Quarterly Monitoring Report No. 5 on the Implementation of the Justice Sector Reform Strategy

“Monitoring the Justice Sector Reform for Increased Government Accountability”

Quarterly Monitoring RAPORT

Report No. 5 Rele tratamente on the Implementation of the pe motiv de Justice Sector Reform Strategy discriminare Monitoring period: 1 January – 31 March, 2014

în Moldova

Chisinau – 2014

1

Authors: Alexandru Postica, Promo-LEX Association Olesea Stamate, Association for Efficient and Responsible Governance (AGER) Pavel Postica, Promo-LEX Association Coordinator of the edition: Olga Manole, Promo-LEX Association Redaction of text in Romanian: Rodica Mahu Translation of text into English: Lucia Aprodu Computer processing: “Depol Promo” SRL

All rights protected. The content of the Report may be used and reproduced for non-profit purposes and without Promo-LEX’s prior agreement by indicating the source of information.

PROMO–LEX Association 11/41 Dumitru Riscanu St, Chisinau, Moldova Tel/fax: (+373 22) 45 00 24 E-mail: info@promolex.md www.promolex.md

Association for an Efficient and Responsible Governance (AGER) 7/1 T. Balta St, MD-2012, Chisinau, Moldova Tel: (+373) 699 888 22 E-mail: olesea.stamate@ager.md www.ager.md Delegation of the European Union in the Republic of Moldova 12 Kogalniceanu St, MD-2001 Chisinau, Moldova Tel: (+373 22) 50 52 10 Fax: (+373 22) 27 26 22

East European Foundation 98, 31 August 1989 St, Chisinau, Moldova Tel: (+373 22) 23-53-43 Fax: (+373 22) 54-23-38 E-mail: info@eef.md www.eef.md

This Report was prepared as part of the project “Monitoring the Justice Sector Reform for Increased Government Accountability”, implemented by Promo-LEX Association and the Association for Efficient and Responsible Governance. The project is funded by the European Union. The project is co-funded by the East European Foundation from financial resources offered by the Swedish Government through the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark/DANIDA. 2

The contents are the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of European Union, East Europe Foundation, Swedish Government, Sida or Denmark MFA/DANIDA.

CONTENTS Abbreviations . ......................................................................................................................................................4 Introduction . .........................................................................................................................................................5 Executive Summary ...........................................................................................................................................7

Chapter I. Assessment of Implementation of Actions under Pillar I ..............................................11 Chapter II. Assessment of Implementation of Actions under Pillar II . .........................................15

Chapter III. Assessment of Implementation of Actions under Pillar III .......................................22 Chapter IV. Assessment of Implementation of Actions under Pillar IV ........................................26 Chapter V. Assessment of Implementation of Actions under Pillar V . ..........................................28 Chapter VI. Assessment of Implementation of Actions under Pillar VI ........................................31 Chapter VII. Assessment of Implementation of Actions under Pillar VII ....................................34 Chapter VIII. Trial Monitoring and Assessment of User Satisfaction with the Act of Justice ..........................................................................................................................................36 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................................60

3

ABBREVIATIONS CHRM Center for Human Rights of Moldova CPC Civil Procedure Code CPO Central Probation Office CPP Criminal Procedure Code CS Customs Service DPI Department of Penitentiary Institutions ECtHR European Court of Human Rights GD Government Decision GDL General Directorate for Legislation GPI General Police Inspectorate ICMP Integrated Case Management Program JSRS Justice Sector Reform Strategy LRCM Legal Resources Center of Moldova MITC Ministry of Information Technologies and Communications MLSPF Ministry of Labor, Social Protection and Family MOE Ministry of Economics MOF Ministry of Finance MOH Ministry of Healthcare MOI Ministry of Internal Affairs MOJ Ministry of Justice MRDC Ministry of Regional Development and Constructions NAC National Anticorruption Center NBS National Bureau of Statistics NCJEE National Center for Judicial Expert Examination NIC National Integrity Council NIJ National Institute of Justice NLAC National Legal Aid Council NSB National Statistics Bureau NUCEO National Union of Court Enforcement Officers (Bailiffs) PGO Prosecutor General’s Office ROLISP USAID Rule of Law Institutions Support Program SCJ Supreme Court of Justice SCM Supreme Council of Magistrates SCP Supreme Council of Prosecutors SIS Information and Security Service WG Working Group 4

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION This Report was prepared within the project “Monitoring the Justice Sector Reform for Increased Government Accountability”, implemented by the Promo-LEX Association and the Association for an Efficient and Responsible Governance (AGER), with the financial support of the European Union.

The monitoring focused on the observation of two main components: assessing the implementation of activities contained in the Action Plan for Justice Sector Reform Strategy implementation, and trial monitoring.

The monitoring mission employs 36 national monitors, whose work is coordinated by a Network Coordinator, and three national experts that form the Analytical Team. The monitors within the network attend trial hearings in precinct and district courts, in the courts of appeal and the Supreme Court, and in specialized courts. Overall, 1872 trials will be monitored throughout the project. The monitors produce quarterly reports on the progress registered in implementing the activities listed in the Action Plan, verified in the field.

