APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE “Prime Minister Dorin Recean has convened a meeting of the CES to examine, at the proposal of the Ministry of Justice, the necessary measures to avoid bot­tlenecks in the justice system. The Commission members noted the exceptional situation at the SCJ and de­cided to adopt a temporary extraordinary measure suspending the judges’ requests for resignation for 30 days in order to ensure the functioning of the institution. “It is a rapid intervention tool, an extraordinary but necessary measure. We need to adjust and ensure the legal framework for the functioning of justice so as to mitigate the risks that may arise and ensure people’s access to justice. It is one more opportunity for honest judges to step forward and act for the bene­fit of citizens”, emphasized Prime Minister Dorin Recean. According to the Minister of Justice, Veronica Mihailov-Moraru, in the context of the resignation of several judges and the risk of disruption of the SCJ’s func­tioning and a possible halt in the examination of cases, this temporary meas­ure is a last resort. “If a sufficient number of existing vacancies at the Supreme Court are filled quicker, that decision may be reviewed at any time. The decision is taken to en­sure the public interest, for the continuation of the examination process of pri­ority cases, including appeals lodged against the Pre-Vetting Commission. Furthermore, given the essential role that the court system plays in the process of defence of human rights and access to justice, it is essential to maintain its uninterrupted functioning during the state of emergency,” added Minister Ve­ronica Mihailov-Moraru.”[...] “In the evening of the same day, the Head of State, Maia Sandu, announced that she would convene the SSC on the exceptional situation in the judici­ary. This is because the GAJ postponed the appointment of the members of the SCM.” 10.3 Pre-Vetting Commission’s infringements in assessing candidates On 1 August 2023, the special panel of the SCJ for examining appeals against the decisions of the Pre-Vetting Commission adopted 21 decisions ordering the resumption of the evalu­ation of candidates. The SCJ issued a press release explaining the violations found. CASE STUDY 42. Explanation of violations found by the SCJ when issuing 21 decisions of the Pre-Vetting Commission csj.md, 1 August 2023, PRESS RELEASE on the settlement of the administrative lawsuits filed against the Pre-Vetting Commis­sion by candidates for the positions of members of the SCM and the SCP 254 “On 1 August 2023, the special panel of the SCJ issued irrevocable decisions on the admission of lawsuits in 21 administrative cases initiated by judges, pros­ecutors, and representatives of civil society, candidates for the positions of members of the SCM and the SCP. The special panel of the SCJ carried out an effective judicial review of the fac­tual and legal issues relevant to the Court’s assessment and judgements. The rule of law obliges, according to Art. 53 of the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova, Art. 6§ 1 ECHR and Art. 21, 36, 39, 219 of the Administrative Code, the courts of law to carry out an effective control of legality in respect of any administrative activity of public law carried out by any public authority on be­half of the State of the Republic of Moldova. Thus, based on the principle of the supremacy of the law in the activity of the Pre-Vetting Commission(Articles 21 and 36 of the Administrative Code), the SCJ has raised serious issues of legality regarding the decisions of the Pre-Vet­ting Commission, both on the substantive and procedural legality. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the Pre-Vetting Commission and ordered the re-evaluation of the candidates because the violations are similar, starting from: - misinterpretation of the substantive rules of law governing the evaluation, in particular of the undefined legal concepts that form the legal basis for the decisions of the Pre-Vetting Commission; - wrong ascertainment of the facts and their non-objective assessment; - unequal treatment of similar facts; - interference in the rights of judges, prosecutors, and other candidates con­trary to the principle of proportionality; - wrongful exercise of procedural discretion; - undermining the security of legal relations; - violation of the guarantees of the administrative assessment procedure, such as the right to a full examination of the facts, the right to a reasoned and impartial decision, the right to an effective hearing, the right of access to the administrative case, the right to be effectively involved in the evalua­tion procedure, the right to effective cooperation in clarifying the facts, and the right to a decision without discretionary errors in the assessment of the evidence; - violation of legitimate protection in the activity of public authorities that have previously dealt with the candidates in the handling of various legal re­lations with the candidates under assessment; - non-application of the principles and norms that form the right to good administration enshrined in the Administrative Code, and implicitly in some provisions of Law No. 26/2022, as provided for in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; and - interpreting legal rules retroactively and unfavourably to candidates, as well as other infringements. The SCJ has emphasized in each decision that any law, including Law No. 26/2022, must be interpreted and applied taking into account legal realism, i.e. in the socioeconomic context of the Republic of Moldova that has been per­petuated since the Declaration of Independence until the adoption of Law No. 26/2022, in which judges, prosecutors, and the rest of the civil servants and citi­zens have lived and continue to live. The SCJ has detached itself from any influence, including political influence, and has objectively weighed in the balance of justice the facts and laws, tak­ing into account the supremacy of the law, the separation of powers in the State, and human dignity both in general and of judges and prosecutors in particular. The decisions of the SCJ are irrevocable, binding, and have to be ex­ecuted according to the law. They can be criticized in various articles, mono­graphs, and other scientific works. The SCJ advises politicians, the Government, interest groups, the media, and anyone else to refrain from humiliating labelling, public lynching, and mak­ing televised justice.” 10.4 The fate of the magistrates who overturned the decisions of the Pre-Vetting Commission The adoption of the 21 decisions of the SCJ ordering the resumption of the evaluation of candidates by the Pre­Vetting Commission has sparked a wave of vehement cri­ticism from exponents of the Government, Parliament, and Presidency. Only four months after the Minister of Justice was asked not to resign and judges were forbidden 254 https://csj.md/index.php/despre-curtea-suprema-de-justitie/mass-media-si-relatiile-cu-publicul/2184-referitor-la-solutionarea-actiunilor-in-con­tencios-administrativ-inaintate-impotriva-comisiei-de-pre-vetting-de-catre-candidatii-la-functiile-de-membru-al-consiliului-superior-al-magistratu­rii-si-al-consiliului-superior-al-procurorilor 91