6. Amnesty International Moldova
    7. ”Piligrim-Demo” Public Association
    8. Certitudine Association
    9. Women`s Association for the Environment Protection and Sustainable Development
    10. Association of Professional and Business Women
    11. Association of Environment and Ecological Tourism Journalists from Republic of Moldova
    12. Small Business Association
    13. ”Home of Hope” Public Association
    14. Association “Positive initiative”
    15. “For the Present and Future” Public Association
    16. ”Pro-Trebujeni” Public Association
    17. ”QNA Moldova” Public Association
    18. Youth for the Right to Live, Bălți
    19. ADR „Habitat” Public Association
    20. Helsinki Citizens Assembly of Moldova
    21. BIOS Public Association
    22. ”SocioAcces” Public Association
    23. Young Women Cernoleuca Public Association
    24. Association for Participatory Democracy (ADEPT)
    25. Association for Efficient and Responsible Governance (AGER)
    26. Foreign Policy Association (APE)
    27. Association of Independent Press (API)
    28. Promo-Lex Association
    29. Association of Young Artists ”Oberliht”
    30. ”EuroPass” Center
    31. Center Partnership for Development (CPD)
    32. Independent Analytical Center Expert-Grup
    33. Legal Assistance Center for Persons with Disabilities
    34. Center for Economic Development
    35. Women`s Law Center
    36. The Human Rights Information Centre (CIDO)
    37. The Child Rights Information Center (CIDDC)
    38. ”GENDERDOC-M” Information Centre
    39. Journalistic Investigation Centre (CIJ)
    40. Rehabilitation Centre for Torture Victims "Memoria"
    41. Legal Resources Centre from Moldova (CRJM)
    42. International Centre “La Strada”
    43. National Law Centre „AD LEGEM”
    44. National Environmental Center
    45. National Roma Center
    46. National Center for Child Abuse Prevention (CNPAC)
    47. Centre for Independent Journalism (CJI)
    48. Center For Health Policies and Studies (Centrul PAS)
    49. Pro-Europa Center from Comrat
    50. The Regional Environmental Centre (REC Moldova)
    51. Balti University Legal Clinic
    52. Nondiscrimination Coalition
    53. MD Community
    54. National Youth Council of Moldova (CNTM)
    55. CPR-Moldova
    56. Eco-Contact
    57. Eco-TIRAS
    58. Est Europe Foundation
    59. Freedom Moldova Foundation
    60. Foundation for Development
    61. Terre des hommes Moldova Foundation
    62. The Group of Youth for Interetnical Solidarity
    63. Soros Foundation-Moldova
    64. Gutta Club
    65. HOSPICE Angelus Moldova
    66. Development Institute ”Millenium”
    67. Institute for Public Policy (IPP)
    68. Institute for European Policies and Reforms (IPRE)
    69. Labour Institute
    70. Institute for Development and Social Initiatives “Viitorul”
    71. Ecological Movement from Moldova
    72. Non Commercial Partnership for Medical and Social Programs
    73. RISE Moldova
    74. Association for Protection of the Birds and Nature
    75. Terra-1530
    76. Transparency International Moldova (TI-Moldova)
    77. Union of Organizations for Disabled from Moldova
    78. Union for HIV Prevention and Risk Reduction
     The list of signatory organisations remains open *APSCF is a network of 89 national and local NGOs set up in 2002 and some member NGOs have been active since the 1990s, being active particularly as providers of social services for children, as well as promoters of new approaches/ ideas/ norms in child's protection. The member NGOs, dialogue partners of national and international decision-makers, and children's friends, contribute through daily activities to the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, since it has been ratified. 
  • The undersigned civil society organizations express their concern about the Superior Council of Magistracy (SCM) decision of 4 July 2017 on declaring the judge of Chisinau Court of Appeals, Domnica MANOLE, as being incompatible with the position. The signatories ask the President of the Republic of Moldova not to promulgate the decree ordering the dismissal of judge MANOLE, and the SCM to respect the law and truly become a guarantor of judicial independence.

    On 24 May 2016, at the request of the Prosecutor General, the SCM gave its consent to criminal prosecution against judge Domnica MANOLE of the Chisinau Court of Appeal for her decision to compel the Central Election Commission to hold a referendum on amending the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova. The judge is accused under art. 307 of the Criminal Code, for willful issuance of a decision contrary to the law. The examination of the acceptance of the request to initiate criminal investigation was held behind closed doors, despite the fact that judge Manole and her lawyer requested a public hearing. The consent to start criminal investigation was given by the SCM without any reasoning. For more than a year the case is before the Anticorruption Prosecutor's Office and it is still not clear when or generally whether it is to be referred to a court. In July 2016, the Anticorruption Prosecutor's Office resumed the investigation against judge Manole in another case on the alleged failure to declare properties, which was quashed in February 2015 after the National Anticorruption Center (NAC) found that the judge had not committed this infringement in 2014.

    On 4 July 2017, the SCM decided to dismiss Ms. Manole, apparently, on the basis of an opinion issued by the Intelligence and Security Service (ISS). The ISS opinion notes that in several cases examined by panels of judges with the participation of judge Manole, including the case underlying criminal prosecution consent from May 2016, the magistrate allegedly permitted certain irregularities that ascertained for the presence of risk factors in her activity. Again, the opinion was examined behind closed doors, although judge Manole asked for a public hearing. This issue was part of the SCM agenda a few weeks ago, but was postponed at the SCM’s initiative.

    The civil society organizations are deeply concerned about the SCM ruling on the dismissal of judge Manole. The decision taken yesterday by the SCM is contrary to its previous practice where members of the SCM determined that the ISS cannot assess the work of judges in examining specific cases, mainly in terms of questioning the merits of the cases examined by the judge. Moreover, the issue of dismissal of a judge was held behind closed doors, even if the judge requested a public hearing. At the same time, the Law on the Status of Judges does not allow the SCM to dismiss a judge based upon an ISS opinion without a disciplinary procedure, which was not the case.

    According to the operative part of the ruling, read in the SCM sitting, judge Manole even violated the obligation to communicate with the press. It seems that neither judge Manole was aware of this accusation. It is not clear who formulated such a complaint and it was not on the SCM agenda. However, breaching of such obligation hardly justifies application of the most serious penalty – dismissal of a judge.

    The decision to dismiss judge Manole is fueling suspicions of the lack of independence of the SCM towards other state powers, non-uniform application of the law and application of selective justice against a magistrate for the decision given in the referendum case. Examination of the issue behind closed doors, further reinforces this suspicion, taking into account that other cases against the same judge were resumed in 2016. Yesterday's decision of the SCM is a very dangerous precedent for the independence of judges in the Republic of Moldova and is likely to send a signal to other judges not to oppose the governance. Such decisions undermine the independence of judges. Moreover, such conduct is inadmissible for the SCM, which, according to the law, must be the guarantor of the independence of all judges.

    We call on:

    1. the President of the Republic of Moldova not to promulgate the decree ordering dismissal of judge Manole;
    2. the SCM to publicly present reasons for examination of cases in closed hearings in order to avoid further impairment of citizens’ confidence in justice and to examine cases in closed hearings only when strictly necessary;
    3. the judges to join forces in order to ensure independence of the judiciary;
    4. the SCM to truly become the guarantor of the judges independence;
    5. the development partners to monitor with utmost care the state of justice in the Republic of Moldova and to properly react whenever the situation so requires, conditioning their assistance by ensurance of an independent judiciary in Moldova.

    The English declaration is available here.

    The Romanian declaration is available here. 

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Mrs. Tatiana RĂDUCANU is a professional judge. She worked as a judge at the Chişinău District Court (Râşcani) during the period 1988-1996. In 1996 she was promoted as a judge at the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Moldova, where she worked until 2003. Subsequently she was a judge at Chisinau Court of Appeal. On 30 June 2005, Mrs. Răducanu was promoted to the Supreme Court of Justice, where she worked until 2016. In 2016 Mrs. Răducanu left the judicial system at her own initiative.

    During 2003-2009 Mrs. Răducanu was a member of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture. Between 2009-2012 she was a member of the Disciplinary Board of Judges in the Superior Council of Magistracy and during 2013-2016 - member of the Superior Council of Magistracy. Since 2010 Mrs. Răducanu has been an ad hoc judge at the European Court of Human Rights.

    Currently Mrs. Răducanu is a retired judge. She continues her legal activity in the private sector.

     

     

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Supporting democratic institutions and expressing opinions on issues related to the electoral system do not represent political affiliation. We invite the representatives of public authorities, political parties and media institutions to refrain from attacks on civil society organizations that are active, independent and have critical views on the initiatives of the authorities. We call for a return to an open dialogue with all civil society organizations in order to promote the rule of law and the reforms that are really necessary in the society.

     On 5 May 2017, several civil society organizations condemned (declaration available in Romanian, Russian and English) the manner in which the draft law no. 60 (proposing the introduction of the uninominal system in the parliamentary elections) and the draft law no. 123 (which envisaged the introduction of the mixed system) (50% on party lists and 50% according to the uninominal system) were adopted in the first reading. Both draft laws were voted with serious procedural violations and without the Venice Commission’s opinion, although this was requested, while the promoted amendments are crucial to the functioning of democratic institutions in the country. Between 5 and 14 May 2017, protests were held daily in Chisinau, attended by representatives of civil society. Protests were organized to raise public and Parliament’s awareness about the serious consequences for democracy of the adoption of these draft laws.

    On 15 May 2017, during the TV show "Punctul pe Azi" from TVR Moldova, the Speaker, Andrian CANDU, mentioned that the electoral system will change from the proportional into the mixed one regardless of the views against this change and that now the discussions are being held only about the improvements to the draft laws. Mr. Andrian CANDU has also labelled the organizations that publicly opposed the initiative to amend the electoral system as "politically affiliated organizations". According to the Speaker, the statement that an electoral system is bad for the country is a political decision and a political discourse which NGOs should not have. Some media sources affiliated to political parties made similar assertions. Moreover, the day before, on 14 May 2017, the authorities undertook a series of measures to discourage citizens from participating at a protest. Numerous local bus routes to Chisinau have been cancelled and local train services have been stopped throughout the country. Also, there have been reported symptomatic cases imposing fines to several drivers who were transporting citizens to Chisinau.

    At the same time, Speaker’s statement that the decision to change the electoral system in the mixed system has already been taken before the Venice Commission's opinion is worrying, because this opinion might be a negative one. Democracy does not mean the right of the government to make decisions at the expense of democracy, through unilateral measures and manipulation of the public opinion. The draft law on the introduction of the mixed electoral system in general has not been subject to public hearings and debates. It was suddenly introduced on Parliament's agenda on 5 May 2017 in the absence of the approval of the Government and of the parliamentary committees and was voted on the same day.

    The signatory organizations underline the importance of plenary involvement of the society in the debate on proposed reforms, especially when it comes to changing the electoral system, and especially when in the neighbouring countries the proposed system proved to be detrimental to democracy and encouraged corruption. The change of the electoral system has direct consequences on the functioning of the state. It depends on the electoral system to what extent the elections will truly reflect the will of the people. Changing the electoral system is not a decision that belongs only to the governing parties, but is a decision of high public interest which determines the manner in which the state functions further, and therefore is an issue which must be widely debated in the society.

    Civil society organizations have not only the right, but also the responsibility to engage when reforms that endanger the rule of law and democracy are promoted. That is why expressing opinions on the change of the electoral system is not political affiliation, but the civic responsibility of every citizen and of every civil society organization in the Republic of Moldova. Organizations that criticized the initiatives to change the electoral system have operated with valid arguments and have exemplified the relevant experiences of neighbouring countries. Their arguments have not been followed by adequate answers. Instead, they are being attacked in a manipulative manner. Attacks against active civil society organizations lead to the division of the civil society, through the use of different methods, including trolls and organizations affiliated to the power. Tolerance of aggressive rhetoric of political leaders with high positions in the legislative branch can stimulate the reaction of affiliated political structures to launch a 'witch hunting' to demonstrate their political utility, reverting to the tools of intimidation and harassment used during the ruling of PCRM.

    From the above-mentioned considerations, labelling of political affiliation of organizations that do not share the point of view of governing parties is an attempt to silence these organizations and limit their involvement in the decision-making process. Such behaviour is inadmissible in the process of debating such an important initiative as changing the electoral system. Such speeches are not suitable for state officials and erode public confidence in state authorities.

    We therefore ask the representatives of public authorities and political decision-makers:

    • to immediately cease attacks against civil society organizations that have different or critical views regarding actions or initiatives of the government;
    • to engage in an open and inclusive dialogue with all civil society organizations on the real priority reforms for the country (e.g. poverty reduction, central and local public administration reform, fighting corruption, political party financing, justice reform, education, etc.).

    We also appeal to all media and opinion-makers to abide by deontological and common sense norms, as well as provide an equally balanced reflection of the debates taking place in the society on initiatives to change the electoral system and other issues of public interest.

