The Republic of Moldova’s ambitious judicial vetting reform has entered a decisive new stage after four years of external evaluation reshaped the country’s justice system and removed dozens of judges and prosecutors from key positions. Legal experts now argue that the success of the reform will depend not only on continuing the vetting process, but also on strengthening legal education, judicial self-governance, and institutional integrity mechanisms.
The assessment was presented during a policy dialogue organised on April 28, 2026, by the Institute for European Policies and Reforms (IPRE). The discussion gathered parliamentarians, representatives of the Ministry of Justice, members of the Superior Council of Prosecutors, officials involved in prosecutor evaluations, and legal experts.
According to legal expert Petru Istrati, Moldova’s vetting process has already achieved its core objective — resetting the upper levels of a justice system that failed to reform itself internally over the past decade.
The reform began after Moldovan authorities concluded that previous internal reforms had either stalled or been undermined. Authorities introduced external evaluation as a transitional justice mechanism designed to ensure that judges and prosecutors occupying strategic positions met standards of integrity, independence, and professional competence.
The process unfolded in several stages. Authorities first implemented the “pre-vetting” of candidates seeking positions in judicial self-administration bodies under Law No. 26/2022. They later expanded the process through Law No. 65/2023 and Law No. 252/2023 to cover judges of the Supreme Court of Justice, appellate judges, court presidents, prosecutors from specialised anti-corruption structures, the Prosecutor General, deputy prosecutors general, and prosecutors holding strategic positions in territorial offices.
International safeguards shaped the process
Moldovan authorities built the reform around several institutional safeguards intended to preserve legitimacy and legal predictability. These safeguards included consultations with the Venice Commission, the inclusion of international experts on evaluation commissions, judicial review mechanisms, and the preservation of final appointment decisions within Moldova’s judicial self-governance institutions.
Despite political resistance, procedural delays, legislative amendments, and periods of institutional paralysis, the mechanism continued to operate.
Hundreds evaluated, dozens removed or resigned
Official statistics from Moldova’s evaluation commissions reveal the scale of the reform.
During the pre-vetting phase, commissions evaluated 138 candidates for the Superior Council of Magistracy, the Superior Council of Prosecutors, and affiliated specialised boards. Only 59 candidates passed the integrity checks, while 72 failed, six withdrew from competitions, and one case remains pending.
The broader vetting process affected 166 individuals, including judges, prosecutors, and candidates for the Supreme Court of Justice from other legal professions. Authorities confirmed 51 candidates, while 29 failed the evaluation and 65 resigned or withdrew before completing the process.
The numbers remain particularly striking within the prosecution system. Of 130 prosecutors under evaluation, only 21 have been confirmed so far, seven failed the process, and 102 cases remain ongoing, including all 63 prosecutors from the Prosecutor’s Office for Combating Organised Crime and Special Cases (PCCOCS).
The reform also dramatically reshaped the composition of the Supreme Court of Justice. Authorities confirmed only 21 candidates for the country’s top court, while 25 either failed or withdrew. Another 25 judges from the court’s previous composition resigned before the evaluations even began.
Reform begins to affect court performance
Supporters of the reform argue that the effects now extend beyond institutional restructuring and are becoming visible in the functioning of Moldova’s courts.
According to the analysis presented by IPRE, the renewed composition of the Supreme Court of Justice nearly doubled the number of resolved cases in 2025 compared to the number of newly received files, allowing the court to reduce a backlog accumulated over many years.
At the Chişinău Court, specialised panels dealing with corruption and corruption-related offences reportedly increased their case disposal rate by around 50%.
The reform has also coincided with a rise in effective custodial sentences in high-level corruption cases, which previously remained rare exceptions in Moldova’s judicial practice.
Experts noted that fears of a complete institutional collapse similar to the one experienced during Albania’s judicial vetting process did not materialise in Moldova. Temporary transfers of judges between courts helped authorities avoid paralysis during the most difficult phases between 2022 and 2024.
European Court ruling highlights proportionality concerns
The Albanian experience nevertheless continues to serve as a warning for Moldovan authorities.
In the May 5, 2026 judgment Metalla v. Albania, the European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights due to a lack of proportionality between disciplinary sanctions imposed on a judge and the evidence supporting them.
Although the ruling did not challenge the legitimacy of judicial vetting itself, the decision underscored the importance of proportionality, detailed reasoning, and procedural fairness — standards Moldova’s evaluation commissions must continue to observe.
Persistent staffing shortages remain a major problem
Despite measurable progress, Moldova’s justice sector continues to face serious institutional weaknesses.
The prosecution service still struggles with staffing shortages, while many managerial positions remain filled on an interim basis. Evaluation procedures also continue to move more slowly than initially expected, contributing to institutional instability and delays in appointments.
Public trust in the justice sector remains divided. According to a recent opinion poll conducted by IPRE, approximately 49% of respondents believe the justice system has improved over the past three years, compared to 32% in 2023. However, the analysis noted that public confidence remains far from consolidated.
Controversial amendment sparks constitutional concerns
Participants in the April 28 debate also analysed recent legislative amendments introduced through Law No. 26/2026.
The amendment lowered the parliamentary voting threshold required to appoint international members of evaluation commissions from a qualified three-fifths majority to a simple majority if the initial vote fails.
IPRE criticised both the procedure and substance of the amendment in an amicus curiae submission filed with Moldova’s Constitutional Court.
Experts argued that lawmakers inserted the amendment during the second reading of an unrelated draft law concerning magistrates’ security, bypassing meaningful parliamentary debate. They also warned that lowering the voting threshold weakens political consensus requirements previously recommended by the Venice Commission.
According to the analysis, broad political consensus represents a key pillar of the credibility and legitimacy of the entire vetting process.
The next challenge: building a sustainable system
The report concludes that Moldova now faces a different challenge: ensuring that the institutions replacing removed officials can sustain the reform long term.
The authors identified three strategic priorities.
First, Moldova’s judicial self-administration bodies — the Superior Council of Magistracy and Superior Council of Prosecutors — must permanently integrate integrity verification tools developed during vetting into routine appointment, evaluation, and disciplinary procedures.
Second, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) must modernise its admission standards, ethics screening procedures, and training programmes to align with European Union legal standards and professional practices.
Third, Moldova’s law faculties must reform outdated curricula by integrating European Union law, the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights, competition law, professional ethics, and practical legal training more consistently across academic programmes.
The analysis argues that judicial integrity begins long before appointment to the bench or prosecution service and must become embedded throughout legal education.
Reform remains incomplete but irreversible
The report ultimately concludes that Moldova’s judicial vetting remains slow, demanding, and imperfect, but abandoning it midway would carry even greater institutional costs.
According to Petru Istrati, the reform has already produced irreversible structural effects within the justice sector, and its long-term success now depends on whether Moldova can build institutions capable of maintaining integrity standards after the extraordinary vetting phase ends.
The publication was produced within the project “Ensuring the integrity, efficiency and independence of the justice system in Moldova – #Justice4Moldova,” funded by the European Union and co-financed by the Soros Foundation Moldova.