Codru Vrabie: Judicial reform in the Republic of Moldova has yet to yield results

Vladimir Mitev

Summary of the interview with Codru Vrabie

The interview with Codru Vrabie, a Romanian expert in good governance, assesses the judicial reform in the Republic of Moldova, concluding that it has not yet yielded successful results.

Key Points:

• Failure of Vetting: Vrabie does not consider the reform a success. He notes that while the vetting (background check) of candidates for the Superior Council of Magistracy and Superior Council of Prosecutors led to the formation of new councils, the subsequent decisions of these councils raise questions. Furthermore, the vetting process for leadership positions has led many competent judges and prosecutors to leave the judiciary to avoid the procedure, resulting in a system “cleansing” of those with integrity issues but also losing valuable professionals.
• Political Populism: Highly visible measures, such as the vetting process, are seen as having a high degree of populism aimed at attracting the electorate, which was electorally successful for Maia Sandu’s party. However, the judicial outcome—where reform was truly needed—is not yet visible. Moldova is currently facing a pronounced shortage of magistrates and an increased workload.
• Case of Veronica Dragalin: The former chief anti-corruption prosecutor, Veronica Dragalin, an “extremely competent person,” was forced to leave her post due to political pressure, specifically concerning a bill to merge anti-corruption and organized crime prosecution structures, a measure Vrabie notes the Venice Commission recommended against.
• Suggested Solution: To resolve the impasse, Vrabie suggests that Moldova should have initially brought in about 100 new judges and 100 new prosecutors with high integrity standards before introducing vetting. This would have reduced the workload and allowed the system to absorb the departure of those unwilling to meet the new standards. He believes this solution is still applicable today.
• Romania Comparison and Warning: Vrabie warns that Romania should not replicate Moldova’s vetting approach, as it proved detrimental. The similarity between the two countries is the lack of a permanent capacity by the National Integrity Agency (ANI) and the State Tax Service to check the assets and conflicts of interest of magistrates. Vetting was introduced in Moldova as an exceptional measure, but the failure to strengthen the permanent oversight bodies means the reform is not sustainable in the long term.
• Need for Systemic Integrity: He emphasizes the need to raise integrity standards not only in the judiciary but also among lawyers, notaries, liquidators, and bailiffs to prevent corrupt individuals from continuing their practices in other parts of the justice system (citing Lia Savonea as an example).
• New Generation: Graduates of training programs like “Leaders for Justice” are described as being on the “right side of the fence,” supporting systemic and sustainable reform with the right values. However, they are currently marginal in the system, unable to occupy leadership positions to exert reformist influence. Vrabie is optimistic that they will reach decision-making positions within the next five years if the reforms succeed.

Codru Vrabie discusses Romanian demands for judicial reform following the broadcast of Recorder’s documentary on the capture of justice in Romania.

Codru Vrabie: The Romanian justice system needs to be fundamentally changed. However, I fear that we will only see a few cosmetic legislative changes

Intro

Codru Vrabie is a civic activist, trainer, and consultant on good governance, transparency, accountability, and integrity in the public sector, contributing to several reform measures in justice and public administration. With a bachelor’s degree in legal and political sciences (studying in Romania, Bulgaria, and the United States) and a master’s degree in administrative sciences and European affairs (studying in Romania, the Netherlands, and Spain), Codru has been working for civil society in Romania since 1998. Since 2010, Codru has been working with the Leaders for Justice program, which has been replicated in the Republic of Moldova since 2017.

Judicial reform in the Republic of Moldova

For several years, the Republic of Moldova was held up as an example by some people in the NGO sector for its judicial reform. How do you assess judicial reform in the Republic of Moldova? Where has it succeeded and where has it failed?

With regard to judicial reform in the Republic of Moldova, I do not consider it a success.

Essentially, four to five years ago, they found that Moldova’s oligarchs and corrupt politicians were receiving preferential treatment in the justice system. Let’s say it was a situation similar to what we see today in Romania, but determined by other historical and institutional reasons. They wanted to profoundly change the system by introducing a legislative package that included the exceptional and temporary measure of vetting for judges and prosecutors.