    Declaration is available here (in English)

    Declaration is available here (in Romanian)

    Declaration is available here (in Russian)

    Signatories (in Romanian alphabetical order):

    1. Amnesty International Moldova
    2. Association for Participatory Democracy (ADEPT)
    3. Association for Efficient and Responsible Governance (AGER)
    4. Foreign Policy Association (APE)
    5. Association of Independent Press (API)
    6. Association of Independent Tele-journalists
    7. Expert Group Independent Think-Tank
    8. Centre for Analysis and Preventing Corruption (CAPC)
    9. Women Law Centre
    10. Child Rights Information Center (CIDDC)
    11. GENDERDOC-M Information Centre
    12. Centre for Investigative Journalism (CIJ)
    13. Centre for Politics and Reforms (CPR-Moldova)
    14. Legal Resources Centre from Moldova (CRJM)
    15. International Center for Women Rights Protection and Promotion "La Strada"
    16. Center for Health Policies and Studies (Centrul PAS)
    17. „WatchDog.MD” Community
    18. Institute for Public Policy (IPP)
    19. Institute for European Politics and Reforms (IPRE)
    20. Institute for Development and Social Initiatives (IDIS)
    21. PROMO-LEX
    22. Transparency International Moldova

     

     

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Organisations of civil society are dismayed by today’s joined actions of the deputies from the parliamentary parties: Democratic Party (PD), the Socialist Party (PSRM) and the European People's Party of Moldova (PPEM). They have supported the inclusion in the additional agenda of today's Parliamentary session of two draft laws that introduce crucial changes in the electoral system. Thus, on the agenda of the Parliament session were introduced to be voted at the first reading the draft no. 60/2017, promoted by PD, and draft law no. 123/2017, promoted by PSRM.
    The draft law no. 60 proposes the election of 101 deputies within uninominal constituencies (the uninominal system), while draft law no. 123 provides for the introduction of the mixed system (50% on party lists and 50% according to the uninominal system). Both draft laws were voted at first reading and their merging was announced, taking as primary the draft law suggested by PSRM on the mixed electoral system. None of these draft laws appeared on the Parliament's agenda yesterday, 4 May. None of the draft laws is accompanied by Government’s opinions or the opinions of parliamentary committees - mandatory requirements imposed by law. After the decision on the introduction of the draft laws in the agenda, the Speaker of the Parliament offered an hour to the parliamentary Legal, Appointments and Immunities Commission to analyze the draft law no. 123. The Government's opinion is missing from both draft laws. The today’s voting in the first reading takes place on the eve of the visit to the Republic of Moldova of the representatives of the Venice Commission. Next week, they will come to Chisinau for a fact-finding visit in view of drafting an opinion on the two draft laws, an opinion that was demanded by the Speaker of the Parliament and the former PSRM chairman. After the adoption of the drafts in the first reading, they can no longer be changed conceptually, even if these changes are recommended by the Venice Commission. Independent opinion polls confirm the lack of popular support for the initiative to change the electoral system, the current electoral system being preferred by most people, despite massive propaganda to change it. Earlier, several civil society organizations have called for withdrawal of the drafts to modify the electoral system. The change of the electoral system is a blow to the rule of law and a significant regression regarding the commitments made by the Republic of Moldova towards the Council of Europe.
    The hurry with which the two draft laws, which radically change the way the country is governed, have been introduced into the agenda of the Parliament's sitting, show only one thing: they aim to promote political interests at any cost, even if this means breaking the law, the democracy and the common sense.

    Civil Society organisations call on:

    1. The Parliament - to respect the law and common sense and to stop promoting the interests of some groups or parties and to act in the public interest according to democratic norms.
    2. The development partners of the Republic of Moldova, - to firmly condemn the above actions and to cease any support of the initiatives/requests of the current Government if the Parliament adopts one of the two draft laws.

    Declaration is available here (in English).

    The Romanian version of the declaration is available here. 

    The Russian version of the declaration is available here.

    Signatories:

    1. Association for Participative Democracy (ADEPT)
    2. Association for Efficient and Responsible Governance (AGER)
    3. Amnesty International Moldova
    4. Foreign Policy Association (APE)
    5. Association of Independent Press (API)
    6. Community ”WatchDog.MD”
    7. Center for Analysis and Prevention of Corruption (CAPC)
    8. The Human Rights Information Centre (CIDO)
    9. GENDERDOC-M Information Centre
    10. Journalistic Investigation Centre (CIJ)
    11. Policy and Reform Centre (CPR)
    12. Legal Resources Centre from Moldova (CRJM)
    13. Center Partnership for Development (CPD)
    14. Independent Journalism Centre (CJI)
    15. IDIS Viitorul
    16. Institute for European Policies and Reforms (IPRE)
    17. Public Policies Institute (IPP)
    18. Promo-LEX
    19. Transparency International – Moldova
    20. Union of Journalists from Moldova
    21. Veronica Mihailov-Moraru, attorney at law
    22. Eduard Digore, attorney at law
    23. Natalia Morari, jurnalist
    24. Virgil Zagaievschi, jurnalist
    25. Constantin Grigoriță, foto-jurnalist

    The signatories’ list remains open

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • PURPOSE OF THE ASSIGNMENTLRCM seeks to contract a consultant/ team of consultants (Consultant) to undertake both evaluation of implementation of the LRCM 2013-2017 Strategy and facilitation of the drafting process of a new Strategy for 2018-2021.
    • Main Objective
    The LRCM plans to conduct an evaluation of implementation of its 2013-2017 Strategy. The main goal of the evaluation is to assess the extent to which the LRCM has achieved the stated results, the adequacy of the used methods and the impact of LRCM’s work, as well as the flexibility and responsiveness to the current needs in the justice and human rights fields in Moldova. The evaluation should also include recommendations regarding LRCM’s further working methods and areas of intervention. The evaluation conclusions and recommendations will be fed into the formulation of the next LRCM strategy for 2018-2021. LRCM plans to develop its next 2018-2021 Strategy in a participatory manner, involving the LRCM staff and governing bodies, facilitated by an external Consultant.
    • Specific tasks
    Part I: Evaluation of the 2013-2017 LRCM Strategy:
    1. assess the extent to which the LRCM has achieved the results planned under its 2013-2017 Strategy;
    2. assess the strengths and weaknesses of the LRCM’s working methods, as well as the structure, processes and systems that could have affected (or contributed to) the achievements of the Strategic objectives, identify reasons for the deviation (if any) from our approaches & strategies to be used in the formulation of the new strategy;
    3. identify key lessons learnt, best practices and LRCM’s success stories of change for replication and scaling up in the new strategy;
    4. assess the extent to which the LRCM has demonstrated transparency and accountability in the implementation of the 2013-2017 Strategy, as well as flexibility and responsiveness to the new challenges in the areas of justice and human rights in Moldova and recommend areas of improvement to be introduced in the new strategy;
    5. assess emerging trends, issues and opportunities that LRCM should consider for including in the new Strategy.
    The evaluation shall focus on the period of July 2013 – March 2017.Part II: Facilitation of development of the new 2018-2021 LRCM Strategy:
    1. elaborate a skeleton for the new strategy;
    2. facilitate a two-day workshop on drafting the new Strategy;
    3. submit proposal for the new strategy based on the workshop discussions.
    METHODOLOGYThe Strategic evaluation assignment is expected to be conducted in a consultative and participatory way. LRCM expects the Consultant to use the following methods: desk review of LRCM regulatory documents and selected products, interviews with the staff, selected donors and direct beneficiaries (face-to-face interviews when possible), as well as other methods as deemed appropriate by the Consultant. The Consultant shall draft the methodology and consult it with LRCM prior to initiating the evaluation. Critical reflection and learning is integral to this process thus the Consultant will be expected to plan for and ensure the engagement of the LRCMs staff in evaluation processKEY DELIVERABLESThe Consultant shall provide the following deliverables, depending on the services provided:
    1. Draft methodology, including evaluation tools;
    2. A draft evaluation report;
    3. Final evaluation report, including recommendations for the next strategy;
    4. Draft skeleton for the new strategy;
    5. Proposals for the new LRCM Strategy for 2018-2021, based on conclusions and recommendations of the workshop on drafting the new strategy
    All deliverables shall be presented in Romanian or English. The exact report format will be agreed upon with the Consultant prior to commencing the assignment.TIME LINEThe evaluation shall be conducted between 24 April and 31 May 2017, with the final Evaluation report to be delivered by 26 June 2017. The new LRCM Strategy for 2018-2021 will be drafted in July-August 2017.REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CONSULTANTThe Consultant (company or individual) shall have skill sets in (i) evaluation and (ii) strategic planning with at least 5 years of experience. Additional requirements include:
    • Preferably, a Master’s Degree in law, political sciences, democracy of civil society;
    • Solid experience in project cycle management;
    • Solid experience in evaluation and/or formulation of strategic plans of CSOs;
    • Excellent writing, reporting and communication skills;
    • Proficiency in English.
    APPLICATION PROCESSInterested Consultants should submit their proposals via email to olga.burucenco@crjm.org by 5 April 2017, including the following components:* Cover letter, including references to previous relevant experiences and an outline of the envisaged methodology for the assignment (outlining the overall approach and suggested methods, including approximate timelines);* CV with two references for similar assignments. Optionally – a sample/summary of similar assignment can be attached;* Financial offer in USD, with the breakdown of costs per evaluation of the current Strategy and, if applicable, for elaboration of a new Strategy. Companies are invited to send their financial offers including VAT, with possibility to render services at 0% VAT upon submission by the Beneficiary of the confirmation package, and individuals – net amounts.Note: for foreign individual candidates – if selected, the tax resident certificate issued by the relevant tax authority of the country of origin will be requested.Disbursement and payment modalities will be agreed upon by both parties and specified in the contract with the Consultant.For any clarifications on the assignment please email Olga Bucurenco at olga.burucenco@crjm.org.SELECTION CRITERIAThe offers will be evaluated based on the following criteria:

    Criteria

    Max. point

    Technical 
    Envisaged methodology for the assignment

    25

    Expertise, knowledge and experience in the field of project cycle management

    15

    Experience of strategic planning formulation, monitoring and/or evaluation

    20

    Experience with CSOs

    10

    Knowledge of Moldovan context of operation of CSOs

    10

    Master’s Degree in a relevant field (law, public policy and management, public administration etc.)

    5

    Financial offer

    15

    TOTAL

    100

  • The undersigned organizations, members of the National Platform of the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum (hereinafter - Platform), express their concern about worsening environment for civil society organizations and respect of fundamental the rule of law principles in the Republic of Moldova. In particular, we observe systematic actions designed to divide and discredit the civil society organizations, including by setting them against some quasi-nongovernmental organizations. Moreover, we note a general climate of increased intimidation of independent media by public authorities.

    For this purpose, we consider important to communicate to the general public, development partners and the Moldovan state authorities the Platform’s position on some of the above-mentioned trends with the view to discourage them and prevent further deterioration of the situation in these areas.

    We are witnessing increasingly some representatives of the public authorities "penalizing" the civil society organizations and non-affiliated media representatives for critical opinions expressed against the activity carried out by such authorities, being unduly accused of promoting a "poor image" of public institutions or promoting partisan political views. Moreover, some non-governmental organizations and media institutions have become "undesirable" for some authorities and are excluded from their dialogue with civil society. All these things take place while the representatives of the legislative, executive and judicial powers launch various declarative initiatives of openness and cooperation with the civil society in the Republic of Moldova.

     Another worrying phenomenon observed lately is the attempt of some non-governmental organizations to promote an allegedly civil society representative agenda, applying different non-transparent and non-inclusive actions and approaches, making use of and even abusing certain platforms or venues established by the civil society. The most recent example of this took place on 22 February 2017 when the Civic Forum on Monitoring the Implementation of the Moldova-EU Association Agreement was organized. During this event the organizers were to present three thematic reports on monitoring the implementation of the Moldova-EU Association Agreement in terms of environment, justice and energy. CReDO (Resource Centre for Human Rights) had to present its reports dedicated to justice and energy sectors, but regretfully the report on justice has not been published or submitted to the Platform members so far. Moreover, the draft declaration on justice sector reform, proposed to be adopted by the participants at the event, was not consulted in advance with the representatives of the Platform, while its content did not cover many serious and evident problems existing in this area. In this context, the signatory members of the Platform reject any association of the National Platform of the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum with the opinions and presentations made by CReDO at the event dated 22 February 2017.

     Another regrettable situation was created by the opportunity to promote Pillar VIII (invisible), as part of the draft National Integrity and Anticorruption Strategy (NIAS), dedicated separately to the civil society and media integrity. This proposal was sent to the National Anticorruption Centre during the last stage of the consultation process by three civil society organizations, which argued the need to include such provisions in the new draft NIAS. Pillar VIII promoted the idea that there were serious integrity concerns in the non-governmental sector. However, the authors of this “statist” concept referred exclusively to the non-governmental organizations playing active civic role, omitting a vast network of religious organizations and trade unions. It is worth mentioning that the draft NIAS prohibited any "political affiliation" of members of the non-governmental organizations managing bodies. On the other hand, in the signatories’ opinion, inclusion in the draft NIAS of a pillar dedicated to civil society would "relativize" public authorities’ integrity, introducing the idea of ​​an additional attribution to the state to determine what kind of and how much integrity should be vested with the non-governmental sector. Thus, although there is general understanding within the civil society organizations about the importance of respecting the principles of integrity and transparency, still, the integrity standards should be subordinated to an internal process of self-regulation within the associative sector, in order not to prejudice the fundamental constitutional principles of freedom of association and freedom of opinion. Consequently, as a result of additional consultations, the National Anticorruption Centre, the author of the draft NIAS, gave up promoting Pillar VIII, which we welcome. At the same time, we encourage all stakeholders to pay special attention within public debates to the importance of respecting the opinions of all participants to the consultations in the spirit of a constructive dialogue, avoiding accusatory and personalized rhetoric.

     Additionally, we point to the fact that lately several incidents of direct and indirect intimidation of independent media institutions and investigative journalists were registered, in a context of continuing vicious practice of monopolizing media by groups subordinated to political oligarchies. Thus, by the end of 2016, the investigative journalist Mariana Rata was invited by prosecutors to give explanations in a criminal investigation. The journalist was suspected that by publishing a journalistic investigation about the assets of a former police commissar, she disseminated information about his private life. Although it was clear from the start that no criminal offence was committed and the case should be dismissed, the prosecutor invited the journalist for testimonies. Only after the case drew public attention, it was dismissed. Another symptomatic case is the one of 21 February 2017, when the weekly investigative newspaper „Ziarul de Gardă” reported about the appearance of a phantom website named ziaruldegarda.com, which used the name „Ziarul de Gardă” and disseminated information written by anonymous authors or taken over from other web pages. The portal resembled other anonymous websites that promote anti-opposition and pro-government content. Several civil society organizations have urged the authorities to investigate this incident. The website disappeared shortly after the statement. On the other hand, over the past few months, more public institutions unduly refused to provide the journalists with information of public interest, citing protection of personal data. In February 2017, based on the protection of personal data, all decisions from the courts web pages were anonymised, making it impossible to find judgments in high profile cases. These are serious obstacles to investigative journalism.

