THE UNLIMITED POSSIBILITIES OF THE PRE-VETTING COMMISSION to which the SCJ had given clear and definitive judgments, which showed that they could not lead to the candidates’ non-passing of the evaluation. During the re-evaluation, the candidates drew the Pre-Vetting Commission’s attention to the obligation to respect the Constitution, the rulings of the CC, and the assessments made by the SCJ in their cases, explaining that the Commission’s actions clearly exceeded the limits of its powers. This was all the more true as the practice developed by the Pre-Vetting Commission was far from uniform, as shown in the previous section; some similar or apparently more serious violations by some candidates were considered as not being an obstacle to passing the evaluation, while other minor violations were seen as in­compatible with passing it. With only one exception, the Pre-Vetting Commission maintained the solutions given in the initial evaluations, thus operating in a manner contrary to Article 120 of the Constitution, the decision of the CC, and the rulings of the SCJ, as well as its own practice of passing other candidates. It is also curious that some judges temporarily delegated/ transferred to the SCJ from the lower courts by the SCM, com­posed of members who had passed the pre-vetting proce­dure, had separate opinions, disagreeing with the solution of sending the Commission’s decisions for re-evaluation. The judges thus transferred, in some cases, based their opinions on unconstitutional provisions of Law 26/2022, which limit­ed the possibilities for a judicial review of the Commission’s decisions. 233 It should be recalled that all of the candidates interviewed for this study considered to be unconstitutional and, contrary to Article 6 of the ECHR(the right to a legally established court), to supplement the number of SCJ judges with judges temporarily transferred from the lower courts, who participate in the proceedings of the examination of appeals against the decisions of the Pre-Vetting Commission. CASE STUDY 32. Candidate Cristina Gladcov on the limited role of the Pre-Vetting Commission in the re-evaluation Online hearing in the re-evaluation of Cristina Gladcov on 4 November 2023 234 Minute 35:00-39:00:“Although the Commission is somehow a newly formed body, the Commission’s activity is somehow new for everyone, new levers, but compliance with the provisions of the law of the Republic of Moldova is mandatory. It is more importan1t, therefore, to respect a decision of the CC in compliance with Article 120 of the Constitution of the Republic of Mol­dova. More important is that the CC’s decision, which vehemently obliged the Commission to accept those conclusions[of the SCJ], is also binding. I would like to reiterate that the opinion of the Venice Commission was also recently set out on this issue, and it is binding for the State of the Re­public of Moldova, that the decisions of the SCJ are binding. Moreover, I would like to reiterate the practice, if we speak about the re-evaluation prac­tice which the Commission has exposed, the evaluation practice[...] so the practice that the Pre-Vetting Commission itself initiated and here are a num­ber of decisions to pass candidates, whereby fiscal violations are not[...], were considered as non-essential. And in my case, there are violations which, in re­lation with the seriousness of the violation that the Commission considers as reasonable doubt of non-payment of EUR 10-20 tax, in relation with Decision No. 38, the obligation of the person to submit a declaration, the person did not submit it and you considered it was not a violation. In the case of violation of the legal regime of declaration of assets and personal inter­ests – you considered that it does not reach the degree of severity for the per­son not to be admitted. In some cases, income from three sources was not de­clared(it is another decision to evaluate positively the candidate). And there is another situation, even more interesting and even more complicated, where EUR 12,000 of income has not been declared, seven plots of land have not been declared, and you consider that the situation corresponds to the degree of complexity of evaluating positively the candidate. So, in this case, for the tax of EUR 20-30[...] you consider that it is a serious financial and ethical vio­lation. I’m asking that the irrevocable decision of the Supreme Court and the practice of uniform application in all cases, and not disproportionate to a candidate, be respected. That is all.” Minute 01:45-01:48“Taking into consideration the practice of the Commis­sion, taking into consideration the obligation to apply a final and irrevoca­ble decision and all the findings on all the issues; taking into consideration that other issues have not been found, addressed, established; taking into consideration that although in the court only copies were submit­ted and as a result of a request to compel, several more volumes were submitted – if I am not mistaken, two –, which confirm my ethical and financial integrity[...]. Although the ruling of the SCJ also had a separate opinion by a judge delegated to participate, I again want to sensitize in particular the international members of the Pre-Vetting Commission, that the dissenting opinion was issued on 1 August 2023, whereby the judge based his opinion on the provisions of the law, namely,“Respectively, I conclude, that from the arguments of the candidate made in the ap­peal, it is not found that there are circumstances that could lead to not passing the evaluation before the Commission and that would justify the resumption of the proceedings.” I would like to mention that its De­cision No. 5 of 14 February 2023, which is binding for all and which has priority, which in paragraph 2 included the wording“if it finds the ex­istence of circumstances that could have led to the candidate’s passing the evaluation”, is declared unconstitutional. Respectively, the dissent­ing opinion in question itself contains a provision deemed unconsti­tutional since February 2023. So, just to set the timeline, first in Febru­ary 2023 it is declared unconstitutional and on 1 August the dissenting opinion is issued that relies on it. An unconstitutional provision cannot be enforced and is deemed inexistent.” 9.4 Non-signing of the Pre-Vetting Commission decisions During the hearings and the examination of the appeals against the decisions of the Pre-Vetting Commission on some candidates not to pass the evaluation, it became known that the Commission’s decisions were presented to the candidates unsigned or signed in a manner not admitted by the legisla­tion of the Republic of Moldova. From the point of view of the Law, the validity of the legal act is conditional on its signature with the original handwritten signature or with the electronic signature of the chair of the collegial body or by the person authorized by him/her; otherwise, the act is not considered signed and does not produce legal effects. Law 26/2022 and the Commission Regulation do not pro­vide details on the formalities for signing decisions, and in the absence of special rules for signing Commission deci­sions, the rigours of the Administrative Code apply. 235 233 See Section 5.7 of this study. 234 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Kx0hKeeiNw 235 Administrative Code, Article 121, stipulates:«Article 121. Signing.(1) Individual administrative acts shall be signed by the head of the public authority or by 83