Moldovan Authorities Got Scolded by the Venice Commission

Victor ENI

The commission cast doubt on the maneuvers around the Prosecutor General’s Office really complying with international standards of law

Few days ago, the European Commission for Democracy through the Law of the Council of Europe, better known as the Venice Commission, sharply criticized the amendments to the law “On the Prosecutor’s Office”, which were adopted by the Parliament on August 24 at an accelerated pace to remove Prosecutor General Alexandr Stoianoglo from office. Along the way, the Commission made several important recommendations that the authorities should consider while reforming the justice system. Recall that the notorious amendments provide for two mechanisms for the Prosecutor General’s dismissal. The first is to conduct an assessment of its activities, which can be initiated by the President or three members of the Supreme Council of Prosecutors. The second implies opening disciplinary proceedings. The Commission noted that certain changes raise serious questions about their compliance with international legal standards. The approval procedure, according to the Council of Europe experts, is transparent enough, since it took place without careful preparation or any open discussion. And this gives reason to suspect the parliamentary majority of the intention to “amend” the balance of power in the Prosecutor’s Office in favor of their own interests. Given all the circumstances, Chisinau was suggested to revise the procedure for evaluating the Prosecutor General’s work, to include the Prosecutor’s Office representatives in the evaluation commission, and to return the position of Prosecutor General to the permanent members of the Supreme Council of Prosecutors. As expected, the Commission’s conclusion was enthusiastically received in the opposition ranks, where they immediately demanded the resignation of the main authors and lobbyists of amendments to the law – Justice Minister Sergiu Litvinenco and President of the Legal Appointments and Immunities Commission Olesea Stamate. Litvinenco in turn said that the government would study the submitted opinion, but immediately specified that it was only advisory in nature. The President of the Parliament, Igor Grosu, decided to support his colleagues and stated that the position of the Venice Commission on the Prosecutor General’s performance evaluation would be taken into account, but the processes launched for the Prosecutor’s Office would continue, and the speaker did not see any reasons for their suspension. He also referred to the Moldovan justice system current peculiarities, which, in his opinion, is unlikely to carry out a self-cleansing procedure, no matter how much the commission talks about the need to make adjustments to the legislation. A few days before the publication of the Venice Commission’s conclusion, the authorities apparently decided to somewhat mitigate the situation around the “Stoianoglo case”. As a result, the Chisinau Court of Appeal decided to release the suspended Prosecutor General from house arrest and subject him to judicial control for 30 days. Prior to that, Alexandr Stoianoglo was under house arrest for more than two months. Curiously, Stoianoglo’s requests sent to the Constitutional Court in early September for verification of the amendments’ to the law “On the Prosecutor’s Office” adopted by parliament constitutionality and their suspension were rejected by the highest court. The judges explained their decision by the fact that the Prosecutor General had not provided sufficient arguments in favor of his statement about the negative impact of the changes made on the legislation of Moldova as a whole. And then, quite “coincidentally” last week, the Constitutional Court got into a scandalous story of a twofold increase in judges’ salaries, the amount of which would be 10 times higher than the country’s average income. Prime Minister Natalia Gavrilita called this “boost” of income reasonable: it will allegedly serve as a guarantee that the judges’ decisions will meet the interests of citizens, and not certain groups. Yet, technically, the Cabinet of Ministers seemed to not support this decision. The plans of the parliament and the government were criticized by almost all political forces, and one of the opposition leaders asked quite a reasonable question – for what merits the authorities “repay” to the Constitutional Court judges. As a result, the President did not promulgate the amendments, but the whole story left no doubt about the bias of the constitutional instance. The negative decision of the Venice Commission was predicted at the very adoption of amendments to the law “On the Prosecutor’s Office”, trusted lawyers in Maia Sandu’s entourage also knew about it. However, the political task of the Prosecutor General’s Office clean-up at any cost, made an absolute priority, eventually led to big problems for the country’s leadership, and each such problem has its cost and (foreign) political consequences. As a result, the authorities, along with the most trusted Constitutional Court, in fact got “scolded” by a respected European structure, and on the eve of the Eastern Partnership summit. But Chisinau there wanted so much to appear as a more deserving candidate than the Association Trio partners for obtaining a European Perspective, capable of efficiently implementing a reform policy. Such a sharp turn in favor of Stoianoglo, is most likely to only strengthen his conviction to go to the bitter end, up to a lawsuit to the European Court of Human Rights, and this is a completely different level of risks for the country’s leadership. Besides, there are no more or less beautiful ways out of this unpleasant story yet. If in the end the “Stoianoglo case” finally goes down, the Prosecutor General is reinstated and common sense prevails, it will be the biggest political defeat for the Action and Solidarity Party and personally for Maia Sandu. Thus, the fight with a man who, according to the authorities, is closely connected with previous regimes and odious personalities forced to hide from Moldovan justice abroad will be lost. And in this case, in fact, the only “odious personalities” with whom the name of Stoianoglo will be associated will be the current leadership of Moldova.