What is vetting? It is a form of personal and professional background check for each judge and prosecutor. They began this process first with the candidates for the Superior Council of Magistracy and the Superior Council of Prosecutors. We can say that they had a degree of success, with the new councils being formed, but the decisions taken by them in the last six months raise many questions and generate contradictory points of view.

This shows that magistrates who have gone through the vetting procedure are not necessarily more competent or intelligent than their predecessors. There have been errors and mistakes that could have been avoided; therefore, I would not classify this as a successful reform measure.

Subsequently, vetting continued for people in leadership positions in the justice system: at the level of the Supreme Court, the presidents of the Courts of Appeal, and the courts of the Republic of Moldova. The result is that many judges and prosecutors prefer not to run for leadership positions, precisely to avoid the vetting procedure, or simply choose to leave the judiciary. Once again, we find ourselves in a situation where we cannot speak of success. Although it could be argued that the system is “cleansing” itself of those with integrity issues, the problem arises when truly competent people leave.

I can give you a concrete example: Veronica Dragalin, who was Moldova’s chief anti-corruption prosecutor until February 2025. She was forced to leave her post due to pressure from ruling politicians. An extremely competent person left without going through the vetting procedure, because it was no longer necessary.

What was Ms. Dragalin accused of? She was accused of failing to extradite former Prime Minister Vladimir Plahotniuc from Greece, where he had taken refuge. Interestingly, Mr. Plahotniuc was eventually brought to the Republic of Moldova, but six months later. How was Ms. Dragalin forced to leave? Through a bill submitted to Parliament to merge the anti-corruption and organized crime prosecution structures, a measure she described as “utter nonsense” from a political point of view. The Venice Commission’s recently published report confirms Ms. Dragalin’s position, recommending that this merger not go ahead.

What I am trying to emphasize is that highly visible measures have been taken, marked by a high degree of populism, aimed at attracting the electorate. These measures worked at the electoral level, given that Maia Sandu’s party regained the presidency and a majority in Parliament. However, the judicial outcome—where reform was really needed—is not yet visible. On the contrary, Moldova is currently facing an even more pronounced shortage of judges and prosecutors, and the workload for those who remain has increased considerably.

We are therefore in a situation similar to that in Romania, where professionals in the system believe that the proposed reforms do not support the act of justice, but have a political undertone. There is a strong resistance movement among Moldovan magistrates. The difference from Romania is that in Moldova, the magistrates who oppose the reform come from two categories: anti-reform conservatives (as in Romania) and convinced reformists, who oppose the government’s current measures because they want a different approach.

In Romania, for the moment, the reformists seem to be on the government’s side, but this could be temporary, until concrete projects are presented. Until then, we still have to wait about two to three months.

Regarding the similarities between Moldova and Romania, I would like to sound a warning: if we look closely at how this reform was carried out with vetting in Moldova, we can draw a very important conclusion for Romania. Specifically, under no circumstances should the idea of vetting magistrates in Romania, as was done in Moldova, be allowed in the reform package that we are about to see (if we see it in the next three months). If we go in that direction, we will be making an obvious mistake.

The path out of the impasse

If we have reached this impasse, how do we get out of it?

What Moldova needs to do — and what it should have done four years ago (I gave an interview on this subject in Chisinau) — was to open up the Moldovan judiciary to bring in about 100 new judges and 100 new prosecutors before introducing vetting. People who meet high standards of integrity and who, once introduced into the system, would allow politicians to say: “Here, the remaining 400 old judges, we are introducing you into a vetting system to see how you measure up to the standard of the 100 new judges.” The same would apply to the 700 old prosecutors in relation to the 100 new ones.

If this were done, it would first and foremost reduce people’s workload. With a lighter workload, they could take a closer look at their own professional careers and, possibly, correct past mistakes. And those who did not want to meet the new standard could have left the judiciary without the system suffering, because the positions were already filled by newcomers.

I believe that this solution can also be applied today in Moldova, if the Ministry of Justice, in partnership with the Superior Council of Magistrates and the Superior Council of Prosecutors, understands the need for new staff in the system. However, I fear that this will not happen.