     In conclusion, we express our disappointment that the dialogue between national authorities and civil society is strongly affected by mistrust, inconsistency and harmful rhetoric. The cases when collaboration with civil society is being used by the government as a facade for legitimization of its own actions are on the increase. In this respect, in their interaction with public authorities are favoured those organizations that promote a more convenient and/or closer position to them and their decision makers. It is important that public authorities to promote an inclusive and non-discriminatory approach in their relationships with all civil society organizations and the community of experts, including with the ones with critical voices or civil society representatives who decide to publicly express their political preferences.

     In light of the above-mentioned, the signatories to this Declaration:

    1. Reiterate that, in a state based on the rule of law, civil society and media play a key role in increasing transparency and accountability of public institutions. It is particularly important for all civil society organizations and media to be guided in their work by and respect the principles of transparency, fairness, professionalism and professional ethics;

    2. Call on the public opinion and development partners to closer monitor, prevent and disapprove all actions that come to undermine freedom of association, freedom of opinion and expression in the Republic of Moldova;

    3. Urge the Moldovan public authorities to an open, non-discriminatory and honest dialogue on issues of public interest, involving representatives of all non-governmental organizations and media, irrespective of their expressed opinions.

    The declaration is available here. 

    The undersigned organizations, members of the National Platform of the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum:

    1. Association for Participatory Democracy „ADEPT”
    2. Association of Professional and Business Women from Moldova
    3. Foreign Policy Association
    4. Association of Independent Press
    5. Eco-TIRAS International Environmental Association of River Keepers
    6. BIOS
    7. Business Consulting Institute
    8. Independent Journalism Center
    9. Legal Resources Centre from Moldova
    10. National Environmental Center
    11. Institute for Development and Social Initiatives (IDIS) “Viitorul”
    12. Institute for Urban Development
    13. Institute for Public Policy
    14. Institute for European Policies and Reforms
    15. Ecological Movement of Moldova
    16. PromoLex
    17. TERRA153
    18. Transparency International - Moldova
    19. Union of Disabled People Organizations

    The list of signatories remains open.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • To promote and raise awareness of CSOs and taxpayers on the 2% mechanism in Moldova.  

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • The project purpose is to improve rule of law and accountability of the justice system in Moldova via active civil society oversight and participation in decision-making processes.  

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sinteza datelor privind activitatea Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului în anul 2016
  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • The Independent Analytical Center "Expert-Grup" and the Legal Resources Centre from Moldova launch today, 19 December 2016, a Position Note on the legislative initiative related to tax and capital amnesty. This note is being supported by a group of non-commercial organizations and unaffiliated experts. It comes as a reaction to the approval in the first reading of the draft law on the liberalisation of capital and fiscal incentive (draft law no. 452) and the draft law on amendment of certain legislative acts (draft law no. 451) - both approved in unprecedented haste and with violation of legal norms related to transparency in decision-making and drafting of legislative acts.

    According to experts, the proposed capital amnesty could lead to legalisation of previously committed acts of corruption and perpetuation of corrupt state servants, which is at odds with the objectives set forth for fighting corruption (especially grand corruption), as the relevant state institutions will not be able to verify the origin of the declared assets. This compromises the entire reform of the system of verification and ensuring integrity in the public sector.

    The main risks of these draft laws approval encounter: a higher risk of tax evasion by increasing tax evasion benefits, lowering costs and probability of detection as the beneficiaries of capital amnesty will not be investigated. The risk of increasing corruption and money laundering by prohibiting verification of the origin of the declared assets, the reputation risk of the banking sector, already tainted following the bank frauds and high scale and internationally resonant money laundering cases, as well as the risk of worsening relations with development partners, by undermining the rule of law, the efforts to ensure integrity in the public sector and the banking system reform – all  key prerequisites for the budget support from the main development partners.

    In this context, the experts propose withdrawal of draft laws no. 451 and no. 452 and launching of a comprehensive reform to diminish the informal economy. According to experts, it should aim to be much more fundamental and efficient than the proposed amnesty, including:

    • Development of electronic payments and discouraging of cash use;• Improving tax administration and further development of a new Tax Code in line with international best practices;• Increase fines, along with state authorities’ ability to detect tax evasion cases, informal employment or remuneration; eventually expanding penalties for informal employment and employees;• Revision of tax rates for possible adjustments to boost tax compliance benefits and minimize tax evasion;• Increase the level of information and awareness of the risks of tax evasion and informal employment;• Enhancing efficiency, transparency and sustainability of the pension system;• Increase transparency related to the issuance of permissive documents for companies and minimizing the public officials’ discretion to this end;• Reforming the mechanisms for exercising state control by reducing their number, along with improving their efficiency and targeting;• Other relevant actions in line with international best practices in this area.

    Position Note is available here in Romanian.

    Position Note is available here in English.

    Position Note is available here in Russian.

    Signatories (the list is open ):

    1. Independent Think Tank Expert-Grup;
    2. Legal Resources Centre from Moldova (LCRM);
    3. Centrul de Analiză și Pevenire a Corupției;
    4. Association for Efficient and Responsible Governance;
    5. Transparency International - Moldova;
    6. Association for Participatory Democracy;
    7. Institutul pentru Politici și Reforme Europene (IPRE);
    8. Veaceslav NEGRUȚĂ;
    9. Alexei BUZU;
    10. Ion PREAȘCA;
    11. Dumitru VICOL;
    12. Sergiu TOFILAT;
    13. Alexandru ZGARDAN;
    14. Stat MADAN;
    15. Sergiu UNGUREANU;
    16. Alexandru FALA;
    17. Dumitru ALAIBA;
    18. Anticorruption Alliance.

    ***In the same time several NGOs from Romania launch a petition where they demand that the international partners of the country consider firm measures, including stopping the budgetary support and all other forms of financial assistance to Moldova, if the Parliament in Chisinau adopts the so-called law for “capital liberalization and fiscal stimulation”.

    Petition of Romanian NGOs is available here.

    Contact persons:

    1. The Independent Analytical Center "Expert-Grup" – Adrian LUPUȘOR (adrian@expert-grup.org);

    2. The Legal Resources Centre from Moldova – Nadejda HRIPTIEVSCHI (nadejda.hriptievschi@crjm.org); Vladislav GRIBINCEA (vladislav.gribincea@crjm.org).

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Analiza legislaţiei și practicii privind răspunderea disciplinară a judecătorilor 2015-2016
  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • The signatory organizations request the Parliament to amend, as a matter of utmost urgency, the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova with the view to allow the appointment of the Prosecutor General under the procedure established by the new Law on Prosecution Service.At the beginning of 2016, the reform of the prosecution service represented one of the major outstanding unfulfilled commitments undertaken by the Republic of Moldova towards the European Union and the Council of Europe. The current government declared its intention to adopt the necessary legislation to reform the prosecution system and ensure its independence.On 25 February 2016, the Parliament, with a quasi-constitutional majority, adopted a new Law on Prosecution Service. The new law, which came into force on 1 August 2016, provides that the Prosecutor General is appointed by the President of the Republic of Moldova, at the proposal of the Superior Council of Prosecutors, for a term of 7 years.According to the current version of Art. 125 of the Moldovan Constitution, the Prosecutor General is appointed by the Parliament, following the proposal submitted by its Speaker, for a term of 5 years. Throughout the elaboration of the draft Law on Prosecution Service, it was generally agreed that the current procedure for appointing the Prosecutor General does not guarantee the independence of the prosecution service and Art. 125 of the Constitution is to be amended so as to ensure the appointment of the Prosecutor General by the President of the Republic of Moldova, at the proposal of the Superior Council of Prosecutors.The working group in charge with reforming the legal framework of the prosecution service prepared a draft law amending the Constitution in full compliance with the concept of the new Law on Prosecution Service. The Government asked the Constitutional Court’s opinion on the draft law. On 19 April 2016, the Constitutional Court gave a positive opinion on the draft law. The draft was registered in the Parliament on 3 May 2016.According to Art. 143 of the Constitution, the Parliament has the right to pass a law on amending the Constitution at least 6 months after the initiative was registered. Starting today, 4 November 2016, the Parliament may adopt the draft law amending the Art. 125 of the Constitution.We urge the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova to urgently adopt the above-mentioned draft amendment to the Constitution, so that the new Prosecutor General to be selected by the Superior Council of Prosecutors and appointed by the President of the Republic of Moldova. It should be recalled that on 22 September 2016, the Superior Council of Prosecutors launched a contest to select the new Prosecutor General, which is to be completed by the end of this year.It is crucial to make this appointment according to the new procedure. It will strengthen the independence of the prosecution service and will ensure the society and development partners that the current government takes effective measures to guarantee the independence of prosecutors. Any hesitation in adopting this amendment to the Constitution risks to be interpreted by the society as an attempt to maintain political control over the prosecution service.Moreover, the failure to adopt the draft amendment to the Constitution may lead to confusion on the tenure of the to be appointed Prosecutor General.The appeal is available here. Signatories: 
    1. Legal Resources Centre from Moldova (LRCM),
    2. Institute for European Policies and Reforms (IPRE),
    3. Center "Partnership for Development",
    4. National Environment Center,
    5. Association of Independent Press (API),
    6. Transparency International-Moldova,
    7. Women's Law Center (WLC),
    8. EcoContact,
    9. Est-European Foundation,
    10. Women’s Association for the Environment Protection and Sustainable Development,
    11. Human Rights Embassy,
    12. Amnesty International-Moldova,
    13. Association for Efficient and Responsible Governance (AGER)
    14. Foundation for Advancement of Moldova,
    15. Institute for Development and Social Initiatives (IDIS) "Viitorul",
    16. Small Business Association,
    17. GENDERDOC-M Information Centre,
    18. CHILD RIGHTS INFORMATION CENTER,
    19. Association Promo-LEX,
    20. Institute for Public Policy (IPP),
    21. Foreign Policy Association (APE),
    22. Association for Participatory Democracy (ADEPT),
    23. Resources Centre DIALOG-Pro,
    24. Justice Program, Soros Foundation - Moldova,
    25. Association of Professional and Business Women from Moldova,
    26. Expert-Grup,
    27. Olga Bîtcă, project coordinator, Resource Center for Human Rights,
    28. Institute for Urban Development,
    29. La Strada, Moldova,
    30.  Investigative Journalism Center of Moldova,
    31. Rehabilitation Centre for Torture Victims "Memoria".
    The list of signatories remains open.
  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • The project purpose is to improve rule of law and accountability of the justice system in Moldova via active civil society oversight and participation in decision-making processes.  

  • The Association for Participatory Democracy ADEPT, the Analytical Centre "Expert-Grup" and the Legal Resources Centre from Moldova (LRCM) produced a final monitoring report on the Priority Reform Action Roadmap. The experts have concluded that only half of the committed activities have been achieved without deficiencies (55%), 28% were achieved with deficiencies and approximately 17% were not achieved. The main arrears remain the NAC reform, adoption of a new Audiovisual Code, the slow progress of the investigation regarding the frauds detected in the banking system in 2014, the slow reformation process of the NBM and failure to negotiate the best price for electricity supply.

    According to the Roadmap, in order to overcome the crisis, the efforts of the governing structures had to be channelled towards two major objectives: establishing good governance and the rule of law, ensuring economic development and a functioning market economy. A total of 69 activities were monitored, which were to be implemented by the governing structures (Government, Parliament and a number of other public institutions) over 5 months (1st of March to 31st of July 2016). The experts took into account also the measures undertaken in August 2016. On both dimensions, the competent institutions implemented without deficiencies 55% of activities (a total of 38 activities), with deficiencies 28% of activities (a total of 19 activities), whereas approximately 17% of activities (a total of 12 activities) were not implemented at all.

    When estimating the implementation of the Priority Reform Action Roadmap, the main emphasis was put on the quality of the adopted acts/undertaken activities, rather than on meeting the established deadlines, because they were often very tight. Qualifying the implementation of an activity as “implemented with deficiencies” means that during its implementation there have been identified problematic issues related to: respecting the legal provisions regarding the legislative procedure and the transparency in the decision making process, the content of the adopted act or the undertaken activities do not comply with the spirit or the goal of the respective activity or are not in line with international commitments.Among the main achievements can be mentioned: the promulgation of the law on the prosecution office, on the reorganization of the court system and of the package of laws on integrity, the optimization of state controls for enterprises, the adoption of the Strategy for attracting investments and promoting exports for 2016-2020, the initiation of the reformation process in the banking sector by aligning to the principles of Basel 3, "unfreezing" the negotiation process regarding a potential IMF program, the initiation of the public administration reform, and, last but not least – the relatively transparent and inclusive selection process of the Governor and members of the Supervisory Board of the NBM.The majority of activities included in the Roadmap are of a legislative nature or provide for adoption of certain strategies / plans. Such activities are the easiest to implement. However, even at the legislative level, important outstanding matters/ arrears remain. These include the lack of initiatives to reform the National Anticorruption Centre, failure to adipt a new Audiovisual Code (one of the major outstanding matter of all governments since 2011 to the present), slow progress of the investigation regarding the frauds detected in the banking system in 2014, the slow reformation process of the NBM oriented towards increasing its independence and competences, as well as the slow implementation of the Association Agenda. In the energy sector, due to the lack of transparency in renewing the contract with the supplier from the Transnistria region and the rejection of the offer of the Ukrainian provider, the price negotiated was not the most advantageous.. There were some problematic laws or amendments adopted, which leave space for abuse if not implemented in good faith, such as the Law on institutional integrity evaluation and the limitation of judges’ discretion in civil procedure, which could lead to violations of the principle of publicity of court hearings.It is also important to note that, in its own evaluation of the Roadmap, the Government used the number of 82 activities, instead of the 69 included in the document. The 12 additional activities resulted from the disaggregation of activities 1.2, 1.3 and 10.1 and the separate evaluation of the sub‐activities, which influenced the final result reported by the Government. It is not clear what was the criterion applied by the Government for selecting the activities to be disaggregated and evaluated separately, since the Roadmap contains several complex activities.Besides assessing the level of implementation of the Roadmap, the monitoring effort sought to assess the context in which the Roadmap was implemented, to signal the problems related to implementation of the committed activities and to formulate recommendations that would boost reforms and ensure their sustainability. In this regard, the competent institutions are encouraged to consider and implement the recommendations, thus demonstrating genuine openness towards the civil society and political willingness to continue the committed reforms. The report includes a series of priority reforms, to be implemented by the authorities by the end of 2016, as well as some medium term recommendations.The monitoring results regarding the implementation of the Roadmap can be viewed online via an interactive application available here: www.expert-grup.org, available in Romanian, Russian and English. The final monitoring report is available here.