Methodology. The Methodological Guidebook for Monitoring the Implementation of the Justice Sector Reform Strategy in Moldova provides a mechanism for monitoring the activities contained in the Action Plan, including interviewing relevant subjects/institutions to determine the outcome of these actions (conducted studies, developed bills, approved methodologies, etc.).

The findings herein were formulated based on the responses to the questions in the Quarterly Report. In each district center, monitors interviewed lawyers, enforcement officers, notaries, mediators and representatives of regional offices of the National Legal Aid Council to determine whether these subjects were aware of particular actions, and in what capacity; whether or not they were involved in the implementation of these actions, and their opinion on the respective actions. At the same time, in order to effectively assess the implementation of each activity, interviews were conducted with representatives of all institutions responsible for their implementation, but also with beneficiary organizations.

Two categories of actions/activities were analyzed for the purpose of this report, as follows: • Actions due for completion in the first Quarter of 2014.

• Overdue actions (which were to be completed by 31 December 2013).

Moreover, in order to be tracked more easily, actions were grouped into the following seven categories:

Group I. Studies and needs assessments examining current practices; proposing recommendations for reform; Group II. Development of methodological recommendations and training curricula; Group III. Improving the legal framework and drafting bills and regulations; Group IV. Professional training activities for various judicial actors;

Group V. Development and use of awareness and information tools;

Group VI. Procurement and installation of equipment; software upgrades;

Group VII. Creating and increasing the efficiency of judicial bodies (committees, colleges, etc.).

5

INTRODUCTION

The Promo-LEX Association and the Association for an Efficient and Responsible Governance (AGER) sincerely thank all those who devoted time and attention to the monitors and answered their questions thus contributing to the development of this Report.

6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The results of the fifth Quarterly Monitoring Report for the Implementation of the Justice Sector Reform Strategy allow us to draw some significant conclusions.

Unfortunately, we found that progress in the implementation of the Action Plan is continuously slow. Thus, of the 264 actions due for implementation by 31 March 2014, 157 were implemented, and 107 remain overdue, which represents a ratio of 59% to 41%, respectively. Although in terms of percentage the report demonstrates a positive growth compared to the previous one, a worrisome fact is that very few actions were planned for the reference period, and even fewer have been implemented (only 1 out of 7). As for the pillars where no action has been planned during this period, we have did not notice an intention to catch up on the overdue actions.

Additionally we outline that two essential studies for the reform of the judicial system were presented during the reporting period, namely: the study concerning the optimization of the courts location and one on the specialization of the judges. Both studies were developed by the Justice Reform Council Moldova, and we hope they will encourage the stakeholders to act subsequently as early as possible.

One cannot acknowledge a real fight against corruption at this time. Those few criminal cases filed against several judges and the sentence of convicting a judge from Telenesti1 to 7 years of imprisonment for a 200 US dollars bribe, do not demonstrate the genuine intention of the authorities to eradicate the corruption from the justice system, since judges that have made serious errors in enforcing the law while in their capacity remain untouched.

On the other hand, the civil society is unhappy with the absence of responses to its calls. Thus, in late 2013, several organizations signed a common petition to the President of the Republic of Moldova, asking him not to promulgate the Law on the Ombudsperson, voted in second lecture on December 23, 2013. Following a month of no response, the organizations sent out a repeated petition2, which also remained unanswered. To date, the status of the legal document is uncertain; the only available information on the Parliament website indicates that the document is “in transition”3.

Institutional capacity

We reiterate the good activity of the secretariat of the working groups, which ensures a good occurrence of the sittings, as well as availability of the files on the webpage dedicated to the reform. In the same context, a special section has been created in the reports section of the ministry’s website to publish JSRS products. Although not all reports/studies are available there, this shows a certain amount of effort and transparency on behalf of the stakeholders.

The Support for Coordination of the Implementation of the Justice Sector Reform Project produced a new methodology for monitoring and reporting actions within the project. Every action is assigned a certain weight, respective of its importance in achieving the objective for the intervention area. The methodology has been introduced to the secretariat, and its personnel was trained to use it, so that the next report should take into account the changes proposed by the new methodology.

1 http://www.zdg.md/video/video-judecatorul-prins-cu-200-de-dolari-mita-condamnat-la-7-ani-de-inchisoare 2 http://crjm.org/news/view/261 3 http://www.parlament.md/ProcesulLegislativ/Proiectedeactelegislative/tabid/61/LegislativId/1927/language/ro-RO/Default.aspx

7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Achievements under Pillar I Although no actions were planned for this reporting period under the JSRS AP, the responsible institutions were not equally active about catching up with the overdue actions. We note the implementation of four actions, of which three were implemented with the help of the LRCM. Although delayed, the respective actions establish the basis for implementation of certain subsequent actions, whose implementation was delayed by the non-elaboration of the three studies. Also note that of the 23 actions that remain unaccomplished under this Pillar, eight were due back in 2012.

Achievements within Pillar II

According to the Action Plan for the Implementation of the Justice Sector Reform Strategy for 2011-2016, 84 actions are scheduled for implementation under Pillar II. 43 actions were scheduled for implementation by the end of the first quarter of 2014 (31 March 2014). Out of these, 24 were implemented, and 19 were not completed. During the reporting period (1 January – 31 March 2014), none of the five due actions were implemented. At the same time, two actions of those overdue at the beginning of the reporting period were completed.

