FRIEDRICH-EBERT-STIFTUNG THE PRE-VETTING PHASES: THE UNSEEN FACE OF JUSTICE REFORM In assessing and deciding on these criteria, the Pre­Vetting Commission is not bound by the findings of other bodies with competences in the field. 53 Following the evaluation procedure, the Pre-Vetting Commission issues a reasoned decision as to whether or not the evaluation has been passed. If a candidate with­draws from the competition after the institutions respon­sible for organizing the elections or, as the case may be, the competition, have forwarded the lists of candidates to the Pre-Vetting Commission, irrespective of the reason given by the candidate, this is deemed to be equivalent to the candidate’s failure to pass the evaluation. The decision of the Pre-Vetting Commission must include the relevant facts, the reasons, and the Commission’s conclusion as to whether or not the evaluation should be positive. The decision shall be taken by a majority vote of the members participating in the taking of the decision and the members of the Commission shall not be entitled to refrain from voting. In the event of a tie vote, the Pre-Vetting Commission shall repeatedly examine the information on the candidate in question and put it to the vote the following day. If a tie vote is repeated, the can­didate is deemed to not to have passed the evaluation. A candidate shall be deemed not to meet the integrity criteria if there are serious doubts as to the candidate’s compliance with the requirements of ethical and financial integrity, which have not been removed by the person assessed. The decision of failing the evaluation shall constitute a le­gal basis for not admitting the candidate to the elections or competition. The decision is forwarded to the compe­tent bodies for consideration of the infringements found, but the findings in the decision do not have probative value for further proceedings or processes. The decision of the Pre-Vetting Commission is sent to the candidate’s email address and to the institution responsible for organizing the elections or, as the case may be, the com­petition. If the candidate does not notify the Pre-Vetting Commission within 48 hours of the date of dispatch of the decision of the Pre-Vetting Commission of his/her refus­al to publish, the decision on his/her assessment will be published on the website of the institution responsible for organizing the elections or, where applicable, the compe­tition, in a depersonalized form, except for the candidate’s name and surname, which will remain public. 54 3.4 Appeal procedures The decision of the Pre-Vetting Commission not to pass the evaluation may be appealed by the candidate within five days from the date of receiving the reasoned de­cision. The unfavourable decision of the Pre-Vetting Commission is appealed before the SCJ and is to be ex­amined within 10 days. In practical terms, the examina­tion of the appeals took around 6-7 months; in two cases, it took one month, and in one case it took 12 months. During this time, one appeal was rejected and 22 appeals by candidates were accepted. An appeal against the decision of the Pre-Vetting Commission shall be heard and determined in accord­ance with the procedure laid down in the Administrative Code, subject to the exceptions established by law, and shall not have suspensive effect on the decisions of the Pre-Vetting Commission, elections, or competition in which the candidate participates. When examining the appeal against a decision of the Pre-Vetting Commission, the SCJ may adopt one of the following decisions: to reject the appeal or to accept it and order that the Pre-Vetting Commission resume the procedure of evaluating the candidate. If the Pre-Vetting Commission resumes the evaluation of a candidate, the provisions of the integrity evaluation procedure de­scribed above apply. 55 Since the resumption of the evaluation procedure, the Pre-Vetting Commission has repeatedly evaluated seven candidates over a period of eight months. The shortest re-evaluation interval was four months. At the same time, the deadlines set for convening the GAJ and the GAP were not adjusted to allow all candidates whose appeals were upheld to be elected to the posts for which they had applied. Just before adopting the first decisions of the Pre-Vetting Commission, the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova narrowed the basis for admitting appeals and ordering the re-evaluation of candidates in order to avoid the pos­sibility of annulment of the Commission’s decisions on the grounds of procedural violations only in cases where the SCJ would find that, in the evaluation procedure, the Pre-Vetting Commission had admitted some seri­ous procedural errors, which affected the fairness of the evaluation procedure, and that there were circumstances that could lead to the candidate passing the evaluation. 56 53 Ibid, Art. 8. 54 Ibid, Art. 13. 55 Law 26/2022 on Pre-Vetting, Art. 14. 56 Law 26/2022 on Pre-Vetting, Art. 14 para.(8) letter b), in the wording of Law 354 of 22 December 2022. 26