    The monitoring exercise was possible by the generous support of the American people through the US. Agency for International Development (USAID). The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of USAID.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Association for Participatory Democracy ADEPT, Expert‐Grup Think Tank and Legal Resources Centre from Moldova (LRCM) monitored 69 activities from 13 areas included in the Priority Reform Action Roadmap, for which the implementation deadline expired on July 31, 2016. The monitors have found that half of the 69 activities planned by the Government in the Roadmap have been fully achieved and without deficiencies. The remaining activities either have been executed with deficiencies related to their content or the breach of legislative procedure and transparency in decision‐making or have not been completed. More details about the taken activities can be found in an interactive application.

    Towards the end of July, 35 (51%) out of 69 activities included in the Roadmap have been achieved without deficiencies, 24 (35 %) have been achieved with deficiencies and 10 activities (14%) have not been completed. When estimating the implementation of the Priority Reform Action Roadmap, the main emphasis was put on the quality of adopted acts/taken activities and less on the compliance of deadlines, because they were often very tight. Putting one activity into a category of achieved with deficiencies means that during its implementation have been observed problematic issues related to: the respect of legal provisions on legislative process and transparency in decision making, the content of the adopted act or activity taken does not comply with the spirit of the given act/activity or are not in line with international commitments.

    Among the main outstanding matters in implementing the objective „good governance and rule of law” are: the reform of the National Anticorruption Center, the adoption of a new Audiovisual Code and demonopolisation of media market, disbursement of public funds to political parties. On the objective „economic development and functioning market economy”, we point out drawbacks related to adoption of bridge bank and appointment of the two deputy Governors of the National Bank, the adoption of related legislation on market surveillance, metrology and standardization and the slow pace of implementation of the Association Agreement. In the energy sector, due to the lack of transparency in renewing the contract with the Transnistrian region supplier and rejecting the offer of the Ukrainian supplier, the price negotiated was not the most advantageous.

    Among the main achievements there can be mentioned the promulgation of the laws on prosecution, on reorganization of the judicial system and of the package of laws on integrity, optimization of state inspections, approval of the Investment Attraction and Export Promotion Strategy 2016‐2020, adoption of the financial‐banking legislative package agreed with the IMF and WB, and the new laws on electricity and natural gas, launching the reform of the banking system by aligning it to Basel 3 principles, resuming negotiations with IMF on a new cooperation agreement, initiation of the public administration reform, and, last but not least, the relatively transparent and inclusive process of selection of NBM Governor and members of the NBM Supervisory Board.

    It is also important to note that the Government in tis evaluation of the Roadmap used the number of 82 activities instead of 69 included initially in the document. The additional 12 activities resulted from the disaggregation of activities 1.2, 1.3 and 10.1. The sub‐activities have been separately evaluated and this influenced the final assessment results reported by the Government. It is not clear what criteria the Government used for selecting the activities to be disaggregated and evaluated separately, since the Roadmap contains much more complex activities.

    The monitoring results regarding the implementation of the Roadmap can be viewed online via an interactive application available here:  http://www.expertgrup.org/ro/activitate/item/1292aplicatiemonitorizarereformeguvern (in Romanian and English). In September, the three organizations will present the final report on implementation of the Roadmap, including recommendations for necessary follow up measures.

    The monitoring exercise is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the US. Agency for International Development (USAID). The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of USAID.

    Contact persons for additional information:

    ADEPT, Elena Prohnițchi, tel: 022‐213‐494, email: adept@e‐democracy.md

    Expert_Grup, Vadim Gumene, tel: 022‐929‐994, email: vadim@expert‐grup.org

    CRJM, Nadejda Hriptievschi, tel: 022‐843‐601, ext. 102, email: nadejda.hriptievschi@crjm.org

     

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • This app is developed under the report on monitoring the priority reform action roadmap.  It displays interactvely the progress recored in 13 domains:
    1. Combating corruption
    2. Public administration reform
    3. Political parties’ activity and financing
    4. Media freedom
    5. Justice sector reform
    6. Reform of the Prosecution
    7. The negotiation and signing of the Agreement with IMF
    8. NBM and NCFM independence
    9. Investigation of banking frauds
    10. Business and investement envirionment.
    11. Energy sector
    12. Cooperation with civil society
    13. Implementation of the Association Agreement and DCFTA
    The monitoring is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the US. Agency for International Development (USAID). The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of USAID. 
  • Less than a third of the actions planned by the Moldovan government within the priority reform agenda, planned for March-June 2016, had been fully implemented. The Government’s main drawbacks include the reform of the National Anticorruption Center, the slow pace of investigations on the bank frauds of 2014 and the failure to negotiate a better deal on the energy price with Ukraine. The successes include the adoption of the Investment Attraction Strategy for 2016-2020, initiation of the reformation process of the banking system and “unfreezing” the negotiations with IMF on a potential program. These and other conclusions are included in the intermediary monitoring report on implementation of the Roadmap regarding the agenda of high-priority reforms, developed by ADEPT Association, Expert-Grup Think Tank and Legal Resources Centre from Moldova (LRCM).

    The Roadmap regarding the agenda of high-priority reforms contains the activities in 31 areas that the authorities committed to in order to overcome the social, economic and political crisis in the Republic of Moldova. Once the crisis is overcome, Moldova is to return to the implementation of strategic policy documents: the Association Agenda and the Moldova-EU Association Agreement, in accordance with the provisions of the National Action Plan and other strategic policy documents.

    Quantitatively, towards the end of June the deadlines have expired for 57 activities out of those 69 included in the Roadmap. Consequently, of the total of 69 activities, 29% were realized without deficiencies, 30% were realized with deficiencies, 16 activities (23%) of the total are in progress positive, and 6 (9%) are in progress negative of implementation, with serious deficiencies that might prevent successful implementation of the activities. The implementation of 6 (9%) of the activities has not been started.

    Among the main drawbacks in implementing the objective „good governance and rule of law” there are the reform of the National Anticorruption Center and the adoption of a new Audio-visual Code (one of the big arrears of all the governments since 2011 until now). On the objective „economic development and functioning market economy”, we point out the slow pace of investigations on the bank frauds of 2014, slow pace of reforms within the National Bank (NBM) in terms of fostering its independence and competences, as well as slow pace of implementation of the association agreement. In the energy sector, due to the lack of transparency in renewing the contract with the Transnistrian region supplier and rejecting the offer of the Ukrainian supplier, the price negotiated was not the most advantageous.

    Among the main achievements there can be mentioned promulgation of the law on prosecution, adoption of the law on optimization of the court system and of the package of laws on integrity, optimisation of state inspections, approval of the Investment Attraction and Export Promotion Strategy 2016-2020, initiation of the reformation process of the banking system by aligning it to Basel 3 principles, “unfreezing” the negotiations with IMF on a potential program, initiation of the public administration reform, and, last but not least, the relatively transparent and inclusive process of selection of NBM Governor and members of the NBM Supervisory Board.

    The Report includes the assessment of measures carried out during March – June 2016 and recommendations for each area of the Roadmap (the report is available in Romanian, English and Russian on the websites of each of the three organizations).

    The developments regarding the implementation of the Roadmap can be viewed online via an interactive application available here (in Romanian, English and Russian). The information in the interactive application will be updated on a weekly basis. In September, the three organizations will present the final report on implementation of the Roadmap, including recommendations for necessary follow up measures.

    The electronic version of the Report is available here. 

    The report is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the US. Agency for International Development (USAID). The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of USAID.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Guide for practitioners in the field of non-discrimination(in Romanian)
  • Execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights by the Republic of Moldova: 2013-2014
  • Compatibility analysis of Moldovan legislation with the European standards on equality and non-discrimination
  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Increasing the accountability of the government of Moldova in its efforts to implement the Priority Reform Action Roadmap and contribute to the continuity of reforms, in order to bring Moldova on the path of sustainable and inclusive development.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • The representatives of civil society organizations express their deepest concern about the campaign led by some political interest groups and affiliated media institutions aimed at discrediting the representatives of the diplomatic corps that monitor the evolution of reforms in the Republic of Moldova.

    We condemn the accusations made by these groups in saying that members of the diplomatic corps interfere in the justice act or that members of the diplomatic corps can only give general talks about the problem of corruption and cannot point at concrete illegalities and anti-democratic deviations.

    We demand that these political interest groups stop their unfounded and inadmissible attacks.

    As the Republic of Moldova started on the European path, the European Union launched a major campaign of financial, technical and expert assistance to support the reforms in our country. Therefore, we believe that the foreign donors have the right to present their opinion not only vis-à-vis the implementation of separate activities from action plans, but also about the results of these reforms or their absence.

    One of the reasons for civil society organizations that monitor reforms in the country to share their opinions and expertise with international institutions, donors and development partners, is to influence decision makers in Moldova to consolidate the state of law and democracy based on a free market economy.  The critical opinions passed by the representatives of the diplomatic corps accredited in Moldova, especially of the partners that invest the money of their taxpayers in the development of the Republic of Moldova, present a useful and necessary for the Government and Moldovan citizens evaluation and the conclusions of the foreign diplomats need to be treated sincerely and honestly to correct the path of the reforms and initiate modifications in the areas that lag behind.

    The declaration can be downloaded here.

    Signatory organizations:

    1. Association for Participatory Democracy (ADEPT),
    2. ACTIE,
    3. Eco-TIRAS International Environmental Association of River Keepers,
    4. Association of Independent Press (API),
    5. Women’s Association for the Environment Protection and Sustainable Development (AFPMDD),
    6. Business Consulting Institute,
    7. BIOS,
    8. CAPC,
    9. Resources Centre DIALOG-Pro,
    10. Legal Resources Centre from Moldova (LRCM),
    11. Centre for Independent Journalism from Moldova (CIJM)
    12. PAS Center,
    13. National Youth Council of Moldova,
    14. East-European Foundation,
    15. Foundation for Advancement of Molodva,
    16. Institute for Development and Social Initiatives,
    17. Training and Development Institute "MilleniuM",
    18. Institute for European Policies and Reforms (IPRE),
    19. Open Government Institute
    20. Association PROMO-LEX,
    21. RCTV Memoria,
    22. Terra-1530,
    23. Transparency International – Moldova,
    24. The Union of People with Disabilities from the Republic of Moldova.
  • Civil Society Organizations are deeply concerned about serious negative consequences for fundamental human rights, which could result following the adoption of the draft law promoted by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and adopted by the Government on 30 March, 2016. The draft law provides extremely broad rights to the law enforcement bodies for an extended list of criminal offenses, to the detriment of the principles governing the protection of private life and the freedom of expression. Moreover, the entire burden of implementing legislative amendments rests on service providers, without having in place an analysis of costs and efficiency of measures to be undertaken, which could translate into significantly increased costs for on-line and Internet services.Signatory organisations are well aware of the importance of preventing child sexual abuse  and terrorism related offenses and do not question the need to improve the legal framework in these fields. However, the draft law goes far beyond its declared objectives and gives room for abuse.Thus, the social risk degree for which special investigative measures are provided vary for different types of offences, this risk being the highest in cases of sexual abuse offences against children, terrorism and even cyber crimes in comparison with infringement of copyright and related rights. We believe that special investigative measures are to be separated by different types of offenses, including social risk degree they imply, it being much lower in case of offenses relating to copyright and related rights. The draft law establishes generalized rather than specific and targeted surveillance measures. It has an extremely broad applicability and does not establish guarantees for respect of human rights. The burden of implementation of the legislative amendments rests on service providers. There is no balance between interference with human rights and implementation costs, on the one side, and the effectiveness of such measures, on the other one. Additionally, some terms are not sufficiently accurate and create opportunities for abuse.Civil Society Organizations are also concerned about other legislative initiatives related to intensifying the law enforcement bodies’ control over digital space and verifying candidates for public offices. Such proposals refer to amendment of Law no. 271 of 18 December 2008 on verification of public officials and candidates for public offices, introduction of the Security mandate and reforming of Intelligence and Security Service. These laws also aim to access and store data of candidates or public officials, as well as to provide some unjustifiable powers, outside a criminal investigation process.In conclusion, being aware of (1) the major risks of violating the fundamental human rights in case of adoption of the draft law in its current version, (2) the insufficient reasoning of the informative note, especially in so far as to the assessment of costs to implement the draft law,  (3)  the drawbacks of the draft law that could lead to authorities’ abuses, and taking into account (4) the lack of society’s confidence in the law enforcement bodies, (5) the undemocratic manner the Filip government was vested in, which, although there were many other more important outstanding issues, adopted this draft law rejected by two previous Governments, (6) as well as the complexity of the draft law and its potentially major implications for the society as a whole,THE SIGNATORIES TO THIS APPEAL REQUEST THE PARLIAMENT TO:
    1. send the draft law for expertise to the Venice Commission in order to verify its compliance with the European standards;
    2. seek assistance from development partners for an analysis of the European best practices of implementing the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime (Budapest, 2001) and the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse (Lanzarote, 2007);
    3. widely consult the draft law with the civil society and promote initiatives that meet international standards and conduct an analysis of costs necessary to implement the draft law;
    4. adjust the draft law to create an efficient legal framework to prevent and fight crimes against minors and terrorism on the one hand, and exclude from the draft law the criminal offenses for which application of special investigative measures that can seriously affect private life or freedom of expression is not justified, on the other hand.
    The Public Appeal can be downloaded here.Signatory organizations:
    1. Legal Resources Centre from Moldova (LRCM),
    2. Amnesty International Moldova,
    3. Centre for Independent Journalism from Moldova (CIJM),
    4. RISE Moldova,
    5. Resources Centre DIALOG-Pro,
    6. BIOS Association,
    7. Foundation for Advancement of Moldova,
    8. Association of Independent Press (API),
    9. The Union of People with Disabilities from the Republic of Moldova,
    10. Transparency International – Moldova,
    11. Association Promo-LEX,
    12. Association for Efficient and Responsible Governance,
    13. East-European Foundation,
    14. Terra-1530,
    15. Institute for Public Policy (IPP),
    16. National Environment Center,
    17. The Independent Journalism Center (CJI),
    18. Women’s Association for the Environment Protection and Sustainable Development,
    19. The Association of Professional and Business Women from Moldova,
    20. Resources Center “Tineri si Liberi”,
    21. Small Business Association,
    22. Institute for European Policies and Reforms (IPRE),
    23. Association for Participatory Democracy (ADEPT),
    24. Institute for Penal Reform (IRP),
    25. Human Rights Embassy,
    26. National Youth Council of Moldova,
    27. Ecological Movement Moldova,
    28. EcoContact.
  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Civic Society Organisations are concerned about the lack of response of the Government to the decision of the Commission for selection of the candidates for the function of judge at the Constitutional Court of 27 November 2015, which nominated Veaceslav ZAPOROJAN for the function of judge to the Constitutional Court.  Signatory organisations consider that such a delay is unjustified and gives reason to believe that it is done on purpose.