Achievements under Pillar III

We appreciate the efforts undertaken by the National Council for Free State Guaranteed Legal Aid (NCLA) to implement the actions in its responsibility, as this institution finally publicized three studies on the activity of the NCLA, thus reducing the ratio of incomplete actions.

Additionally, we note the fact that two other actions related to the legal framework regulating the activity of the court enforcement officers have been implemented. Thus amendments were made to the Execution (Enforcement) Code and to the Law on the court enforcement officers (actions 3.3.2 section 2 and 3.2.1 section 2). Despite all of these, the National Union of Court Enforcement Officers has reacted quite tough to several of the proposed amendments. In the Union’s opinion, these amendments will not lead to a institutional and functional capacity of the court enforcement officers, rather creating a dependence, on the Ministry of Justice. Thus the court enforcement officers would be discriminated in regard to the other offices linked to the justice system.

Also, during the 24 January 2014 meeting of the Working Group on Pillar III, a decision was taken to declare obsolete action 3.3.1. section 3, developing the regulation on the enforcement of the ECtHR decisions. This decision was adopted with regard to the fact that the new Law on the Government Agent was to introduce a mechanism of parliamentary control of the execution of the ECtHR decisions, thus removing the need to develop other acts.

Achievements under Pillar IV

Although no new actions were planned for implementation during the reporting period according to the action plan of the JSRS, the responsible institutions did not succeed in finalizing any of the overdue actions. Thus of the 11 overdue actions, none was implemented.

Achievements under Pillar V

8

According to the Action Plan for the implementation of the Justice Sector Reform Strategy for 2011-2016, a total 28 actions are scheduled for implementation under Pillar V. Of those, 20 actions were to be completed by the end of the first quarter of 2014 (31 March 2014). Out of these 20, 11 were achieved, and other nine were not achieved. During the reporting period (1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

January – 31 March 2014), a single due action was implemented. Additionally one of the actions overdue at the beginning of the reporting period was implemented.

Achievements under Pillar VI

According to the 2011-2016 JSRS Action Plan, within the Pillar VI, in total 100 actions are scheduled for implementation. 45 actions were supposed to be completed by first quarter of 2014 (31 March 2014). Out of these 45, 30 were implemented, and 15 were not achieved.

During the reporting period (1 January - 31 march 2014), a single due action was implemented.

Achievements under Pillar VII

Although no actions were scheduled for the reporting period in the JSRS AP, the responsible institutions did not succeed in achieving any of the overdue actions. Thus of the seven overdue actions, none was achieved, and more than half of these are overdue since 2012.

Trial monitoring

Thanks to the effort undertaken by the team of monitors in the first quarter of the 2014, 300 trials were monitored in all the courts across country. Of these, 153 were criminal/contravention cases, and were 147 civil cases. Additionally, 480 participants in the trials were given the possibility to fill in court satisfaction surveys.

An analysis of the obtained data does not reveal any negative trends in comparison to the previous quarters.

A positive indicator of growth is the number of recorded sittings, which has grown by 12% compared to the fourth quarter of 2013. Concomitantly, the number of sittings that occurred inside sitting rooms went up by 10%.

Registered shortcomings include issues related to court facilities that were negatively assessed by 20% of the lawyers and court users. Most frequent complaints concern the lack of offices to become familiar with the case, locker rooms for lawyers, and not in the last mention – the functioning of the court bathrooms.

Monitoring of court websites

Throughout February-March 2014, monitors observed the functioning and availability of the web pages of the courts. In order to carry out this monitoring, observers were asked three main questions: 1. Is the agenda of the courts published on the web pages?

2. Are the decisions of the Courts published in time or not?

3. Do the web pages have a search engine?

Thus, during the mentioned period, 50 web pages of the courts throughout the country have been monitored. The observers found that in 12 cases of 50 (24%), agendas were not published on the website. There were also cases of inconsistency between the real agendas (printed and walled inside the courts) and the ones published on the websites.

Regarding the second question, in 22 cases (44%), court decisions were published online on time. Additionally, there were cases when publicized decisions contained broken links. In some cases, decisions were not published for over a month.

9

SUMAR EXECUTIV

Although the absolute majority of the pages have search engines, only in 35 cases (70%) these engines are more or less effective, while in most of the cases the observers reported deficiencies in using the search engine.

Note: The experts deemed it appropriate to avoid repeating the text for overdue actions unachieved during each of the reports, so these are presented in the form of tables at the end of every Pillar chapter. As a consequence, the text of the report is continuously structured on pillars, and each of the pillars is divided by current and overdue status of actions. Under the current actions, due actions are analyzed and assessed as achieved and unachieved. For the overdue actions, the text presents actions that were completed during the reporting period, and uncompleted actions are mentioned in special tables.

10

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR I

Chapter I

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR I Institutional capacity. During the first Quarter of 2014, the Working Group for monitoring the implementation of actions under Pillar I of the Strategy met in two sessions, on January 30 and February 28. During the first meeting, the Activity Report for 2013 was approved, and the second meeting voted on the Group’s Work Plan for 2014. Thus the WG was more active and punctual compared to 2013, when the Action Plan was approved at the end of the year.

