Incompatibility with the legal profession: what the Central Court of Appeal ruling means for Moldovan lawyers

On 1 October 2026 Moldova’s Central Court of Appeal (Curtea de Apel Centru) upheld a normative control action brought by lawyer Ion Guzun and annulled Article 13(3) of the Statute of the Legal Profession. That provision stated that the incompatibilities set out in Article 11 of Law no. 1260/2002 on the legal profession are verified and established by the Council of the Union of Lawyers, on request or of its own motion. According to the press, the panel consisted of judges Ghenadie Mîra (presiding), Angela Bostan (rapporteur) and Nicolaie Ghedrovici.

The background explains the attention the ruling has received. Ion Guzun is a member of the Superior Council of Magistracy and holds a lawyer’s licence. According to media reports, in spring 2025 the Union of Lawyers found his status as a lawyer incompatible with his membership of the Council, and he subsequently challenged several provisions of the Statute in court.

What the law says about incompatibility

Under Article 1(2) of Law no. 1260/2002, the legal profession is free and independent, with autonomous organisation and functioning under the law and the statute of the profession. Article 11(1) provides that the profession of lawyer is incompatible with:

• any public office or position of public dignity;
• the activity of a notary or a judicial enforcement officer;
• other activities that harm the dignity or independence of the legal profession or public morals.

The incompatibilities do not apply to lawyers whose practice is suspended (Article 11(2)). In turn, Article 13(1)(b) provides that a lawyer’s practice is suspended in the event of incompatibility, for as long as that situation lasts.

Annulling the Statute rule does not abolish incompatibility

The prohibitions laid down by law remain in force. The ruling concerns a rule in the Statute – an act adopted by the profession’s own bodies – not Article 11 of the Law. The legal question is not whether incompatibilities exist, but who may establish them, under what procedure and with what safeguards for the lawyer concerned.

At the time of writing we were unable to find the reasoned judgment published, so the court’s exact reasoning cannot yet be analysed. As a matter of principle, a statutory rule conferring powers on a professional body must have a basis in law. If the court found that such a basis was lacking, the issue is one of competence and procedure, not of substantive law.

When the ruling takes effect

The normative control action is governed by Article 206(1)(e) of the Administrative Code. Courts of appeal hear actions against normative administrative acts at first instance (Article 191(2)), and their judgments may be appealed on points of law to the Supreme Court of Justice (Article 191(5)(b)). Other relevant rules:

• a normative control judgment must be reasoned in writing within 15 days of delivery, whether or not an appeal is lodged (Article 226(4));
• an annulled normative act ceases to produce legal effects from the moment the judgment becomes final (Article 228(2)), unlike an annulled individual act, which produces no effects from the moment it was issued (Article 228(1));
• a final annulment judgment is published in the same official source in which the act was published (Article 227).

Delivery and finality are two different moments. The annulment operates for the future, from the date the judgment becomes final. Individual decisions taken earlier under the annulled rule do not automatically become void; each may be reviewed or challenged under the procedure and time limits applicable to it.

The Union of Lawyers’ response

After the ruling, the Council of the Union of Lawyers was convened in an extraordinary session. According to the press, the agenda included the court ruling, the denunciation of the inter-professional charter signed on 8 May 2026 and the convening of an extraordinary congress of lawyers. The session, initially scheduled for 2 October, was postponed and, on 6 October 2026, suspended until the reasoned judgment of the Central Court of Appeal is received.

At the time of writing we were unable to find public information about the session being resumed, an appeal being lodged or the judgment becoming final.

Professional autonomy and judicial review

The autonomy of the legal profession does not exclude review of the lawfulness of acts adopted by its bodies. On the contrary, judicial review can confirm that those bodies act within the powers conferred by law. The ruling may lead to clarification – by legislation or by amending the Statute – of which body is competent to establish incompatibility, the applicable procedure and the safeguards available to the lawyer concerned.

For lawyers who hold or intend to accept public office, the practical rule is unchanged: the situation must be assessed against Article 11 of the Law and, where necessary, the practice must be suspended.

See also: Administrative disputes in Chișinău

Sources

• Ziarul de Gardă, 1 October 2026 – the Council of the Union of Lawyers convened in an extraordinary session (in Romanian).
• Telegraph.md, 6 October 2026 – background to the case (in Romanian).
• Union of Lawyers of the Republic of Moldova – statement of 6 October 2026 (in Romanian).
• Law no. 1260/2002 on the legal profession – legis.md (in Romanian).
• Administrative Code no. 116/2018 – legis.md (in Romanian).
• Image: digital illustration created for this article.