    In October 2014, the Government adopted a Regulation on the organisation of the contest for the position of judge at the Constitutional Court appointed by the Government (hereinafter “Regulation”) and appointed a Commission to select the candidacies for the function of judge (hereinafter “Commission”).

    7 persons submitted their files with the Commission for selection of a candidacy for the function of judge at the Constitutional Court. As a result of the written test, only one candidate - Veaceslav ZAPOROJAN – cumulated the necessary score (54 out of minimum 45) to be promoted to the next stage of the contest. As a result of the public interview, on 27 November 2015, the Commission found that Mr. Zaporojan had successfully passed the contest and proposed his candidacy to the Government for appointment as a judge to the Constitutional Court.

    Signatory organisations emphasized that such a procedure of selecting a Constitutional Court judge holds for the first time in the history of Moldova. The selection took place according to transparent and public rules and criterion. Both the written test and the public interview were transmitted online.

    Nevertheless all the information on the rules and stages of the contest were placed and maintained a short time on the website of the State Chancellery after the completion of the contest. Later, after renovation of the website of the State Chancellery, the information was deleted and is not publicly available anymore.

     The signatories to the present appeal request to:

    1. The Prime-minister and members of the Cabinet of Ministers – to adopt a decision on the candidacy of Mr. Veaceslav ZAPOROJAN for the position of judge at the Constitutional Court proposed on 27 Novermber 2015 by the Commission of selection of candidates for the function of judge – either his appointment, or a reasoned refusal to appoint;
    2. The Prime-minister and State Chancellery – to ensure the transparency of the process of selection of the candidacy for the position of judge at the Constitutional Court by uploading on the web page of the State Chancellery of all documents adopted by the Commission of selection of candidates for the function of judge.

    The Public Appeal can be downloaded here.

    Signatory Organisations:

    1. Amnesty International Moldova
    2. Association for Efficient and Responsible Governance (AGER)
    3. Association for Participatory Democracy (ADEPT)
    4. Association of Independent Press (API)
    5. Centre for Analysis and Prevention of Corruption (CAPC)
    6. Human Rights Embassy
    7. Institute for Public Policy (IPP)
    8. Legal Resources Centre from Moldova (LRCM)
    9. „Promo-LEX” Association
    10. Transparency International Moldova (TI-Moldova)

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • The Legal Resources Centre from Moldova (LRCM) calls the decision-makers to amend the legislation on the disciplinary liability of judges by strengthening the status and placing greater responsibility on the Judicial Inspection, as well as by reducing the number of stages and bodies involved in examining complaints related to judges' disciplinary offences.

    The LRCM examined Law no. 178 on the disciplinary liability of judges and its application throughout the first year of implementation and drafted a public policy document entitled "Assessment of Needs to Improve the Legal Framework on the Disciplinary Liability of Judges". The document highlights several shortcomings in the existing system of disciplinary liability of judges, caused both, by a flawed legal framework, and a problematic practice in terms of its implementation.

    Law no. 178 created a quite complicated judges’ disciplinary liability mechanism. Thus, a complaint related to judges' disciplinary offences can be examined by five bodies – the Judicial Inspection, the Admissibility Panel of the Disciplinary Board, the Plenary of the Disciplinary Board, the Superior Council of Magistracy and the Supreme Court of Justice – each, at one stage or another, having the power to annul the decision of the body which has previously examined the disciplinary case. According to official data, 72% of all complaints filed in 2014 were rejected by the Judicial Inspection as manifestly ill-founded. Out of these, only 28% were appealed before the admissibility panels of the Disciplinary Board. The rejection decisions, issued by the Judicial Inspection, are not published and the appeals against them are rejected in proportion of 97%. A closer examination of the complaints rejected as manifestly ill-founded, reveals that the Judicial Inspection, although does not comply with the time limitation for rejecting the complaints as manifestly ill-founded, seems to reject a large number of them with the purpose to reduce the workload of the admissibility panels and the Plenary of the Disciplinary Board. In such a system the risk of rejecting well-founded complaints is very high.

    At the same time, the Judicial Inspection has no powers provided by law to frame into legal norms the actions indicated in the complaint and to present the disciplinary charges. As a result, the member rapporteur of the Disciplinary Board often has to act as an accuser against a judge, although he/she should be neutral, and the Judicial Inspection’s representative has a formal presence at the meeting. Such a system affects the rights of judges and the system's capacity for self-accountability.

    During the first year of Law no. 178 implementation, statistics show that the rate of instituting disciplinary procedures in 2015 decreased by almost 27% compared to 2014, although the circle of subjects who currently can file complaints has extended. Thus, if in 2014 an action was brought for every 48 disciplinary complaints, then in 2015, an action was brought for every 61 complaints. Additionally, the rate of judges’ sanctioning decreased by four times. Given that according to recent polls, about 75% of the population do not have trust in the justice system, such a significant decrease of the sanctioning rate is hard to explain, but with a complicated and formalistic mechanism of judges’ disciplinary sanctioning.

    Upon adoption of Law no. 178 no recommendations of the Venice Commission and national or international experts were taken into account. Following one year since its implementation, the involvement of decision-makers in assessing and improving the judges’ disciplinary liability system seems totally timely and appropriate, so as to make it effectively ensure judges' accountability and contribute to increase of the litigants’ credibility in judiciary. The document "Assessment of Needs to Improve the Legal Framework on the Disciplinary Liability of Judges" includes a series of recommendations. These relate, in particular, to granting the Judicial Inspection a functional autonomy from the Superior Council of Magistracy, power to verify the disciplinary complaints, to reject those that do not contain indications of disciplinary offence and to present charges on the grounds of disciplinary cases directly in the plenary of the Disciplinary Board. In order to ensure the accountability of the Judicial Inspection, the decisions to reject the complaint and the decisions to dismiss the disciplinary proceedings by the Judicial Inspection have to be published on its website and are to be appealed before the Disciplinary Board panels. For the purpose of ensuring a fair trial within a reasonable time, the decisions of the Disciplinary Board are to be directly appealed before the Supreme Court of Justice.

    The policy document "Assessment of Needs to Improve the Legal Framework on the Disciplinary Liability of Judges" will be released within a roundtable attended by the representatives of the Parliament, the Ministry of Justice, the Superior Council of Magistracy, the Disciplinary Board, the Supreme Court of Justice, the donor community and civil society. The full text of the document can be downloaded here.

    The event is designed to launch discussions with decision-makers and, thus, enhance the process of improving the legislation on disciplinary responsibility of judges.

    ***

    The Policy Document "Assessment of Needs to Improve the Legal Framework on the Disciplinary Liability of Judges" was developed by the Legal Resources Centre from Moldova within the project "Promoting effective judicial accountability Mechanisms in Moldova", with the financial support of Soros Foundation-

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • LRCM highly appreciates the efforts of the Ministry of Justice to draft the Law on the reorganization of the judicial map. The optimization of judicial map is one of the most important reform measures undertaken by the Justice Sector Reform Strategy (SRSJ) for 2011-2016. Additionally, optimization of the judicial map will create the necessary conditions for improving the quality of justice and will streamline the costs of the judiciary system. The draft law is well grounded, both from the legal and economical-financial aspects, nevertheless, the draft can be improved.In this context, LRCM comes with several proposals to improve the draft Law in order to ensure the principles of independence and immovability of judges and to assure clarity and predictability of the law.LRCM suggestions can be viewed here (in Romanian).We recall that for the reorganization of the judicial several studies were conducted, namely:
  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) are concerned about the manner of appointment and promotion of some judges by the Superior Council of Magistracy (SCM) at the meeting as of 26 January 2016. The CSOs signed a public appeal in which they sustain that by adopting the decisions on 26 January, the SCM did not respect the principles of meritocracy and integrity.The Public Appeal can be downloaded here.
  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • The Legal Resources Centre from Moldova presented the results of the survey ”Perception of judges, prosecutors and lawyers on justice reform and fight corruption”. The document aims to find out the opinion of the main actors in the justice sector on reforming the judiciary and fighting corruption.The survey was conducted during October-December 2015. The survey was carried out by the Centre of Sociological Investigations and Marketing Research „CBS-AXA", at the request of the Legal Resources Centre from Moldova, with the support of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) within the Rule of Law Institutional Strengthening Program (ROLSIP).The survey in English can be downloaded here.The survey in Romanian is available here.
  • The signatories to this Declaration condemn the distortion of the democratic process in the Republic of Moldova based on the manner FILIPS’s Government was established, voted and sworn in. This has a severe impact on the confidence in this government. We call on policymakers to respect the principles of the rule of law and legislation as well as to rebuild lost confidence in state institutions through immediate and resolute actions.The full text of the Declaration can be downloaded here.
  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Ghid privind înregistrarea organizațiilor în Lista beneficiarilor desemnării procentuale (Legea 2%)
  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Soluţii pentru un cadru legal adecvat necesităţilor organizaţiilor necomerciale
  • The declaration of Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum of the Republic of Moldova can be downloaded here.
  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Majorarea retroactivă a plăţilor vamale – este oare uniformă practica judiciară în acest domeniu?

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Representatives of the civil society are concerned with the lack of transparency and the possibility of adoption in a hurry of several legislative initiatives that include radical changed to the judiciary and the civil procedure code, as well as setting up specialized courts for corruption cases. The NGOs launched a public appeal calling the decision-makers, especially the Government and the Parliament, to adhere to the previously assumed commitments and to refrain from adopting in a rush the initiatives that could turn dangerous in the Moldovan context. Decision-makers were also called to continue the implementation of the Justice Sector Reform Strategy for the period 2011-2016 and promptly implement the activities provided by the strategy.

    In particular, the signatories of the public appeal are concerned with the proposals regarding the reorganization of the Supreme Curt of Justice (SCJ); selection of the majority of judicial inspectors from the civil society;  entitlement of the SCM with the right to check the judges’ assets and to dismiss them if they cannot prove the legality of acquiring such assets; payment of the court fees after the case is finished instead of the moment of submission of the court claim;  setting up deadlines for examining cases in courts to the detriment of the quality of justice and creation of specialized courts for corruption cases.

    The signatories are concerned with the fact that the decision-makers are protracting the implementation of the law on prosecution service and the related legislation, the fact that the three draft laws regarding the national integrity system are not being promoted, taking into account the fact that the respective draft laws were subject to inclusive public consultations with the decision makers, civil society, national and international experts and were rejected by the Government on 16 June 2015. These normative acts set up the institutional framework and real instruments to prevent and fight corruption. Civil society representatives maintain that protracting the adoption of the respective draft laws can mean only one thing – that the Moldovan authorities are not interested in creating real and effective tools to fight corruption, but are imitating the process of fighting corruption.

    The signatories call on the Government and the Parliament to, among others, urgently adopt the draft law on prosecution service and related laws, as proposed by the working group; reassign prosecutors, support staff and criminal specialists and investigators in the prosecution system and the National Anticorruption Center to strengthen the Anticorruption Prosecutor’s office according to the model of the National Anticorruption Directorate from Romania; adopt the draft law on the National Integrity Center, the draft law on personal assets and interests and the draft law amending and supplementing certain normative acts, in the version proposed by the Ministry of Justice to the Government in June 2015; appoint in key positions persons according to their professionalism and integrity, and not according to political criteria and continue the implementation of the Justice Sector Reform Strategy for the period 2011-2016  and promptly implement the activities provided by the strategy.

    The signatories call on the judiciary, in particular the Superior Council of Magistracy and affiliated bodies and the Ministry of Justice, to, among other, thorough monitor, detect and sanction any violations in the random distribution of cases in courts, ensure audio recording of all court hearings, strengthen judges’ disciplinary accountability mechanism and promote at the SCJ of only judges with impeccable reputation and of the highest professional standards.

    The full text of the public appeal is available here in Romanian and in English.

    The press conference regarding the launched public appeal is available here (in Romanian): Privesc.eu and Info-Prim Neo.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sancţionarea în cauzele de corupţie – cât de uniformă este practica judecătorească
  • Studiu de drept comparat privind reglementările din țările europene în ceea ce privește procedura de investigare penală a judecătorilor (2013)
  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Contributing to the improvement of the level of observance of human rights in Moldova through the effective implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

     

  • Contributing to improvement of the accountability mechanisms for judges in the Republic of Moldova.  The project will continue the activities initiated during the first period of project implementation.