1. ACTIONS DUE BY: QUARTER 1, 2014 No actions were to be completed under this Pillar in the first quarter of 2014.

2. OVERDUE ACTIONS (due by 31 December 2013) Group I. Studies and needs assessments examining current practices; proposing recommendations for reform.

Specific area of intervention: 1.1.1. Optimize the map of courts location, with the purpose to strengthen the institutional capacities of courts and correlate the number of judges, and ensure the most efficient use of available resources.

Action 1.1.1. section 1. Conduct a study regarding the optimization of dislocation map of the court buildings, in order to strengthen the institutional capacities of the courts, correlate the number of judges, and ensure the most efficient use of court resources.

• • • •

Deadline: IV Quarter 2012 Responsible for implementation, MOJ, SCM Performance Indicator: Study developed, recommendations formulated Assessment: action implemented

This action has been implemented with the support of the LRCM and the study has been presented on 12.02.2014. To date, unfortunately, the study is unavailable on both MOJ and LRCM websites. A press release on the matter is posted on the LRCM website.

Specific area of intervention: 1.3.3. Ensure specialization of judges and examine the opportunity to create a system of administrative courts.

Action 1.3.3. section 1. Conduct a study and formulate recommendations regarding the need for specialization of judges in specific cases.

• • • •

Deadline: Quarter IV, 2012 Responsible for implementation: SCM, MOJ Performance indicator: Study conducted, recommendations formulated Assessment: action implemented 11

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR I

This action has been implemented with the support of the LRCM and the study has been presented on 12.02.2014. To date, unfortunately, the study is unavailable on both MOJ and LRCM websites.

Action 1.3.3. section 5. Conduct a study regarding the implementation of a system of administrative courts.

• • • •

Deadline: IV Quarter 2012 Responsible for implementation, MOJ, SCM Performance Indicator: Study developed, recommendations formulated Assessment: action implemented

In its study for 1.3.3 section 1, LRCM mentioned the creation of the administrative courts stating that they are not needed or justified.

Group II. Development of methodological recommendations and training curricula.

Specific area of intervention: 1.2.3. Revision of procedural rules in order to optimize, increase transparency, and efficiency of the justice enhancement process.

Action 1.2.3. section 5. Create a plan for training the judges to manage the cases and the rules of delaying the case examination.

• • • •

Deadline: Quarter 4, 2012 Responsible institution: SCM, NIJ Performance indicator: Training program developed Assessment: action implemented

Although we could not find confirmation of a training plan developed on this subject, we established that the current subject is included in the NIJ continuous training plan for 2014, thus we deem it appropriate to assess the action as implemented.

Uncompleted actions of the group of overdue actions (deadline - 31 December 2013) Action

Deadline

Responsible Institution

WG Assessment

Group I. Studies and needs assessments examining current practices; proposing recommendations for reform.

1.

2.

12

Action 1.1.2. section 1. Conduct a study of the current legislation that regulates the amounts and procedures for calculating court fees as well as the practice of using these fees.

Action 1.1.6. section 5. Conduct a study on the duration of the initial appointment of judges and the criteria regarding the selection of judges to the Supreme Court of Justice based on international standards and best practices in the field.

Quart. II, 2012

MOJ, SCM

Partially completed

Quart. IV, 2013

MOJ, SCM

Partially completed

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR I

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

Action 1.1.12. section 1. Conduct a feasibility study taking into account the previous studies conducted in this area.

Action 1.1.12. section 3. Establish criteria for allotting funds for the maintenance and renovation of court premises.

Action 1.2.4. section 1. Conduct a study on the implementation of a unified judicial practice to provide security to legal relations.

Action 1.2.4. section 3. Conduct a study on the opportunity of creating a single information portal of all courts in order to optimize their websites.

Action 1.3.2. section 2. Create an online communication program between the NIJ and trainees to identify training areas and organize training seminars.

Quart. IV, 2012

MOJ

Partially completed

SCM, SCJ

Uncompleted

Quart. II, 2013

MOJ, MOF, MRDC

Quart. IV, 2012

MOJ, CSM, GEC

Quart. IV, 2013

Quart. IV, 2013

Action 1.1.2. section 2. Draft amendments to Law no. 1216XII of 3 December 1992 on the state fee, of the CPC no. 225-XV of 30 May 2003 and other normative acts.

Action 1.1.4. section 2. Draft amendments to Law no. 514XIII of 6 July 1995 on the organization of the judiciary as well as to other relevant bylaws.

Action 1.1.9. section 3. Draft an amendment to the Constitution to specify the role of the SCM in the self-administration of the judiciary, its composition and competencies.

Action 1.2.1. section 2. Revise SCM regulations on the transparency of activities of the Council and subordinated bodies.

Action 1.2.3. section 2. Draft amendments to Code of Contraventions no. 218-XVI of 24 October 2008.

Action 1.2.3. section 4. Develop standards on the duration of procedures during the examination of a case, and develop the methodology for using them.

Action 1.3.1. section 2. Draft amendments to certain laws, including Law no. 152-XVI of 8 June 2006 on the NIJ, Law no.

544-XIII of 20 July 1995 on the status of the judge, and Law no.