I would like to draw attention to one thing that is equally important in both Moldova and Romania: it is essential to work together with the Union of Lawyers of the Republic of Moldova and the National Union of Bar Associations of Romania. The standard of integrity for lawyers entering the profession must be raised. If we allow people like Lia Savonea to leave the judiciary (whether in Moldova or Romania) and enter the legal profession directly, we will have solved absolutely nothing at the systemic level. The system will continue to be corrupt. We need these standards of integrity everywhere, not just in the judiciary.

Comparison between the state of justice in Romania and the Republic of Moldova

What else does the comparison between the state of justice in Romania and the Republic of Moldova show?

I will say one more thing that I think is important, as it applies equally to both countries. Perhaps the situation in Moldova is a little more serious because of the exceptional measure of vetting.

This situation has arisen because the National Integrity Agency and the State Tax Service (as it is called in Moldova) have never been able or willing to vet judges and prosecutors. This is also true in Romania: the ANI and the tax authorities, whether in Chișinău or Bucharest, have never checked the assets and conflicts of interest of magistrates.

In Moldova, vetting was introduced as an exceptional measure, but for four years now, nothing has been done in terms of legislation or procedures to strengthen the permanent capacity of the ANI and the Tax Service to check magistrates. As long as this check remains the sole responsibility of the vetting commission, the measure is not sustainable in the long term. We know that the measure is exceptional; in a maximum of two years, the commissions will be dissolved and the risk is that we will be left with nothing solid or sustainable.

That is why I believe that the lesson from Moldova should be replicated in Romania by closely monitoring the capacity of the ANI and the Tax Authority to verify magistrates. Once we have established this—and I am aware that this is a medium- to long-term reform agenda, lasting two to three years, not something that can be resolved in three months—we need to strengthen integrity in the legal profession, the notarial profession, among liquidators, and among bailiffs. Anywhere in the justice system, Savonea-type characters can appear to corrupt and pervert the entire mechanism.

This is my opinion: very careful intervention is needed and, I repeat, superior intelligence to analyze ideas, concepts, and systems. Whether or not the secret services have a role to play in this process, I decline to comment, as I am not an expert in this area. But if they do have a role to play, they need to do so intelligently, not through measures such as “let’s catch the little guys and cut off their heads.”

The young leaders in the justice system in Romania and the Republic of Moldova

You have been involved for years in training young leaders in the justice system in both countries. How do you see this generation? How much potential does it have to change something in the judicial system and in society in Romania and the Republic of Moldova?

Regarding the graduates of our training programs, I can honestly say that I am very happy that they are all on the “right side of the fence”—with the necessary quotation marks. In other words, I have followed them and noticed that they support a systemic, sustainable reform agenda that can endure in the long term. They have the right values, and this makes me extremely happy because it means that we have done our job well.

Equally, however, these people, as I said earlier, are relatively marginal in the system, in the sense that they are not allowed to occupy leadership positions from which they can exert reformist influence and from which they can radiate the new values of the profession into the system. This is a shortcoming that will probably be remedied over time. More specifically, I expect that if these reforms are successful, these people will, in one way or another, reach decision-making positions within the next five years. This will enable them to lead by example and become role models in their professions, both in Moldova and Romania.

For now, it is a little too early. And if you tell me that after 10-15 years it is still too early, my answer is that this is how things happen on a historical scale. If we had the budgets and financial resources to train 100 graduates each year instead of 20 in Romania, and 50 instead of 15 in Moldova, things would certainly have progressed more quickly. But these are the limitations we face in civil society; we do not have discretionary funds at our disposal.

Moreover, if we did more and faster, counterarguments would obviously arise, such as: “You are Soros’s people, Bill Gates’s people” or who knows what other nonsense. I believe that patience and optimism are needed for things to move forward. They are evolving much more slowly than we would like, but fortunately, they are still moving in the right direction—or at least that is how I see it. Perhaps, being directly involved in this effort, I do not see everything objectively, but this is my view.

Photo: Codru Vrabie (source: Vlad Stanciu, Society INK)

Subscribe to the channel of the blog “The Bridge of Friendship” in YouTube, where a number of video and audio interviews are published! The blog can also be followed in Facebook and Twitter. Its Telegram channel is here. And here is its Substack account.

About Author