     

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • 19 civil society organisations published their opinion on the proposals to amend the justice sector related legislation launched by the Center for Reform in the Judicial System on 20 May 2015.Full text of the document is available here.
  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • 43 civil society organizations ask full publication of the KROLL company report on the situation regarding Banca de Economii, Banca Socială și Unibank and of the contract signed between the National Bank of Moldova and Kroll and initiation of a criminal investigation in this case.„We recognize the sensitivity of the banking system to any speculation in relation to its stability, and absence of official information about actions of responsible institutions and the fact that the report of the company that performed audit of doubtful transactions was not published, will further continue discrediting the ability of state institutions to act according to their competence.”, is said in the common declaration.The full declaration can be downloaded here.
  • Improve the efficiency and transparency of the Moldovan judiciary  

  • Parliament of the Republic of Moldova

    Government of the Republic of Moldova

    European Union Delegation to Moldova

    Embassy of the Russian Federation to Moldova

    Embassy of Ukraine to Moldova

    US Embassy to Moldova

    OSCE Mission in Moldova

    United Nations Organization in Moldova

    Special UN Repporteur on Human Rights Defenders

    Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights

    Civil Society Organizations condemn the so-called criminal prosecution against an organization that is defending and promoting human rights

    27 April 2015

    On 17 April 2015, the so-called “State Security Committee” (local KGB) of the Transnistrian region issued a statement. This document referred to the activity of the civil society organizations from the Transnistrian region, which are funded by foreign donors. The self-proclaimed authority labels the activity of such organizations as being directed against the unrecognized and illegal statehood on the territory of the Republic of Moldova. The activity of civil society organizations, especially of the “Promo-LEX” Association, is labeled as being directed against the “statehood” of the unrecognized region and respectively, a criminal investigation was initiated.The “Promo-LEX” activity in the area of human rights is well known. The most relevant fields include the right to education, freedom and security, freedom of movement, right to property, right to life, prohibition of torture and other cruel treatments, right to a fair trial, domestic violence, freedom of association, access to information, non-discrimination, assurance of free and fair elections, and others. For its efforts, including for the promotion and defence of human rights in the Transnistrian region, the Association was awarded by national and international organizations. The Association has a brave team, which assumed the role of promotion and defense of citizens from the Transistrian region, regardless of their ethnicity and citizenship, defending their rights and freedoms at the local level (of the left bank of the Nistru River), in the justice system of the Republic of Moldova and in the European Court of Human Rights.Through its activity, the Association revealed both to the Moldovan society and international community the severe violations of the fundamental human rights and liberties in the unrecognized region. The report of former Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights confirmed the systemic problems that “Promo-LEX” has been referring to in its reports since 2005. A number of international organizations reacted promptly to the attack initiated by Tiraspol’s “KGB” and called for cessation of any attacks of this type[1]The signatory organisations express their solidarity, support and concern for the security and integrity of the persons who work in the Non-Government Organisations from the Transintrian region, in particular “Promo-LEX” Association. The signatories of this statement require:1. Public condemnation of unconstitutional government’s actions taken on a constant base against the civil society from the region, as well as against “Promo-LEX” Association;2. OSCE Mission in Moldova to urgently intervene with the unconstitutional government and request guarantees for representatives of the associative sector who carry out their activities in that region.3. Provision of guarantees and security and protective measures by the constitutional authorities, which are required for the ordinary activity of the “Promo-LEX” Association team, including considering the possibility to initiate a criminal or administrative prosecution of the persecution activities;4. Inclusion, as a matter of priority, of this exceptional and unprecedented case on the agenda of negotiations in 5+2 format on the settlement of Transnistrian conflict, and on the agenda of other national and international authorities;5. Insisting on the promotion, monitoring and defense of human rights in the territory controlled by the de facto authorities of Tiraspol. Signatories:“Habitat” Regional Development Agency,“Infonet” Alliance of Community Centers for Access to Information and Training,Alliance of NGOs active in the field of Social Protection of Child and Family (ASPCF),Amnesty International Moldova,“Casa Marioarei” Association Against Violence,Women's Association for Environment Protection and Sustainable Development,Small Business Association,“APOLLO” Association for the Development of Culture and Protection of Copyright and Related Rights,Foreign Policy Association (FPA),Electronic Press Association (APEL),Independent Press Association (IPA),BIOS,“Expert-Grup” Independent Think-Tank,Economic Development Center,Legal Centre for Women,“CERTITUDINE” Center for Assistance and Information of Young Economists,“GENDERDOC-M” Information Center,“Memoria” Rehabilitation Center of Torture Victims,“DIALOG-Pro” Resource Center,Legal Resources Centre from Moldova (LRCM),Resource Center for Human Rights (CReDO),“DACIA” Youth Resource Centre,"La Strada” International Center,National Center of Roma People,Partnership for Development Center,Center for Independent Journalism,Regional Environmental Center (REC Moldova),Political Club of Women 50/50,National Youth Council of Moldova (CNTM),Eco-Razeni,Institute for Public Policy (IPP),“Viitorul” Institute for Development and Social Initiatives,"Millennium" Institute for Training and Development,“Clinica Juridica Universitara” Public Institution,“Diaconia” Social Mission,Stefan Voda Territorial Organization of the Ecological Movement of Moldova,Terra-1530,Transparency International Moldova.
  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • This collection contains decisions of the Constitutional Court of Romania regarding exceptions of unconstitutionality of the 51/1995 Law on the organization of attorneys,  presenting subjects, motivations and solutions of such decisions.
  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Legal Resources Centre from Moldova launched the report on Execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights by the Republic of Moldova: 2013-2014. The report contains an overview of the Republic of Moldova cases at the European Court of Human Rights and the measures taken by the Moldovan authorities to execute Court`s judgments.  
  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Two LRCM members, Sorina MACRINICI and Ilie CHIRTOACĂ, had a study visit to Budapest (Hungary), to learn about the legal framework of the Hungarian nonprofit sector with an outlook to the European practices. The study visit took place during 16 – 20 February within the Moldova Partnerships for Sustainable Civil Society Program.During the week, LRCM members held meetings with ECNL experts, leading Hungarian CSOs and Hungarian public officials. During the meetings were discussed the organization and functioning of the CSOs sector in Hungary and shared good practices regarding coalition‐building and advocacy for civil society law reform, based on examples from Hungary and other European countries.During an inception training provided by ECNL experts Hanna Asipovich, Eszter Hartay and Eszter Márkus, Sorina and Ilie were informed on the current challenges of the CSOs in Hungary and the specifics of the percentage designation mechanism, based on comparative practices, including Slovakia and Poland. Later, income generation by outreach to the public and 1% mechanism, the role of the National Civil /Cooperation Fund in Hungary and the percentage designation mechanism as to recent advocacy efforts to amend the 1% legislation were discussed with the public official from the Hungarian Statistical Office (KSH), Sebestény István and Executive Director of the Nonprofit Information and Training Centre (NIOK) Foundation, Balázs Gerencsér.Discussions on the steps of the implementation of the percentage designation mechanism in Hungary, with emphasis to the practical aspects of 1 % mechanism continued with József Nagy, Member of the Cabinet of the President, Head of Department of Documentation of Central Office, National Tax and Customs Administration (NAV).Other important subjects discussed within the meeting with Hungarian representatives were the experience and advocacy efforts to develop the legal environment of CSOs, with Veronika Móra, Executive Director of Ökotárs Foundation, and strategies aimed to develop sustainable social enterprises that solve critical social problems in emerging market economies and the tax treatment of income generation activities - with Éva Vörös, Financial Manager from NESst organization.The work-week ended with a meeting with members of Hungarian Civil Liberties Union (TASZ), in which they emphasized the experience regarding the Human rights and watchdog organizations in Hungary, media appearance and outreach to the public, as well as 1% campaign and income generating activities.The experience gained within the study visit will help the Legal Resources Centre from Moldova project team to consolidate their efforts in order to promote legal and regulatory reforms based on the best expertise and practices, with the emphasis on the Hungarian experience, with the goal to create an enabling environment for civil society organizations in Moldova.The visit was made possible with the support of the European Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ECNL), a leading European research and resource center promoting strengthening of a supportive legal environment for civil society in Europe.The activity was made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • The Legal Resources Centre from Moldova, together with 15 NGOs` addressed an appeal to the Superior Council of Magistracy to ask to investigate the case assignment procedures.The signatories of the appeal underline that the court case assignment is an important step toward increasing the public trust and confidence in the judicial system, ensuring a genuine justice and combatting corruption. Since 2012, the case distribution by means of an automated case management system is mandatory.On December 11, 2014, the National Anti-corruption Center and Anti-corruption Prosecution Office arrested and interrogated eight employees from Riscani Court, Chisinau, who were suspected of interfering with the automated case management system during the period of 2012 through 2014 to arrange that certain cases reach the desired judge. Recently, a judge from the Supreme Court of Justice was accused of manipulating ICMS and it seems that such deviations existed in the past, too. In autumn 2007, by its decision, the SCM established that Chisinau Court of Appeals did not apply random case assignment. Then, in 2008, the SCM found that Ceadir-Lunga Court did not distribute cases randomly, too. And in 2010, a commission of judges found that the Supreme Court of Justice had issues with consecutive registration and distribution of civil and economic cases.The civil society organizations are concerned about the allegations regarding random case assignment frauds. The circumstances revealed by mass media suggest that these actions could not have been done by one person only and that they are easy to detect. The failure of the Supreme Court of Justice to ensure random case assignment is outrageous and seriously undermines public trust and confidence. We noticed that in the recent case the SCM was unable to take a decision on the situation at the Supreme Court of Justice. On the other hand, rumor has it that other courts are also engaged in case assignment manipulation and that this is rather easy to do.In this context, underline that now the SCM has the opportunity to prove that they really want to increase public trust and confidence and to ensure a fair examination of each case. Given all these facts, the signatories call the Superior Council of Magistracy:a)    To carry out urgent inspections of case assignment procedures in all Moldovan courts.b)    To identify and remove loopholes in the case assignment system.c)    To examine the reasons and causes for which certain cases were distributed by manipulating the    random case assignment system and the decisions issued on those cases.d)    To apply tough penalties to all those who were involved in the manipulation of the case assignment system and who concealed this fact.e)    To publish the inspection results on the Web page of the SCM as soon as possible.The full text of the appeal can be downloaded here.
  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Legal Resources Centre from Moldova issued the fourth Newsletter, which regards the period November-December 2014. It also covers the new information and analysis on subjects from the previous Newsletters. The issues from the Newsletter concern:
    • justice reform,
    • selection and career of judges,
    • accountability of judges,
    • European Court of Human Rights.
    The English version of the fourth and previous Newsletters is available on the here.The Newsletter in Romanian can be downloaded on the romanian version of the LRCM webpage.
  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Selectarea și cariera judecătorilor – dublări de responsabilităţi sau garanţii suplimentare?
  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Achievements and faults in reforming the justice sector of the Republic of Moldova: 2012 - July 2014 (Translated chapters) (in Romanian)
  • Achievements and faults in reforming the justice sector of the Republic of Moldova: 2012 - July 2014 (Translated chapters) (in Romanian)
  • Achievements and faults in reforming the justice sector of the Republic of Moldova: 2012 - July 2014 (Translated chapters) (in Romanian)
  • Achievements and faults in reforming the justice sector of the Republic of Moldova: 2012 - July 2014 (Translated chapters) (in Romanian)
  • Achievements and faults in reforming the justice sector of the Republic of Moldova: 2012 - July 2014 (Executive summary)The entire document is available in Romanian and can be downloaded here.
  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • The compensations for non-material damages in Moldova are much lower than those offered by the European Court for Human Rights (ECtHR) in comparable cases. This is the conclusion drawn by the Legal Resources Centre from Moldova (LRCM) following an analysis of the efficiency of the mechanism of compensation by government of the damage caused by the delay in the examination of cases or failure to enforce final court judgments. This mechanism was introduced on July 1st, 2011 by Law No. 87/2011 with a view to enforcing the judgment of the ECtHR in the case of Olaru and others v. Moldova.LRCM has also found that many of the cases related to Law No. 87 have been examined at a slow pace, while judges have provided insufficient grounds for their decisions in the respective cases. Sometimes judges even ascertained that the reasonable term had been violated, although ECtHR standards do not allow for such conclusions. Consequently, the gaps identified in the Law No. 87/2011 may determine ECtHR to conclude that the mechanism introduced by this law is inefficient.These findings were made after an analysis by LRCM of over 90% of the cases related to Law No. 87 in which final judgments were issued, by November 2013. As a result, LRCM recommends in a policy document to change the procedure for provision of compensations for violation of the reasonable term. The compensation might be provided by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) based on clear standards that have already been developed by MoJ. MoJ’s decision could be appealed at the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ). Presently, similar mechanisms are efficiently implemented in the Czech Republic, UK, and Spain.If the existing mechanism for compensation by government of the damage caused by the delay in the examination of cases or the failure to enforce court decisions is maintained, a system should be introduced in the courts to ensure prompt examination of the cases related to Law No. 87. In addition, SCJ should establish practices to ensure proper compensations for violation of the reasonable term.

    ***

    Until the middle of the last decade, failure to enforce court decisions was an extremely serious problem in Moldova. Through its judgment in the case of Olaru and others v. Moldova (July 28, 2009), the European Court for Human Rights requested the Government to establish a national mechanism for remedies in case of people affected by the failure to enforce court decisions. For this purpose, on April 21, 2011, the Parliament adopted Law No. 87. In 2012, the European Court acknowledged that the recourse introduced by Law No. 87 is an efficient one and declared over 300 Moldovan complaints inadmissible. Plaintiffs were advised to use the remedy provided for by Law No. 87.

    ***

    Contact person: Vladislav GRIBINCEA, Executive Director of the Legal Resources Centre from Moldova, tel: 022 843 601, email: vladislav.gribincea@crjm.org.

