Prosecutor vetting in Moldova: what the LRCM study shows about the Superior Council of Prosecutors

On 28 October 2026 the Legal Resources Centre from Moldova (LRCM) published a study of the work of the Superior Council of Prosecutors (SCP) from 1 January to 30 September 2026. Its most discussed finding concerns the external evaluation (vetting) of prosecutors: the SCP accepted 95% of the reports recommending that a prosecutor pass the evaluation, but only 18.2% of those recommending a fail. The study was written by Carolina Bagrin.

How external evaluation works

The external evaluation of judges and prosecutors is governed by Law no. 252/2023. The Evaluation Commission examines the ethical and financial integrity of the person evaluated and issues a report recommending that they pass or fail. The SCP reviews the report and decides whether to accept it; if it rejects the report, the issues identified may be sent back to the Commission for re-evaluation. SCP decisions can be challenged before the Supreme Court of Justice.

This mechanism is separate from the regular performance appraisal of prosecutors carried out under Law no. 3/2016 on the Prosecution Service.

The key figures

• The SCP examined 32 reports concerning 30 prosecutors; for two prosecutors, both the initial report and the re-evaluation report were examined.
• As of 30 September 2026, 22 prosecutors had passed, two had failed and six procedures were still pending.
• Of 20 reports recommending a pass, the SCP accepted 19 (95%).
• Of 11 fail reports decided on the merits, the SCP accepted 2 (18.2%). In the other cases it rejected the report: six times it ordered a re-evaluation, and three times, after re-evaluation, it found that the prosecutor had passed.

The gap between the two rates does not in itself prove that any decision was unlawful. Each case turns on the evidence, the legal criteria and the reasoning. The figures do, however, point to an area where greater transparency would strengthen trust in the process.

Deliberations and votes

• Deliberations on accepted reports lasted 5.9 minutes on average, compared with 22.5 minutes for rejected reports – roughly 3.8 times longer.
• Of 31 decisions on the merits, 25 (80.6%) were unanimous; all six split decisions concerned fail reports.
• In those six cases, SCP members elected from among prosecutors voted against accepting the report in 26 of 29 votes, while civil society members voted in favour of acceptance in 16 of 23 votes.

The author stresses that six cases are too few to establish a general pattern.

Late publication of reasons

The LRCM highlighted the late publication of reasoned decisions, particularly those that are challenged, which makes the information less timely and public monitoring more difficult. Law no. 252/2023 contains specific rules on publishing the SCP’s reasoned decisions. Reasons allow the person concerned and the public to understand the basis for a decision and make effective judicial review possible.

Competitions and the SCP’s workload

• 32 graduates of the National Institute of Justice registered for a competition for 10 prosecutor posts; two withdrew, 30 were interviewed and 10 were appointed. Interviews usually lasted five to seven minutes, and the questions varied considerably.
• Of three competitions for inspector posts, the first (4 posts, 3 candidates) produced a single appointment, the second attracted no candidates and the third was still under way.
• The SCP held 37 meetings, none of which failed for lack of a quorum, and examined 307 items; 154 of them (50.2%) were appeals against decisions of the Disciplinary and Ethics Board.

The LRCM’s recommendations

• communicate the reasons for SCP decisions before the full decisions are published;
• clearly define the issues sent back for re-evaluation;
• introduce comparable criteria for selection interviews;
• explain publicly why items added to supplementary agendas are urgent;
• identify why certain posts attract few candidates;
• review the SCP Regulation rule that deletes the score of the Evaluation and Selection Board once an appointment competition ends.

The recommendations are not binding, but they could inform adjustments to the SCP’s practice.

Conclusion

The credibility of the prosecution reform depends both on individual integrity checks and on how the responsible institutions reason and communicate their decisions. The LRCM data do not, on their own, demonstrate irregularities, but they show where clarity and transparency can be improved.

See also: Administrative disputes in Chișinău

Sources

• LRCM (CRJM), Carolina Bagrin – study of the SCP’s activity, 1 January – 30 September 2026 (PDF) (in Romanian).
• LRCM (CRJM) – press release of 28 October 2026 (in Romanian).
• Administrative Code no. 116/2018, Article 191 – legis.md (in Romanian).
• Image: digital illustration created for this article; it does not depict an actual SCP meeting.