294-XVI of 25 December 2008 on the prosecution.

Action 1.3.1. section 3. Draft amendments to the internal regulations of the National Institute of Justice in accordance with changes to the legislation.

Action 1.3.1. section 8. Establish objective criteria for determining the amount of funds needed for initial and continuous training (NIJ).

Action 1.3.2. section 1. Create a system that would allow establishing, in a complete and timely manner, the training needs of the justice sector representatives (methodology for establishing training needs developed and approved).

Action 1.3.3. section 2. Develop and approve bylaws on the specialization of judges.

Quart. IV, 2013 Quart. IV, 2012 Quart. II, 2013

Quart. IV, 2013

Obsolete

NIJ

Partially completed

MOJ, SCM

Uncompleted

MOJ, SCM, SCJ, courts

Partially completed

Group III. Improving the legal framework; developing draft laws and bylaws.

Action 1.1.1. section 2. Draft a bill to amend Law no. 514XIII of 6 July 1995 on the organization of the judiciary.

Completed

MOJ, SCM, MOF

MOJ

Uncompleted

Partially completed Completed

Quart. IV, 2012

SCM

Quart. IV, 2012

CSM, CSJ

Quart. IV, 2012

MOJ, NIJ

Partially completed

Quart. II, 2013

NIJ

Uncompleted

Quart. III, 2012

MOJ

Partially completed Partially completed

Quart. II, 2013

NIJ

Uncompleted

Quart. II, 2013

INJ

Partially completed

Quart. II 2013

SCM

Partially completed 13

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR I

Group VI. Procurement and installation of equipment. Software upgrades.

20.

21.

22.

23.

14

Action 1.1.11. section 4. Re-equip courtrooms by uninstalling the isolation cages for defendants in the trial in order to observe the presumption of innocence.

Action 1.2.2. section 4. Improving the Integrated Case Management Program.

Quart. IV, 2013 Quart. I, 2013

SCM, courts MOJ, SCM, STC

Partially completed Partially completed

Group VII. Create and streamline the work of justice sector bodies (commissions, colleges etc.).

Action 1.3.1. section 4. Create a legal information center to be accessible for judges, prosecutors and representatives of other legal professions..

Action 1.3.4. section 2. Create a single examination commission for NIJ graduates and persons with professional experience.

Quart. IV, 2013 Quart. II, 2012

NIJ NIJ, SCM, MOJ, PGO

Uncompleted Uncompleted

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR II

Chapter II

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR II Institutional capacity. In the first Quarter of 2014, WG II met in three sessions, on 29 January, 11 February and 5 March of 2014. As of 31 March 2014, both agendas and minutes of the meetings of the first quarter were posted on the justice reform website. This excluded delays in publication of the information on the WG activities.

The meeting of 29 January 2014 was postponed due to the lack of quorum.

The first and second meetings discussed the presentation and approval of the Annual Report for 2013, and the third meeting approved the Action Plan for 2014.

Unfortunately, there were no discussions on the actions due for completion before that period at the WG meetings in Quarter 1 of 2014. Members of the WG did not receive confirming materials on the indicators of implemented actions that were due throughout the first quarter.

1. ACTIONS DUE BY: QUARTER 1, 2014 Group I. Studies and needs assessments examining current practices, proposing recommendations for reform.

Specific area of intervention: 2.3.4. Criminal prosecution within a interdepartmental group “Task Force Group” in case of necessity, efficiency of the criminal prosecution.

Action 2.3.4. section 1. Conducting a study regarding the conditions, rules procedure of formation and functioning of the interdepartmental groups.

• • • •

Deadline: Quarter 1, 2014 Responsible institution: PGO, MOI, NAC, CS Performance indicator: Study conducted, recommendations formulated Assessment: action not implemented

The deadline for the implementation of this action was due on 31 March 2014. According to the representatives of the PGO in the WG, during the session of 18 December 2013, the responsible institution asked the MOI and NAC to delegate representatives to a group in charge of implementing this action. Thus, the report mentioned that work on the action was underway. The members of the WG assessed this action as partially accomplished while discussing the activity report for 2013. On 31 March 2014, on the web page of the MOJ dedicated to the JSRS, the respective study was not published and it was not offered to the members of the WG in order to assess whether the indicators provided in the strategy were achieved.

From these reasons and taking into account that the performance indicators established in the Action Plan for the reporting period have not been met, and the deadline for implementation of the action was deliberately extended for six months by the MOJ, action 2.3.4 section 1 is deemed as not implemented.

15

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR II

Specific area of intervention: 2.3.5. Improving the professional capacity of the pre-trial phase stakeholders through ensuring of their specialization.

Action 2.3.5. section 1. Conducting a study regarding the necessity of the specialization of the pre trial phase stakeholders.

• • • •

Deadline: Quarter 1, 2014 Responsible institution: PGO, MOI, NAC, CS Performance indicator: Study conducted, recommendations formulated Assessment: action not implemented

The deadline for the implementation of the respective action expired on 31 March 2014. According to representatives of the PGO in the WG, during the meeting of 18 December 2013, the report would be presented to the members of the group before the end of the reporting period.

