Igor Grosu said that Moldova’s authorities will analyze the recommendations issued by the Venice Commission regarding the external evaluation (vetting) of judges and will incorporate them into draft legislation where relevant.
Grosu stressed that the Venice Commission did not oppose the political decision to extend external evaluation in the judiciary, but instead issued recommendations aimed at strengthening safeguards for judges and preserving the exceptional nature of the process.
“The Commission has certain recommendations regarding safeguards for judges and the extraordinary character of this process. These are recommendations that we must examine and take into account,” Grosu said.
He added that European experts’ feedback will be reviewed and integrated into the final version of the law where appropriate, noting that this approach is consistent with previous legislative practice.
“We will review the recommendations; obviously we will analyze all of them, and those that are relevant we will incorporate into the draft law,” he stated.
Grosu also reiterated the government’s position that all judges should be subject to the same evaluation standards, arguing that equal treatment is necessary for the credibility of judicial reform.
He rejected concerns that the vetting process could lead to a mass departure of judges, saying that those who meet integrity standards will remain in the system, while new graduates from the National Institute of Justice will be encouraged to join.
The Speaker also pointed to systemic inefficiencies in the judiciary, arguing that inconsistent decisions in lower courts and repeated appeals contribute to delays and undermine public trust.
The Ministry of Justice confirmed that the external evaluation mechanism combines internal and external assessment tools, aimed at strengthening integrity checks and improving public confidence in the judiciary.
The Venice Commission, for its part, stated that the initiative is broadly compatible with European standards but recommended improvements to ensure greater predictability, transparency, and protection of judges’ rights during the evaluation process.