Justice in the EU report: why reform is measured by more than assessments and criminal cases

The justice system in the Republic of Moldova is moderately prepared for the requirements of accession, and the reform made good progress during the period under review, the European Commission finds. The same assessment, however, shows that some institutions, including the Supreme Court of Justice, are not yet operating at full capacity and that excessive length of proceedings remains a problem.

The report published on 4 November 2026does not reduce reform to checking the integrity of judges and prosecutors. It links it to appointments, resources, case allocation, professional training, independence, the protection of rights and judicial outcomes.

For people who go to court, these are components of one and the same question: can the system resolve a case fairly, independently and within a reasonable time?

The report’s overall assessment, beyond justice, is examined separately in the article The EU report on Moldova, beyond statements.

A necessary distinction: the judiciary is not all of Chapter 23

The report separately assesses the functioning of the justice system, the fight against corruption and fundamental rights.

Moldova is assessed as moderately prepared in terms of the functioning of the justice system. For Chapter 23 as a whole (“Judiciary and Fundamental Rights”), the assessment is between some level of preparation and moderate preparation. Good progress is recognized in both cases.

Combining these ratings into a single formula can distort the meaning of the report. Improving appointment procedures does not, by itself, demonstrate that detention conditions or all anti-corruption problems have been resolved.

What progress is recognized

The Commission notes the completion of the evaluation (vetting) of all serving judges in leadership positions, and the continued assessment of candidates and prosecutors.

Under the authority of the Superior Council of Magistracy and, respectively, the Superior Council of Prosecutors, the selection and evaluation boards for judges and prosecutors are described as fully constituted, with members who have passed the evaluation. Appointments to the disciplinary boards are nearing completion.

The report also mentions the National Institute of Justice’s new strategic development plan, which incorporates the recommendations of the 2022 TAIEX assessment.

These findings concern the institutional infrastructure of the reform: who selects, who evaluates, who examines misconduct and how professionals are trained.

The Commission adds, however, that sufficient resources must be guaranteed to ensure these self-governing bodies function effectively. The existence of a structure and its capacity to work are not the same thing.

Vetting: progress, but not a process completed for the entire system

In the report, vetting refers to the extraordinary assessment of judges and prosecutors, including those in leadership positions, as well as candidates. The document distinguishes between completed assessments and those still underway.

It would not be correct to say that “all judges have passed the evaluation”. The Commission explicitly refers to serving judges in leadership positions and calls for the completion of the assessment and appointments of judges and candidates, particularly at the Supreme Court of Justice and in anti-corruption panels. For prosecutors, it calls for substantial progress, especially in specialized prosecution offices.

The report also notes the drafting of a new legislative proposal to extend vetting to judges hearing administrative and insolvency cases. A legislative proposal should not be presented as an assessment that has already taken place.

Supreme Court of Justice: capacity remains an issue

Despite new appointments, the Supreme Court of Justice is not yet operating at full capacity, delaying the implementation of its new regulatory framework, the Commission finds.

The recommendation to fill the court’s vacancies is therefore not a staffing detail. It is linked to the functioning of institutional reform.

This finding does not provide a full explanation for every delay in an individual case. It would not be correct to automatically attribute all adjournments to the same factor. However, it identifies the capacity shortfall as a systemic problem.

Length of proceedings: indicators that say more than the number of cases

The Commission calls for a significant improvement in case clearance rates and the estimated time needed to resolve cases in the courts, alongside a reduction in the considerable number of vacancies in the judiciary.

For readers, three questions need to be kept separate:

• how many cases enter an institution;

• how many are resolved;

• how long they take and under what conditions they are resolved.

A high number of cases examined does not, by itself, demonstrate a reduction in the backlog if the number of new cases is even higher. Nor can speed be the only criterion: the report also tracks the system’s independence and integrity and respect for rights.

In practice, monitoring the reform should track these dimensions together, rather than select the indicator most favorable to an institution.

Prosecution service: autonomy and case allocation

The Commission calls for strengthening the autonomy and integrity of the prosecution service. Its recommendations include completing the implementation of a manual random case allocation system and moving to an electronic system for randomly assigning cases among prosecutors, based on strict and objective criteria.

The purpose of such a rule is to limit the possibility of choosing at discretion who examines a case. The recommendation concerns the system’s organization and safeguards; by itself, it is not evidence of interference in a specific case.

The report also recommends ending the Justice Minister’s ex officio membership of the Superior Council of Prosecutors at the end of 2027. This is a recommendation to strengthen autonomy, not a change that the document describes as already implemented.

Anti-corruption: from procedural activity to definitive results

The Commission notes improved results, including an increase in the total number of criminal investigations. But it calls for more proactive investigations and for them to lead to convictions, including at the highest levels.

More specifically, the recommendations seek a stronger record of investigations, prosecutions and final convictions, with deterrent sanctions and asset confiscation. Adequate resources are called for the National Anticorruption Center (NAC), as is coordination between the NAC and the Anticorruption Prosecutor’s Office.

These requirements do not mean that a conviction is required in any particular case. Guilt must be established in accordance with the law, and the report separately calls for continued efforts to strengthen procedural rights.

That is precisely why the number of arrests should not be reported as equivalent to the number of people definitively convicted.

Why the Commission calls for better statistics

The report finds that a unified statistical system is needed to improve the accuracy of data reported in the field of anti-corruption, and calls for substantial progress towards an integrated electronic case management system for law enforcement bodies and the prosecution service.

For public assessment, the distinction matters: an investigation, a case sent to trial and a final judgment are separate stages.

A credible record must make it possible to track the process and explain the unit of measurement: cases, people, judgments or assets. It is not enough to place side by side totals that may describe different populations.

In its chapter on organized and financial crime, the Commission also calls for measurable results in the confiscation, enforcement and effective recovery of proceeds of crime. An asset that has been seized should not be confused with one that has been definitively confiscated or effectively recovered by the state.

Fundamental rights are part of the reform

The report finds that the legislative and institutional framework is largely in place, but maintains concerns about detention conditions, including in police pre-trial detention facilities, and the treatment of people with disabilities in specialized institutions. It calls for a higher rate of execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.

The Commission calls for adequate resources for the People’s Advocate and the Equality Council, the safe deinstitutionalization of people with disabilities through community-based solutions, and improved conditions in places of detention.

Recommendations include transferring responsibility for the prison medical system from the Ministry of Justice, and for medical services in police pre-trial detention facilities from the Ministry of Internal Affairs, to the Ministry of Health.

These requirements show that justice reform cannot be measured only by efforts to combat crime. It also concerns the treatment of people over whom the state exercises power.

What would constitute verifiable evidence of progress

For the next stage, the Commission’s recommendations can be tracked through several benchmarks:

The table is an editorial summary of monitoring areas, not a separate list of conditions adopted by the EU.

The European assessment recognizes the change, but calls for it to become functional. For citizens, proof will not simply be a new structure or a new law, but access to an independent, predictable and efficient procedure in which rights are respected.