Members of the WG assessed the respective action as partially implemented while discussing and approving the Activity Report for 2013. On 31 March 2014, the report was not published on the web page of the MOJ dedicated to the JSRS. At the same time, the study was not disseminated to the WG members to assess whether indicators provided by the strategy were met.

From these considerations and taking into account that the performance indicators established in the action plan for the reporting period have not been met, and the deadline for implementation of the action was deliberately extended for six months by the MOJ, action 2.3.5 section 1 is deemed as not implemented.

Group II. Improving the legal framework, developing draft laws and bylaws.

Specific area of intervention: 2.2.3. Enhancing the capacities and ensuring independence of the Supreme Council of Prosecutors to ensure an efficient administration of the Prosecution institution.

Action 2.2.3. Section 2. Elaboration/review of the organizational bylaws and functioning of the Supreme Council of Prosecutors and its bodies.

• • • •

Deadline: Quarter 1, 2014 Responsible institution: SCP Performance indicator: Drafts of bylaws, developed and approved Assessment: action not implemented

The deadline for implementation of the respective action has expired on 31 March 2014. During the 18 December 2013 WG meeting, PGO members mentioned the adoption of several PGO bylaws, including the SCP Regulation. This regulation4 was adopted in 2010 and had suffered no amendments since. Although WG members assessed this action as accomplished in the 2013 Report, we cannot support this position. The Law on the Prosecutors has not been adopted, and the existing bylaws have not been adjusted in order to build the capacity of the SCP to more efficiently manage the Prosecution office. Moreover, members of the WG were not provided any draft amendments to the existing bylaws to assess if indicators provided in the strategy were met.

16

4 http://procuratura.md/file/H1-Regulamentul%20CSP.pdf

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR II

For these considerations and taking into account that the performance indicators established in the action plan for the reporting period have not been met, and the deadline for implementation of the action was deliberately extended for six months by the MOJ, action 2.2.3 section 2 is deemed as not implemented.

Specific area of intervention: 2.3.3. Increasing the capacity of and reconsidering the role of the centers for judicial expertise and court experts.

Action 2.3.3. section 3. Developing new bylaws for the National Center on Judicial Expertise and Judicial Experts.

• Deadline: Quarter 1, 2014 • Responsible institution: MOJ • Performance indicator: Drafts of bylaws, developed and submitted for Government approval • Assessment: action not implemented

The deadline for the implementation of the respective action expired on 31 March 2014. According to the MOJ representatives in the WG, during the meeting of 18 December 2013, the respective bylaws cannot be approved prior to the adoption of the Law on Judicial expertise.

Moreover, according to the MOJ Work Plan for 20145, the respective action is to be completed by 30 December 2014.

For these reasons and taking into account that the performance indicators established in the action plan for the reporting period have not been met, and the deadline for implementation of the action was deliberately extended for six months by the MOJ, action 2.3.3 section 3 is deemed as not implemented.

Specific area of intervention: 2.5.1. Liberalization of criminal policies by using non-custodial sanctions and preventive measures for certain categories of persons and offences.

Action 2.5.1. section 3. Draft amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code no 122-XV of 14 March 2003, the Execution (Enforcement) Code no. 443-XV of 24 December 2004, the Criminal Code, no 985-XV of 18 April 2002, and other legal acts.

• • • •

Deadline: Quarter I, 2014 Responsible institution: MOJ Performance indicator: Bills drafted and submitted for Government approval Assessment: action not implemented

The deadline for implementation of this action expired on 31 March 2014. According to the Annual Report for 2013, this action was assessed as achieved. To support this position, the MOJ6 mentioned that, on 4 December 2013, the Government passed Decision no. 966 approving the bill on the liberalization of criminal punishments by completion of Article 64 of the Criminal Code. Moreover, by means of the Law 3157, approved by the Parliament on 20 December 2013, the bill and amendments to Article 64 were passed in final reading. In reality, the bills men5 http://www.justice.gov.md/public/files/planctiuni/Planul_de_actiuni_al_Ministerului_Justitiei_pentru_anul_2014_1.Pdf 6 http://www.justice.gov.md/public/files/file/reforma_sectorul_justitiei/rapoarte/2014/RAPORT_2013.pdf 7 http://lex.justice.md/index.php?action=view&view=doc&lang=1&id=351234

17

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR II

tioned by the MOJ as evidence for the implementation of the action introduced amendments to the Criminal Code enforcing the Constitutional Court decision, as a consequence of the declaration of chemical castration punishment unconstitutional.

On the other hand, MOJ’s Activity Report for 2013 mentions other results for the same action.

Thus, the Ministry reported that the bill on completion and amendment of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Execution Code, and other legislative acts in order to liberalize criminal policies by using non-custodial sanctions and preventive measures for certain categories of persons and actions, was submitted for public debate back on 4 April 20138, and, for this reason, the action is considered achieved.

The Government did not examine the respective bill during the reporting period.

Based on the facts above, we note that the representatives of the MOJ use two distinct contradictory arguments. More serious is the fact that members of the WG were not presented exact data or other evidence that would prove that the implementation indicators provided in the Action Plan were met.

For these reasons and taking into account that the performance indicators established in the action plan for the reporting period have not been met, action 2.5.1 section 3 is deemed as not implemented.

