Is Justice Reform No Longer on the Table?

Christian RUSSU

After a series of scandals, infighting and high-profile resignations, the authorities are ignominiously completing a crucial intermediate stage in improving the Moldovan justice. Luckily, the European Union seems ready to turn a blind eye to any excesses within the framework of the so-called “reform”

The country entered summer with an appointed prosecutor general, formally ending decades-long uncertainty in the justice system. Let me remind you that the presence of a formally and procedurally approved prosecutor general, as well as the earlier formation of new compositions of the Superior Council of Magistracy and the Superior Council of Prosecutors, was the main condition, or even an indicator of the success of the justice reform. Witnessing the gloomy authenticity of Moldova’s internal political reality, European officials were forced to consistently remove the main requirements for our authorities to meet the criteria for potential membership. Otherwise, it would have been simply impossible to record achievements, since this task was set at the highest political level. No wonder, each new report of the European Commission provides less and less concrete information on justice reform replacing it with political slogans. To put it simply, if two years ago Brussels expected a high-quality work from us, rather than reports on the adopted law or appointments (and at first they even pointed to flaws and failures), then later they limited themselves to a mere requirement of formal reporting. Commission for external evaluation of judges and prosecutors is in place – good! Self-administration structures in the field of justice represented by the SCM and the SCP are renewed – perfect! The Prosecutor General has been appointed – great! But it’s better not to know what is really going on behind the scenes, what ‘Potemkin villages’ have been built in the Moldovan justice, or this will spoil the reports. Therefore, such positive assessments of the ruling regime’s deeds as those made by EU Commissioner for Justice Didier Reynders at his recent meeting with Dorin Recean are no longer surprising. They congratulated us on the new Prosecutor General, praised the ongoing justice reform and anticorruption policy, and assessed the resilience to hybrid challenges. Nothing but positivity. The idle statements of our Prime Minister that ensuring “the rule of law is important for all citizens” are greeted with “cheers”. Although the prime minister himself doesn’t bother about this very “rule of law”, for example, openly threatening unwanted judges. And all high-ranking Europeans do not give a damn about it, although such antics would cost them their offices and careers. Apart from general political motives, when the progress in bringing Moldova and Ukraine to European values and standards should be visible (especially for demonstration to the Eastern rival), European officials also have purely self-seeking reasons. The current Brussels bureaucracy needs to show its achievements to the electorate in the run-up to the elections to the European Parliament and during the formation of executive structures. Therefore, there is mutual interest to turn a blind eye to the unflattering reality in Moldovan justice (and not only there). Hence the surprising similarity of the narrative and vocabulary of Moldovan and European officials. Of course, it took some effort to demonstrate cohesion in the Moldovan justice system. The far-reaching plans of the ambitious Veronica Dragalin were put on the back burner, and she failed to gain formal control over the Prosecutor General’s Office. The anticorruption deputy head, who won the first competition for the post of the head of the Prosecutor General’s Office, even had to be publicly reprimanded at the hearings of the SCP for alleged abuses and victims. By doing so, the authorities wanted to convince everyone that it is always the PAS and its informal leader who has the last word. The expected storm of indignation at the loss of what was desired was directed away, which eventually hit the current prime minister. This prompted loud statements of Veronica Dragalin about the discovery of abuses in the Moldovan Interpol office, the detention of its long-time head Viorel Tentiu, the leaked documents from our special services, etc. Of course, nobody would believe that the Interpol representative in the country could decide for himself which names to tick. No one has forgotten Plahotniuc’s methods. But the victim was found for the public, and the lucrative position for those on the “waiting list” was vacated. It goes without saying that the internal processes of confrontation in the justice system will not end like this. There will be new high-profile scandals and revelations of those involved, including in the ranks of the authorities. The only thing that will not happen is official criticism of situation by Brussels. Moreover, the cohort of European legal experts, in one way or another linked to the appropriation of EU funds, will also remain silent. Previously of little interest to the EU legal professional community, Moldova now has become politically toxic. Well, it is safe to say that it’s a sink-or-swim world. Our few legal experts, who used to hold respected positions at home and abroad, and who so far refuse to participate in some “yellow projects”, are now the only ones who will be able to give as objective assessment of the justice situation as possible. But even this will hardly last long. What effect all this will take in the short term is already clear to the fiercest supporters of the authorities and optimists of European integration. All the democratic gains of our country, which a few years ago seemed an insignificant manifestation of our provinciality amid European examples of tolerance, now remain the last obstacle on the way of the imminent dictatorship.