EditMoldova’s judicial vetting begins to restore public trust as Ukraine falls behind
Sweeping integrity checks, access to judges' financial records and international oversight have started to rebuild confidence in Moldova's justice system
Public trust in Moldova’s justice system is beginning to recover after years of sweeping judicial reforms centred on the country’s unprecedented vetting process, according to recent polling. While confidence in courts and prosecutors remains far from overwhelming, the improvement marks a significant shift in public perception and highlights the impact of one of the European Union’s most closely watched rule-of-law reforms.
A survey conducted in December 2023 found that only 22% of Moldovans expressed relatively high trust in the courts or prosecution service, while 36-37% said they did not trust those institutions. At the time, President Maia Sandu had already been in office for nearly three years and her pro-European party had enjoyed a parliamentary majority for more than two years.
A more recent survey using the same questions showed a noticeable improvement. Trust in the judiciary rose to 32%, while distrust fell to 26-27%.
The change has largely been attributed to Moldova’s vetting process – a comprehensive integrity review of judges and prosecutors designed to overhaul a judicial system long accused of corruption and political influence.
Although the process remains unfinished, its effects have become increasingly visible to the public.
From a “captured state” to institutional reform
Moldova’s judicial reforms emerged after years in which the country’s institutions were widely seen as serving oligarchic interests.
The country became associated in European institutions with the term “captured state”, following a series of scandals including the theft of around €1 billion from Moldovan banks, a large-scale money-laundering scheme known as the “Laundromat”, and the annulment of the Chisinau mayoral election after an opposition candidate won.
According to Ilie Chirtoacă of the Legal Resources Centre from Moldova, all of these events involved active participation by the judiciary.
Following the election of Sandu and the pro-European government, initial attempts to reform the justice system failed because courts and prosecutors resisted change.
Reforming the system from within proved impossible.
A unique institutional opportunity emerged in 2022 when the mandates of all members of the Superior Council of Magistracy and, shortly afterwards, the Superior Council of Prosecutors expired almost simultaneously.
That allowed the authorities to replace both bodies through a rigorous screening process known as “pre-vetting”.
International participation
Unlike the debate that continues in Ukraine over the role of foreign experts in judicial appointments, Moldova accepted international participation from the outset.
The pre-vetting commission brought together three Moldovan members and three international experts nominated by Moldova’s international development partners, namely countries providing financial assistance to the country.
Because the process involved selecting new members rather than dismissing existing officials, the standard was intentionally strict.
Candidates could be rejected on the basis of “serious doubts” regarding their integrity rather than conclusive proof of misconduct.
Once the new judicial councils had been formed, Moldova proceeded to the next stage: full vetting of judges and senior prosecutors.
Supreme Court almost entirely replaced
The first institution subjected to the new vetting procedure was Moldova’s Supreme Court. The results illustrated the scale of the challenge. Of the 24 Supreme Court judges serving in 2023, only one successfully passed the vetting process.
Nineteen judges resigned immediately after the legislation entered into force, allowing them to avoid scrutiny while preserving generous judicial pensions and severance payments. Only five judges remained to undergo vetting, and just one ultimately passed.
According to members of the commission, most resignations were motivated not by protest but by a desire to avoid financial scrutiny.
Twelve years of financial scrutiny
The centrepiece of Moldova’s vetting process is an extensive examination of judges’ finances. The law allows commissions to review all income and expenditure over the previous 12 years, while also examining the finances of close relatives.
Commission members can request information from every bank operating in Moldova, gaining access to all bank accounts held by judges or candidates during that period. They also receive tax records and information from insurance companies, travel agencies, private hospitals and other businesses capable of documenting spending patterns. The objective is to determine whether declared income corresponds with actual expenditure.
Small discrepancies are tolerated, but unexplained differences exceeding the legal threshold may lead to a failed evaluation.
Judges frequently explain discrepancies by referring to cash gifts received at weddings, family support from relatives working abroad or financial help from parents.
In some cases, commissions have accepted such explanations where documentary evidence supported them.
One anti-corruption prosecutor successfully demonstrated lower household expenses by submitting photographs showing that his parents and in-laws had supplied his family with meat, vegetables and preserved food over many years. The commission accepted the evidence and adjusted its calculations accordingly.
Ethics matter too
Financial integrity is only one component of the assessment. The commissions also evaluate whether judges and prosecutors complied with tax obligations and respected professional ethics.
One judge failed vetting after selling an apartment at a price far below its market value, significantly reducing the tax owed on the transaction.
Lawyers seeking judicial appointments have also encountered difficulties after investigators found that legal fees had been transferred directly to personal bank accounts while law firms declared only minimal income.
Ethical concerns extend beyond finances. Commission members also examine conflicts of interest, including undisclosed personal relationships between judges and lawyers appearing before them.
One case involved a judge who repeatedly travelled on skiing holidays to Ukraine’s Bukovel resort with several lawyers who later appeared in his courtroom. The commission concluded that such relationships should have been disclosed to other parties in the proceedings.
A demanding process with growing public support
The scale of the reviews has made the reform both slow and controversial. According to the prosecutors’ vetting commission, the largest individual case examined last year contained more than 13,000 pages of documentation, while the average file exceeded 3,700 pages.
The process has faced legal challenges, political criticism and attempts to undermine its credibility.
Public confidence in vetting itself was initially low, partly because expectations for rapid results proved unrealistic. Nevertheless, trust has gradually increased as the reform has begun producing tangible outcomes.
For Moldova, the vetting process has become one of the country’s most significant rule-of-law reforms and an important part of its EU accession agenda.
For Ukraine, where public trust in the judiciary remains around 10-15% according to surveys, Moldova’s experience offers an increasingly relevant benchmark as both countries seek to advance towards EU membership.
The article in Ukrainian by Sergiy Sydorenko, chief editor of EUalive’s partner European Pravda, can be found here.
Updated: August 3, 2026 - 05:17