2. OVERDUE ACTIONS completed during QUARTER I, 2014 Group I. Studies and needs assessments examining current practices; proposing recommendations for reform.

Specific area of intervention: 2.5.3. Strengthening the mechanisms of ensuring the rights of the victims of offences.

Action 2.5.3. section 1. Conducting a study on the existing mechanism of ensuring the rights of the victims of offences, their protection and rehabilitation.

• • • •

Deadline: Quarter 3 2013 Responsible institutions: MOJ, PGO Performance indicator: Study conducted and recommendations formulated Assessment: action implemented

The deadline for implementation of this action expired on 30 September 2013. According to the MOJ Work Plan for 20139, this action was supposed to be completed by 20 September 2013.

The subject of this study was never brought on the agenda of WG meetings during the reporting period, thus WG members have not been offered any information on the status quo of this action’s implementation. The WG members were not provided the study. No studies of this kind were published on the web page of the MOJ dedicated to publication of studies and reports.

At the same time, according to the MOJ activity report for 201310, there is a mention of a study developed and presented to the Ministry of Justice in February 2013. A study on the topic: “The

18

8 http://particip.gov.md/proiectview.php?l=ro&idd=824 9 http://www.justice.gov.md/public/files/file/planurirapoarte/Planul_anual_de_actiuni_al_Ministerului_Justitiei_pentru_anul_2013.pdf 10 http://www.justice.gov.md/public/files/file/planurirapoarte/RAPORT_MJ_pentru_2013_din_10-01-2014.pdf

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR II

protection of victims of violent offences. Brief presentation of the Romanian legislation and possible suggestions for the improvement of the legal framework in the Republic of Moldova”11 was posted on the Ministry’s website on an unknown date.

For this reason, taking into account the fact that the performance indicators for the reporting period were achieved, the action of the point 2.5.3 section 1 is considered accomplished.

Group II. Improving the legal framework and developing drafts of bills and regulations.

Specific area of intervention: 2.3.3. Strengthening the capacities of and reconsidering the role and place of the centers for judicial expertise and judicial experts.

Action 2.3.3. section 2. Drafting the new bill regarding the judicial expertise, that would regulate the conditions for obtaining the quality of judicial expert; the conditions for the recognition of the qualification of judicial expert in the Republic of Moldova for persons that have obtained it in a different state; the criteria for admission of candidates for the position of judiciary expert and the development of the project of amendment of some legal acts.

• Deadline: Quarter II, 2013 • Responsible institutions: MOJ, MOI, MOH, NAC, SIS • Performance indicator: Drafts of bills elaborated and submitted for examination to the Government • Assessment: action implemented

The deadline for the implementation of the respective action expired on 30 June 2013. Despite that, on the web page of the MOJ, during the reporting period, no announcements have been published regarding the procedure of public debate of this draft of bill. Moreover, according the annual Work Plan of the MOJ12, this action was supposed to be accomplished by 31 October 2013, by the NCJE and GDL. At the meeting of the WG of 11 September 2013, the speakers mentioned that the bill has been drafted, but that it is supposed to be approved by the leadership of the institution. The subject was later included on the agenda of the meeting on 16 October 2013. However the bill was never been presented to the WG members. On 18 March 2014, a draft of bill on the legal expertise and the status of the judicial expert was published on the web page of the www.particip.gov.md13.

For these considerations and taking into account that the performance indicators set in the Action Plan have been achieved, Action 2.3.3 section 2 is deemed as completed.

11 http://www.justice.gov.md/public/files/file/reforma_sectorul_justitiei/pilon2/Raport_protectia_victemelor_infractiunilor_violente-MJ_ Romania-__2013.pdf 12 http://www.justice.gov.md/public/files/file/planurirapoarte/Planul_anual_de_actiuni_al_Ministerului_Justitiei_pentru_anul_2013.pdf 13 http://particip.gov.md/proiectview.php?l=ro&idd=1529

19

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR II

3. OVERDUE ACTIONS (due by 31 December 2013) Uncompleted actions from the group of overdue actions (deadline - 31 December 2013) Action

Deadline

Responsible Institution

WG Assessment

Group I. Studies and needs assessments examining current practices proposing recommendations for reform.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Action 2.1.5. section 2. Conduct a study of the legislation, including criminal procedure law, to establish its compliance with standards in defending human rights and liberties.

Action 2.2.6. section 1. Study the staffing needs of the prosecution bodies and the needs for optimization of prosecutors and auxiliary staff.

Action 2.5.2. section 1. Conduct a study on the efficiency of simplified procedures.

Action 2.2.1. section 2. Draft amendment to Constitution with regard to the procedure of appointing and dismissing the Prosecutor General and the duration of his mandate.

Action 2.2.2. section 3. Draft regulations, bylaws and required amendments to Law no. 294-XVI of 25 December 2008 on the Prosecution.

Action 2.2.2. section 2. Draft amendments to Law 294-XVI of 25 December 2008 on the prosecution.

8.

9.

Action 2.2.8. section 2. Draft amendments to Law no. 294-XVI of 25 December 2008 on the prosecution, to the CPP no. 122-XV of 14 March 2003, etc. to demilitarize the institution of prosecution.

10.

