“The rule of law exists there where the state is the one that obeys the law. Can we speak about the rule of law where the prosecutors act in collusion with judges against a citizen?” asked rhetorically Ion Dron, chairman of the public association Center for Initiatives and Public Authorities Monitoring. He presented the case of a citizen whose complaint has been examined for ten years, but a final decision on it hasn’t been yet made.
In a news conference at IPN, Ion Dron said the citizen, from procedural viewpoint, has the right to judicial control over the documents issued by the prosecutor. “The question is, why do the judges avoid carrying out this control and act in collusion with prospectors?”.
Ion Dron related the case of a citizen who didn’t come into possession of the apartment in which he invested €28,000 following a court judgment passed based on proceedings. Remaining without apartment and without money, in August 2009 the citizen filed a complaint to the Prosecutor’s Office.
Initially, the prosecutors and the judges of inquiry had been in a continuous confrontation, but later began to cooperate. In November 2017, the Buiucani Prosecutor’s Office made an ordinance by which it rejected the challenges of Popușoi, who disputed another refusal to take legal action. In July 2018, judge of inquiry Andrei Niculcea rejected the challenge, arguing it was submitted late. This interpretation was quashed by the Appeals Court in February 2019 and the case was sent back for reexamination. In May 2019, judge of inquiry Ludmila Barbos made a decision similar to that of Niculcea, even if the Appeals Court ruled that the interpretation of the latter was mistaken and the application was filed on time. The Appeals Court overturned this decision in October 2019. The complaint is again examined by the Ciocana Court, this time by another judge of inquiry.
According to Ion Dron, the judges of inquiry Andrei Niculcea and Ludmila Barbos are former employees of the Prosecutor’s Office “who were parachuted from the seats of prosecutors to those of judges”. “This shows that the judicial control over the documents issued by prosecutors in the Republic of Moldova is formal in character. A cartel between judges of inquiry, who are former prosecutors, and prospectors was established,” said the Center’s chairman.
To his mind, no one answers for the quality of the issued procedural documents as there is no supervisor responsible for the quality of the adopted documents in the prosecution service and at courts of law. If there had been such a supervisory authority, the judges wouldn’t have acted in concert with prosecutors. This case that has lasted for over ten years shows how easily a person, a businessman can be deprived of goods, investments because there are no authorities that would ensure the protection of the made investments.
A criminal complaint hasn’t been solved for ten years because no one wants this to be done. “In the Republic of Moldova, the judicial system works according to the principle “we need judges to judge cases”. This is a paradigm that is partially correct, if not mistaken, as the judges are obliged not only to do justice, but to also ensure correctness. If we do not switch over to a new paradigm, namely that “we need people to judge destinies”, we have no chance. Those who wear the robe of judge should realize that this is not only a job, but also a destiny that they should fulfill,” noted Ion Dron.
The news conference titled “Criminal complaint examined during ten years by Moldovan prosecutors and judges” forms part of the series of conferences held in the framework of IPN’s project “Injustice Revealed through Multimedia”. The project’s partner is the Lawyers Union of Moldova. IPN Agency does not assume the right to decide if the organizers of news conferences are right in the cases about which they will speak as this is the exclusive prerogative of justice, but the exaggeratedly long examination period of these cases, which is much longer than the law allows, can be considered an act of evident unfairness and injustice. IPN News Agency does not bear responsibility for the public statements made in the public sphere by the organizers of news conferences.