CHANGING THE RULES DURING THE GAME meaning of the provisions of the Administrative Code, nor is its activity public, with some exceptions established by the law by which it was established. This is how a group of MPs interpreted some provisions of Law No. 26/2022 on some measures related to the selection of candidates for the position of member of the self-ad­ministrative bodies of judges and prosecutors and Law No. 65/2023 on the external evaluation of judges and candidates for the position of judge of the SCJ.” The interpretation comes more than one year after the entry into force of the law regulating the work of the Pre-Vetting Commission, which was published in the Official Gazette on 8 July. According to an opinion issued by the Centre for the Analysis and Preven­tion of Corruption, although the law was passed by the Parliament to pro­vide clarity, it brings more confusion.[...] Some‘legal acrobatics’ found in the Administrative Code According to Ilie Chirtoaca, the President of the LRCM, an NGO that moni­tors the external evaluation, the interpretation could be related to the ap­peals filed by magistrates and prosecutors to the SCJ[...] “This makes the Administrative Code inapplicable before the Commission. Why is this important? There was information, unconfirmed, that the decisions of the Commission pending before the SCJ were going to be rejected because some‘legal acrobatics’ were found in the Administrative Code to annul(the decisions ed.), without having a solid argumentation based on the Pre-Vetting Law, but based on the Administrative Code. We saw that it was a bill passed very quickly, both in the first and second readings, meaning that there was also an urgency. It was also quickly promulgated by the President, within one day, and published in the Official Gazette, which leads me to believe that it was linked to the work of the SCJ[...] Yes, the Commission is not normally cre­ated in the way public institutions are. The Secretariat of the Commission is, we understand, supported by development partners. Certainly, we cannot au­tomatically say that the Commission is a public authority; this is not reflected in its acts and statute, and I believe that this was done to facilitate certain pro­cesses[...] These procedures make the Commission’s work very difficult and I believe that in the end they reduce its efficiency[...]”, said Ilie Chirtoaca. If it is not a public authority, the Commission is unconstitutional and all its acts could be challenged in court On the other side, Alexandru Arseni, PhD in law and university profes­sor, says the interpretation offered by the draft raises questions about the Commission’s constitutionality. “This interpretation that Parliament has given shows that it is an unconstitu­tional Parliament in exercising its powers and passing laws, and it is one that violates the dignity and honour of citizens, guaranteed by the Constitution[...]. All the more so, the evaluation is public.[...] If it is not a public authority, the Commission is unconstitutional, and all its acts can be challenged in court, be­cause through these actions the dignity and honour of the office of judge and that of the system as a whole have been damaged[...] They are intended to cover up the activity,[...] to implement, in practice, in the Republic of Moldova, the functioning of the mechanism of secret services[...] This official interpreta­tion denotes that the current Government profanes and discredits the judicial authority in its complexity, magistrates and prosecutors, and brings to zero all decisions, because this is not an official state institution, but a secret institu­tion,” said Alexandru Arseni. 133 Also for unclear reasons, by the same law, the Parliament interpreted that the legal requirements for the mem­bers of the Pre-Vetting Commission not to have held the position of MP or Member of the Government and not to have been a member of a political party in the last three years were in fact a restriction valid only with reference to the Parliament, the Government, and political parties of the Republic of Moldova. 134 It would not have been clear how that interpretation was useful more than one year after the appointment of the members of Pre-Vetting Commission, unless some of the international members of the Pre-Vetting Commission has not been a member of the Parliament, the Government, or a political party in his/her country of origin. The situation was clarified after the introduction of other amendments to Law 26/2022 by Law 252/2023, which provided for the transmission of the attributions of the Pre-Vetting Commission to the Evaluation Commission created by Law no. 65/2023 on the external evaluation of judges and candidates for the position of judge of the Supreme Court of Justice(Vetting Commission): 135 two of the three members of the Vetting Commission, Lavly Perling and Scott Bales, were party members in their home states, Estonia and the USA, at the time of their appointment to office on 15 June 2023. CASE STUDY 18. Members of the Vetting Commission who took over the functions of the Pre-Vetting Commission, Scott Bales and Lavly Perling, appointed in contradiction with the requirement not to be members of political parties Unimedia.md,“Political Vetting with proper documents”. Cristina Ciubotaru: The Chair of the Judicial Evaluation Commission him­self is a party member in the USA”, 3 August 2024 136 “The former deputy director of the National Anticorruption Centre, Cristina Ciubotaru, is revolted by the fact that the chairman of the Vetting Commis­sion, which evaluates judges and candidates for the position of judge of the Supreme Court of Justice, the American citizen Scott Bales, is a member of the Democratic Party, from the State of Arizona.“On 15 June 2023, the Par­liament appointed the members of the Vetting Commission. Exactly three weeks after they appointed two members of parties from their home coun­tries as Vetting Commission members in Moldova, the Legislature gives an interpretation that, in fact, members of political parties in Moldova cannot be appointed. When will they understand here that the laws are not retroac­tive...?”, emphasized Cristina Ciubotaru. “The chairman of the Vetting Commission, which evaluates judges and can­didates for the position of judge of the Supreme Court of Justice, the Ameri­can citizen Scott Bales, is a member of the Democratic Party from the State of Arizona. That’s what Wikipedia says. Another member of the Commission is the Estonian citizen Lavly Perling, who has been party president for a year. Based on Law 65/2023 on the external evaluation of candidates for the posi­tion of judge of the Supreme Court of Justice, on 15 June 2023, the Parliament appointed the members of the Vetting Commission. Art.7 of Law 65/2023 states that a person who has been part of a political party in the last three years cannot be appointed as a member of the Com­mission. Exactly 3 weeks after they appointed 2 members of parties from their countries to this Commission, the Parliament gives an interpretation 133 https://www.zdg.md/stiri/stiri-sociale/creeaza-premisele-transformarii-intr-o-entitate-semi-transparenta-comisia-pre-vetting-si-activitatea-aceste­ia-nu-sunt-publice-potrivit-unei-initiative-legislative/ 134 Art. I item 2 of Law 180/2023 of 7 July 2023 on the interpretation of some provisions of Law 26/2022 on pre-vetting and Law 65/2023 on Vetting. 135 Art. 21 point I and art. 22 paragraph(3) of Law 225/2023 of 17.08.2023 on the external evaluation of judges and prosecutors and amending certain norma­tive acts 136 https://unimedia.info/ro/news/da62153b921ca98e/vetting-politic-cu-acte-in-regula-cristina-ciubotaru-insusi-presedintele-comisiei-de-evaluare-a-jude­catorilor-este-membru-de-partid-in-sua.html 45