    ***

    This policy document has been developed as part of the Monitoring and Contributing to the Progress of the Moldovan Judiciary Project, which is implemented by the Legal Resources Centre from Moldova with the support of the United State Agency for International Development (USAID) through its Rule of Law Institutional Strengthening Program (ROLISP).1  fb
  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • The International Criminal Court (ICC), governed by the Rome Statute, is the first permanent, treaty based, international criminal court established to help end impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community.The ICC is an independent international organisation, and is not part of the United Nations system. Its seat is at The Hague in the Netherlands. Although the Court’s expenses are funded primarily by States Parties, it also receives voluntary contributions from governments, international organisations, individuals, corporations and other entities.Moldova is the 114th state to ratify the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court (2011).
  • The International Court of Justice (commonly referred to as the World Court or ICJ) is the primary judicial branch of the United Nations. It is based in the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands. Its main functions are to settle legal disputes submitted to it by states and to provide advisory opinions on legal questions submitted to it by duly authorized international branches, agencies, and the UN General Assembly.
  • The Inter-American Court of Human Rights is an autonomous judicial institution based in the city of San José, Costa Rica. Together with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, it makes up the human rights protection system of the Organization of American States (OAS), which serves to uphold and promote basic rights and freedoms in the Americas.Under the Convention, cases can be referred to the Court by either the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights or a state party. In contrast to the European human rights system, individual citizens of the OAS member states are not allowed to take cases directly to the Court.The United States signed but never ratified the Convention.
  • The Court of Justice interprets EU law to make sure it is applied in the same way in all EU countries. It also settles legal disputes between EU governments and EU institutions. Individuals, companies or organisations can also bring cases before the Court if they feel their rights have been infringed by an EU institution.The Répertoire de jurisprudence (Digest of case-law) is a systematic collection of the summaries of judgments and orders of the Court of Justice, the General Court and the Civil Service Tribunal delivered or made since they commenced their activities.The classification scheme, initially subdivided into eight parts, for the period 1954 to 2009, has been reworked following the changes brought about by the Treaty of Lisbon into a plan in nine parts, for the case-law as from 2010. References between the two classification schemes make it easy to move from one to the other.
  • The HUDOC database provides access to the European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber judgment, chambers and committees, decisions, cases reported, advisory opinions and legal summaries and as well as notes extracted information on case law), of the European Commission (decisions and reports) and the Committee of Ministers (resolutions). To search the database available HUDOC many operational fields:• text• Language• the respondent State• Date• conclusion• Other filters
  • Appeal on points of law is an extraordinary appeal that ensures consistent interpretation and application of criminal law and criminal procedure throughout the country.Decisions are adopted by the Criminal Justice Panel of the Supreme Court reasoned on reasoned request of the:• President of the Supreme Court,• President of the Criminal Justice Panel of the Supreme Court.• Attorney General.• President of the Bar.Decisions on applications for appeal on points of law are mandatory from the date of delivery and have no effect on decisions already settled by final judgment.Legal basis: art. 465¹-465³ of the Criminal Procedure Code
  • For a correct and uniform application of the law, The Supreme Court of Justice generalizes ex officio case-law in certain categories and adopts explanatory decisions on the correct application of the rules of law and fair settlement of civil cases.Explanatory decisions are adopted by the Plenum of the Supreme Court.The application of the judgments is optional for the courts.Legal basis: Art. 1 of. 2 and art. 16 letter. "C" of the Law. 789 of 26.03.1996 on the Supreme Court• Art. 17 Code of Civil Procedure• Art. 7 Code of Criminal Procedure
  • The advisory opinions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court's constitutes a mechanism to provide uniform application of the law in civil matters. If during the trial of the case, the court is attesting difficulties regarding correct application of substantive or procedural law, it asks the Supreme Court of Justice, ex officio or at the request of participants in the process to issue an advisory opinion on how to implement the law. Advisory Opinions are published on the website of the Supreme Court and are mandatory for all courts. By issuing the advisory opinion of the Supreme Court of Justice, the proceedings are suspended. Advisory opinions are adopted by the Plenum of the Supreme Court under Art. 12 ² of the Code of Civil Procedure and art. 16 letter. "D" of the Law. 789 of 26.03.1996 regarding the Supreme Court.
  • Recommendations of the Supreme Court are a rapid response mechanism to difficulties encountered in the implementation of legislation. Recommendations are emitted ex officio by the Supreme Court, having advisory purpose.
  • (Only in Romanian) Prohibition of discrimination (Chapter 12, Promo-LEX report. Human rights in Moldova. Retrospective 2012-2013)
  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Assessment of the Performance Evaluation of Judges in Moldova (2014) authors Dr. Gar Yein Ng și Nadejda Hriptievschi (in Romanian)
  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Dr. Barbarosie has studied Mathematical Statistics and Probability Theory. He started his career as a university researcher and professor. After the changes in the former Soviet area, he was involved in reforming the Public Education, Research and Development areas in the Republic of Moldova. Dr. Barbarosie was appointed as Director of the Research and Development Department within the Ministry of Education and Research, and later - as the Deputy Dean of the newly established Academy of Public Administration, where he was responsible for research organization and international relations. While in these positions, he developed a range of policy analysis, and has changed his area of research, getting more involved in public policy analysis.Since 2000, Dr. Barbarosie is heading the newly established Institute for Public Policy, an independent think tank in the Republic of Moldova, which has become a leading organization in the field of policy analyses. Particular interests of Dr. Barbarosie are European Integration, National and Regional Security, Transnistrian Conflict settlement policies, Educational Reform, Human Development and Good Governance, Local and Regional Development.

  • Mrs. Cepoi manages a major Internews project in Moldova "Media Enabling Democracy. Inclusion and Accountability in Moldova (MEDIA-M)". Previously Corina Cepoi managed a major Internews project in Kyrgyzstan. Between 2002 and 2013 she managed a major project of the Independent Journalism Center - the Chisinau School of Advanced Journalism, where she was leading the fundraising process within the organization, strategic planning and general coordination. Before that Mrs Cepoi worked as Director of the Independent Journalism Center from Moldova. Corina Cepoi is experienced in media communication trainings and assistance, media development and NGO management. Mrs Cepoi has a B.A. in English and MA in Journalism from the State University of Moldova as well as a Master’s degree from the Missouri School of Journalism in the USA. She also was a Chevening scholar at Oxford University.

    Through the project, Internews will help media outlets from Republic of Moldova to improve the quality of their content, diversify news formats, strengthen their financial viability, and better engage their audiences, especially digitally

  • Between 1992 - 2012he worked at the Faculty of Law, State University of Moldova. At the same time, he was a lecturer at the Centre for Training of Judges and served as a member of the Experts Council of the National Commission of Securities, member of the Commission licensing Notary Activities, Member of the Commission licensing the Lawyers, Member of the Scientific Advisory Board of the Supreme Court of Justice. During his activity he participated in drafting and expertizing several laws drafts.Nicolae Rosca graduated from the Faculty of Law, University of Bucharest, Romania. He also defended the master's thesis and doctoral dissertation in Law at the State University of Moldova.
  • Elena Prohniţchi received a Bachelor’s degree in International Relations at Moldova State University and a Master's degree in Political Science at the Central European University, Budapest, Hungary.
    Since 2007 Elena is working as a Program Coordinator for ADEPT Association, where she coordinates and participates in implementation of several projects on monitoring, fact-checking, good governance, information and civic education of voters.
    During 2010-2013 she was part of the resource group on human rights, which documented, monitored and reported cases of human rights violations to national and international institutions and took advocacy demarches for their remediation as well.
    Since 2011 Elena participates as a national expert on electoral matters in the elaboration of the European Integration Index for Eastern Partnership Countries.

  • Mr. Victor URSU is currently the Deputy Director of the Publishing House ARC. Mr. Ursu has built his long professional carrier, for about 26 years, at the Soros Foundation-Moldova (SFM), leading the Foundation, as Executive Director, between 1996-2018, and initially acting as Program Director between 1992-1996. His areas of expertise are diverse, particularly public policy, civil society development, management, and micro-financing.

    Mr. Ursu has also activated as a researcher at the Institute of Physics from the Moldovan Academy of Sciences. He has bachelor degree in theoretical physics at Chisinau Technical University and completed Postgraduate studies at Moscow Lebedev Institute of Physics.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Study on optimisation of the structure of the prosecution service and of the workload of prosecutors from the Republic of Moldova (2014) (in Romanian)
  • Mr. Gribincea is the Executive Director of the Legal Resources Centre from Moldova since 2010. He is in the NGO sector since 2002. His primary areas of expertise are justice reform and the European Convention on Human Rights.

    He was involved as expert in the drafting of the Moldovan Justice Sector Reform Strategy for 2011-2016, as well as in the reform of the Moldovan legislation on organization of the judiciary, civil procedure and criminal procedure. Vladislav also led the group of experts that prepared the draft legislation for the reform of the Moldovan Prosecution service. He was also involved in the elaboration of the Moldovan Law on freedom of expression and of the Law on Governmental Agent.

    Mr. Gribincea is member of the Moldovan Bar. Since 2002, he is representing applicants before the European Court of Human Right, as well as in strategic domestic litigations. He appeared before the European Court of Human Right in many landmark or particularly complex cases, such as Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and RussiaGuja v. MoldovaIvanţoc and Others v. Moldova and RussiaBoicenco v. MoldovaManole and Others v. Moldova, Iordachi and Others v. Moldova, or Urechean and Pavlicenco v. Moldova.

    Mr. Gribincea did his bachelor and masters studies at the Law Faculty of the State University of Moldova. In 2005, he graduated from the Chevening Program at Nottingham University, United Kingdom. Vladislav trained judges, prosecutors, lawyers and students on European Convention on Human Righ. He is the author of numerous publications concerning European Convention on Human Rights and independence and efficiency of judiciary.

    Vladislav is fluent in Romanian (native), English and Russian.

     

  • Nadejda HRIPTIEVSCHI is a founder and Justice and Human Rights Program Director at Legal Resources Centre from Moldova (LRCM). In this capacity she is engaged in research, advocacy, fundraising, planning and management of the Justice Program. At LRCM she works on projects that promote independence and accountability of judiciary, equality and non-discrimination and implementation of international human rights standards in Moldova. Her primary areas of expertise include judiciary, legal aid and non-discrimination.

    Nadejda Hriptievschi is a member of European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) since 16 September 2013. Nadejda is a member of the Bar Association of Moldova since June 2011. She serves as consultant on judiciary, criminal justice and human rights for different national and international organisations.

    Between 2008 and 2012, Nadejda taught human rights (2010-2012) and criminal procedure (2008-2009) at the Law Faculty of the State University of Moldova. She also served as consultant on legal aid, being closely involved in the legal aid reform in Moldova since 2003. She has worked with the first Public Defender Office in Moldova from 2007 to 2011. She was also engaged in legal aid reforms in Bulgaria, Georgia, Lithuania, Mongolia and Ukraine and participated in the creation of the Legal Aid Reformers’ Network. Nadejda has worked as Junior Legal Officer for Open Society Justice Initiative, Budapest, Hungary from January 2003 to December 2006. She interned with the Constitutional and Legal Policy Institute, Budapest, on national criminal justice program from August 2001 to December 2002 and with the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg, France from April to June 2002.

    Nadejda received a Master of Laws in Comparative Constitutional Law with additional specialisation in Human Rights at the Central European University, Budapest, in July 2001 and a law degree at the State University of Moldova in June 2000.

    Nadejda’s mother tongue is Romanian, she speaks fluently English and Russian, and has an intermediate knowledge of French.

  • Sorina Macrinici is an attorney and a researcher working on improving the Moldovan justice sector and combating discrimination. Starting with January 2018, Sorina is the Director of Civil Society and Democracy Program at the Legal Resources Centre from Moldova. Previously she had the position of a legal officer, working on the justice sector reform, reform of investigating judges and combating discrimination in the labor, education and social assistance fields, promotion of an enabling environment for civil society organizations.

    Sorina has substantial experience of working on human rights issues. Since 2006 she has been involved in human rights litigation domestically and before the European Court of Human Rights. In 2010 Sorina served an internship at the European Court where she dealt with inadmissible cases against Moldova. In 2011 she was actively involved in reporting human rights violations and advocacy within the Universal Periodic Review of Moldova.

    Sorina was awarded a Muskie scholarship and earned her LL.M. degree in International Human Rights from University of Notre Dame, Indiana, USA in May 2013. Between June and August 2013 she served an internship at the Maricopa County Superior Court in Phoenix, Arizona, where she was engaged with a wide range of court administration issues.

    Sorina is fluent in Romanian (native), English and Russian.

  • Pavel Grecu is a Legal Officer at the Legal Resources Centre from Moldova since February 2013. His fields of activity are the European Convention of Human Rights, justice reform and anti-discrimination.Mr Grecu has started his professional activity in 2011 as a lawyer at the Culture Department of the Chisinau City Hall. He was responsible for representing the Culture Department and the City Hall in national courts.Mr Grecu did his bachelor and masters studies at the Law Faculty of the State University of Moldova.Pavel is fluent in Romanian (native), English and Russian.
  • Ion GUZUN is co-founder of The Legal Resources Centre from Moldova and since January 2011 he is Legal Officer within the organization.

    Between 2005 and 2009 he worked within UNDP Moldova. Between 2009 and 2010 he worked as projects coordinator at the NGO „Moldovan Institute for Human Rights”. Since 2009 his professional activity was focused on combating ill-treatment in Moldova. He has contributed to various reports on human rights issues in Moldova and submissions to UN and EU related to human rights observance in Moldova. Starting with 2009 he is involved as expert for several organizations such as Council of Europe, UNDP Moldova, UNICEF Moldova, Soros Foundation-Moldova, OSCE Mission to Moldova, etc. Between July 2011 and June 2013 he was member of the National Preventive Mechanism on Torture and from November 2011 he was apprentice at the Public Defender Office. From June 2013 he is attorney at law.

    He graduated from the State University of Moldova, Law Faculty, in 2005. He received his LLM in private law at the same university in 2006.

    Ion is fluent in Romanian (native), English and Russian.

  • (Only in Romanian) Access to justice, the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence (Chapter 3, Promo-LEX report. Human rights in Moldova. Retrospective 2012-2013)
  • (Only in Romanian) Prohibition of discrimination (Chapter 12, Report. Human rights in Moldova. Retrospective 2012-2013)
  • In 2013 Ilie CHIRTOACĂ was recruited as a volunteer to assist LRCM in its activities. In 2014 – 2015, Ilie obtained a legal internship and further, a legal assistant position, being responsible, among others, for collecting and systematizing information for research conducted by LRCM. Since 2016, Ilie is legal officer at LRCM. In this capacity, he carries out legal research, advocacy, project management and representation of the organization at the designated events & meetings. Ilie’s primary legal expertise include justice reform and the legal framework in the not-for-profit sector. Ilie is particularly involved in monitoring and evaluating mechanisms and practice of selection and promotion of judges and prosecutors. In 2015 – 2016 he contributed to the design of the Law and regulation mechanism on the percentage designation in Moldova (The 2% Law) as means to enhance financial sustainability for CSOs. Since 2016, he is a member of a working group drafting the new draft law on non-commercial organizations, with the aim to improve the registration and operational requirements for the not-for-profit sector in Moldova.

    Ilie did his bachelor and masters studies at the Law Faculty of the State University of Moldova. In 2018 he was confered the LLM degree of Master of Laws in International Human Rights Law, from University of Essex, United Kingdom.

    He is fluent in Romanian (native), English and Russian.

     

  • Victoria VIRSCHI holds the position of a Legal Officer at the Legal Resources Centre from Moldova since December 2018.

    For four years, Victoria worked at the National Legal Aid Council (NLAC), contributing to administration and reform of the legal aid system. Victoria was involved in activities aimed at developing the field of qualified legal aid and piloting new methods of primary legal aid. Victoria was the secretary of the NLAC and the member of the justice sector reform working group.

    Since 2016, she has been coordinating and implementing projects in the field of children’s rights in non-criminal cases and the rights of people with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities. Victoria has experience in preventing and combating violence against women and girls, working as a project coordinator within HelpAge International.

    Victoria did her bachelor and masters studies in civil law and civil proceedings at the Law Faculty of the State University of Moldova. Victoria is fluent in Romanian (native) and Russian and has good knowledge of English and French.


  • Daniel GOINIC is Legal Officer at the Legal Resources Centre from Moldova since July 2017. His fields of activity are the European Convention of Human Rights, justice sector, integrity and anticorruption reforms. In the period 2012-2017 he worked within the Ministry of Justice (Law Drafting Department and subsequently in Governmental Agent’s Office) as well within the Bureau of Reintegration Policies of the State Chancellery.

    Mr. Goinic did his Bachelor and Masters Studies at the Law Faculty of the State University of Moldova. He is alumni of the Advanced Programme in Law and Economics of Riga Graduate School of Law (Latvia) and participant of several international human rights trainings.  

    Daniel is fluent in Romanian (native), English and Russian.


  • Dumitru Ambroci is part of the CRJM team from December 2017. In 2016, he graduated from the Faculty of Law of the State University of Moldova, and in 2017 he obtained the LLM in European Law from Maastricht University, the Netherlands.

    During his studies, Dumitru participated in several competitions, internships and other extracurricular activities. In April 2014, he became the winner of the Republican contest of adversarial proceedings, organized by the Leavitt Institute for International Development. In August 2014, followed an internship at the Provincial Court in Grande Prairie, Alberta, Canada. From February to July 2016, he was a trainee at the Ministry of Justice, in the Department of the Agent for the Government. In 2017 he participated in the Nuremberg Moot Court in International Criminal Law, being part of the Maastricht University team, where he gets to the quarter-finals.

    Dumitru speaks fluently Romanian (native), English, Russian and has an intermediate level of German.

  • Olga holds the position of the Director of Administrative Service within LRCM since September 2015, where she is responsible for coordinating Association’s projects and proper organization of its activities.

    She started her professional activity as a lecturer of English at the Faculty of International Relations, Political and Administrative Sciences, Moldova State University, subsequently being engaged in the private sector. Five years’ experience in translation and secretarial work, as well as four years’ experience in management of small teams, gained as the Head of Secretariat within a private company, shall allow her to contribute and bring value in the management of the Association.

    Olga holds BA in Political Science from Moldova State University since 2001 and MA in American Studies from Moldova State University since 2002.

    Olga is fluent in Romanian (mother tongue), English and Russian.

     

  • Aurelia holds the position of Accounting and Financial Manager at LRCM since September 2011, where she is responsible for accounting and issues related to the application of tax rules.

    Previously Aurelia worked as chief accountant  in a commercial company. Since 2011 her professional activity has focused on noncommercial sector. Her professional experience includes financial management of more than ten projects supported by EU funds and various grants of international organizations.

    Aurelia graduated from the Faculty of Financial Accounting of the Academy of Economic Studies of Moldova in June 2008. She holds a master’s degree at the Faculty of Law of the State University of Moldova.

     

  • (Only in Romanian) Access to justice, the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence (Chapter 3, Promo-LEX report. Human rights in Moldova. Retrospective 2012-2013)
  • Since February, 2014, Doina Dumbrăveanu-Munteanu is a project coordinator of EU project ”Promoting Equality – Straitening the agents of change” within the Center for Legal Resources of Moldova. She has substantive knowledge of human rights and HIV issues, non-discrimination terminology according UNAIDS standards, as well as the problems tackling people living with HIV (PLWH). She was particularly in charge with developing and implementing specialized trainings for lawyers, NGOs and initiative groups with the participation of the local public authorities and other relevant actors responsible for protection and promotion of HR of PLWH. She has therefore developed very good communication, networking and advocacy skills. Since January 2001, Doina has gained a lot of experience as project manager being involved in different projects focused on protection and promotion of Human Rights and non-discrimination. Starting with 2001, she was part of the team that has created the Center for Prevention of Trafficking in Women, which has become the leading organization in this field in Moldova. Then, she coordinated a program ”Transnistrian Women’s Support Project” at representative office WINROCK in Moldova by opening in Transnistria region 2 regional support Centers for vulnerable women coming from abusive environment. Since January 2010 till March 2012, she successfully implemented as project manager at the Moldovan Institute for Human Rights (IDOM), the project component Protection and promotion of the rights of people living with HIV under the project “Reducing HIV-related burden in the Republic of Moldova” under the Global Fund Grant. Besides her managerial experience, Doina has continued to work as editor or author of several publications in the field of human rights and non-discrimination of migrants or trafficked people and as translator from English into Romanian of legal texts. Doina has two Master degrees, one of which is an European Master degree in Management from the Superior School of Trade, Dijon, FRANCE. She got a certificate of attendance from the Annual Summer School on Health Law at the Erasmus Observatory on Health Law, Erasmus University Rotterdam/ Institute of Health Policy & Management as well as the Regional Programme on the Equal Status and Human Rights of Women, Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, Sweden.Doina is fluent in Romanian (native), English, French and Russian.
  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Contribute to the reform of the civil justice system in Moldova

     

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Holds the position of the communication coordinator since December 2013 and is responsible for ensuring effective external communication of the association, organization of public events and contributes to enhance the visibility of the organization.

    Previously Mihaela served as communications focal point for UNFPA Moldova and as press officer of the Ministry of Health of the Republic of Moldova, where she was responsible for communication with the media. She started her career as reporter and worked for two news agencies from Moldova.

    Mihaela graduated from the Faculty of Journalism and Communication Sciences of the State University of Moldova.

    Mihaela is fluent in Romanian (native) and Russian, has a good knowledge of English.

     

  • Holds the position of the Communications Coordinator since February 2019 and is responsible for ensuring effective external communication of the association, organization of public events and enhancing the visibility of the organization.

    Nicoleta’s professional experience encompasses both administrative and program support for development projects implemented by international and local non-profit organizations (B&S Europe, IREX Moldova, Forum of Women Organizations from Republic of Moldova et al.).

    She holds a bachelor degree in Marketing and Logistics from the Academy of Economic Studies of Moldova and one master degree in European Interdisciplinary Studies from the College of Europe (Natolin).

    Nicoleta is fluent in Romanian (native), has good knowledge of English, French, and Russian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Contribute to enhancing judicial accountability in Moldova

     

  • Optimization of the judicial map in the Republic of Moldova (2014) (in Romanian)
  • Specialization of Judges and feasibility of creating administrative courts in the Republic of Moldova (2014) (in Romanian)
  • Specialization of Judges and feasibility of creating administrative courts in the Republic of Moldova (2014) (in Romanian)
  • Optimization of the judicial map in the Republic of Moldova (2014) (in Romanian)
  • Enhance respect for the equality principle and fight against discrimination in Moldova through promoting of legal and practice improvements and by capacitating school teachers, social workers and the legal community to act as agents for change.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.


  • (Only in Romanian) Summary on the activity of the European Court of Human Rights in 2013 (2014)
  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Angela holds the position of the Director of Administrative Service within LRCM since April 2019. She is responsible for proper planning and development of Association’s activities, coordinating necessary projects, ensuring good organizational sustainability.

    She started her professional activity in administrative field in private sector. Subsequently, she worked for many years in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, at the British Embassy in Moldova, acquiring a wide professional experience and valuable skills through her constantly growing carrier, in different capacities in Management Section. Between 2014 - 2019, she was leading the Corporate Section at the British Embassy, Chisinau. Her extensive experience in leadership, corporate management work, financial management, procurement, HR, communication and other, allows her to contribute and bring value to the management of the Association.

    Angela holds BA in philology/foreign languages (State University of Moldova). She has participated in multiple work related trainings and international conferences and she studied in the FCO’s Diplomatic Academy.

    Angela is fluent in Romanian (mother tongue), English and Russian. Good command of French.

  • Policy paper ”Reforming the Investigating Judge Institution: Challenges, Risks and Solutions” (2013) (in Romanian)
  • To strengthen institutional capacity and sustainability of the LRCM and contribute to the improvement of responsibility and efficiency of the justice system and respect of human right in Moldova 
  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Develop policy and promote changes for regulatory framework on the integration of investigative judges as common law judges, and monitoring the process of evaluation of the current investigative judges 
  • European Constitutional Courts are a pillar for European Human Rights Architecture. This volume offers a selection of important decisions adopted until 2006 by the German Federal Constitutional Court on constitutional matters of public interest.
  • Developing and strengthening the public policies to combat employment discrimination  

  • Overcoming challenges of the duty lawyer scheme in Moldova, in „Criminal Justice Matters” (2013, volume 92, issue 1)
  • Succesele și insuccesele în reformarea justiției din Republica Moldova 2012 – iulie 2014
  • Transparency and efficiency of the Superior Council of Magistracy of the Republic of Moldova. 2010-2012 (2013) (in Romanian)
  • Transparency and efficiency of the Superior Council of Magistracy of the Republic of Moldova. 2010-2012 (2013) (in Romanian)
  • Transparency and efficiency of the Superior Council of Magistracy of the Republic of Moldova. 2010-2012 (2013) (in Romanian)
  • Transparency and efficiency of the Superior Council of Magistracy of the Republic of Moldova. 2010-2012 (2013) (in Romanian)
  • Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian.

  • Contribute to the improvement of the level of observance of human rights in Moldova through the effective implementation of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) judgments by Moldova 
  • The project seeks to contribute to enhancing transparency and accountability of the Moldovan judiciary. 
  • Contribute to effective implementation of the Justice Sector Reform Strategy (JSRS) in Moldova

     

  • (Only in Romanian) Înregistrarea Cabinetului Avocatului și a Biroului Asociat de Avocați. Îndrumar pentru avocați  (2012)
  • Natalia holds the position of the Web and Social Media Manager since February 2016 and is responsible for increasing visibility, ensuring an effective external communication of the association, promotion and organization of public events.

    Natalia has more than seven years of professional experience in the field of marketing and public relations gained with commercial banks JSC "VictoriaBank" and  JSC "Moldindconbank”.

    In 2005, Natalia graduated from ”Universitatea Dunărea de Jos” of Galati and has a degree in Administrative Sciences. In 2009 she received her Master's degree in Financial-Banking Management at the same University.

    Natalia is fluent in Romanian (native) and Russian, has good knowledge of English and French.

     

  • Chapter on Judicial Independence in Moldova in magazine Judicial Independence in Tranisition (2012), authors: Nadejda Hriptievschi, Sorin Hanganu
  • textbook on Criminal Procedure Law
  • Supreme Court of Justice case-law in criminal matters (2008-2010). Selection
  • Chapter on Republic of Moldova, The European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in Central Eastern Europe (2012)
  • Chapter on Republic of Moldova, The European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in Central Eastern Europe (2012)
  • Impact Assessment of the Moldovan Law on State Guaranteed Legal Aid (2012) (in Romanian)
  • Execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights by the Republic of Moldova, 1997-2012 (2012) (in Romanian
  • Chapter on Effective Criminal Defence in Moldova (2012)
  • (Only in Romanian) Chapter 1 of the Promo-LEX Report on Human Rights in Moldova in 2009-2010: ”Right to life, right not to be subjected to ill-treatment” (2011)
  • (Only in Romanian) Research on arrest institution in the Republic of Moldova (2011)
  • (Only in Romanian) Commentary to the Law on freedom of expression (2011)
  • (Only in Romanian) Access to justice, the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence (Chapter 3, Promo-LEX report „Human rights in Moldova. Retrospective 2012-2013”)
  • (Only in Romanian) Access to justice, the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence (Chapter 3, Promo-LEX report „Human rights in Moldova. Retrospective 2012-2013”)
  • The Need for a New Law Professor in Moldova (2010)
  • Criminal Justice Performance from a Human Rights Perspective. Assessing the transformation of the Criminal Justice System in Moldova (2009)
  • (Only in Romanian) Chapter ”Human Rights Protection: some aspects regarding the implementation of the civil and political rights” (2009)
  • Procedure and practice of the ECtHR and other international treaties binding for Moldova (2009), authors: Tatiana RĂDUCANU, Viorel MORARI, Vladislav GRIBINCEA, Luciana IABANGI
  • (Only in Romanian) Judgments and decisions of the ECtHR on Moldovan cases (translation of the entire ECtHR jurisprudence delivered between 1997 and June 2009 in Moldovan cases): Volume I; Volume II; Volume III; Volume IV; Volume V; Volume VI; Volume VII; Volume VIII; Volume IX.
  • (Only in Romanian) European Court of Human Rights, main texts and the jurisprudence on Moldovan cases (2007)