Action 2.2.3. section 1. Draft amendments to Law no. 294-XVI of 25 December 2008 on the prosecution, which would create a separate budget, the necessary personnel and assign a venue for the SCP.

12.

Quart. II, 2013

Quart. IV, 2012 Quart. I, 2013

MOJ

MOJ, PGO, MOI, NAC, SIS, CS PGO

Quart. III, 2013

MOJ, PGO

Quart. IV, 2013

MOJ, PGO

Group II. Improve legal framework, draft laws and bylaws.

Action 2.1.1. section 1. Improve the legal framework of the operation of the police and carabineers by drafting a bill on the status of the police and police officer; a bill on the carabineers service, and other relevant bills, and amend bylaws to bring them in line with these bills.

11.

20

Action 2.5.1. section 2. Assessment of the effectiveness of use of custodial and non-custodial criminal sanctions.

Action 2.2.5. section 2. Draft amendments to Law No. 294-XVI of 25 December 2008 on the prosecution, and other laws and bylaws.

Action 2.2.6. section 2. Draft amendments to the legal framework with regard to prosecution personnel.

Quart. IV, 2013

PGO, SCP

Completed Completed Partially completed Partially completed Partially completed Completed

Quart. II, 2013

MOJ, SCP, PGO

Quart. IV, 2012

MOI

Quart. I, 2013

MOJ, PGO

Partially completed

Quart. III, 2013

MOJ, PGO

Partially completed

Quart. III, 2013

MOJ, PGO

Partially completed

Quart. III, 2013

PGO, MOF

Partially completed Completed

Partially completed

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR II

13.

Action 2.4.2. section 2. Draft a regulation on the unified analysis and processing of statistical data related to criminal justice.

Quart. III, 2013

MOI, PGO, NAC, CS, NBS, MOJ, SCJ

Partially completed

Quart. II, 2013

MOI

Completed

Group VII. Optimization of human resources.

14.

Action 2.1.1. section 2. Implement changes to the institutional, organizational and functional framework of the MOI and subordinated bodies.

21

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR III

Chapter III

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR III Institutional capacity. During the first Quarter of 2014, WG III met in two sessions, on 29 January and 25 February 2014. The agendas and minutes of both Q1 meetings were present on the web page of the Justice Reform on 31 March 2014. Thus the delayed publication of the information regarding the activity of the WG was excluded.

1. ACTIONS DUE IN: QUARTER I 2014 Specific Area of Intervention: 3.1.2. Improving the quality and availability of the services of legal aid guaranteed by the state (criminal and non-criminal cases).

Action 3.1.2. section 8. Develop criteria (standards) for provision of qualified legal aid guaranteed by the state to persons that do not possess the means for payment of such services, based on the complexity of the offence, civil or administrative, from the point of view of material law.

• • • • •

Deadline: Quarter I, 2014 Responsible institutions: NLAC, NLU Performance indicator: 1. WG created; 2. Criteria (standards) developed and approved Surveyed: heads of territorial offices, lawyers that state guaranteed legal aid (6 persons) Assessment: action not implemented

The respective action was not completed in due time. Some actions have been however implemented in order to achieve the action, such as the creation of a WG for that purpose, on 15 February 2013. In order to implement this action, it was decided to hire several experts to conduct a study that would serve as basis for the criteria (standards). By the end of the first quarter of 2014, those criteria were not developed.

2. OVERDUE ACTIONS as of 31.12.2013 implemented in QUARTER I, 2014 Group I. Studies and needs assessments examining current practices proposing recommendations for reform.

Action 3.1.2. section 7. Conducting a study regarding the new methods of provision of legal aid guaranteed by the state, and based on the results of the study, the implementation of a pilot project.

• Deadline: Quarter II 2013 • Responsible institutions: NLAC, MOJ • Performance indicator: 1. Study conducted, recommendations formulated; 2 if needed, pilot project implemented • Assessment: action implemented 22

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR III

On 14.02.2014, a study was published o the NLAC website regarding the new methods of provision of legal aid guaranteed by the state. At the same time, members of the WG III decided that the second indicator (implementation of a pilot project) was not relevant, noting during the meeting that, after the study, a conclusion was drawn that the pilot project is not necessary.

Specific Area of Intervention: 3.1.3. Promotion of a legal culture and availability of information of legal nature; reduction of the legal nihilism.

Action 3.1.3. section 2. Conducting a study regarding the mechanism of provision of basic legal aid by civic associations.

• • • •

Deadline: Quarter II, 2013 Responsible institutions: NLAC Performance indicator: Study conducted, recommendations formulated Assessment: action implemented

Same as the previous study, this one was conducted in 2013, but was published only in early January 2014. The study contains findings on the mechanisms of basic legal aid provision by NGOs. It as contains 24 conclusions regarding the mechanisms of providing such aid by NGOs.

Group III. Improving the legal framework/developing laws/bylaws.

Specific area of intervention: 3.3.2. Institutional and functional strengthening of the new system of private bailiffs.

Action 3.3.2. section 2. Draft amendments to the legal framework in order to strengthen the institutional and functional capacities of the Licensing Committee and its Disciplinary Board.

• • • •

Deadline: Quarter IV, 2012 Responsible institutions: MOJ, NUCEO Performance indicator: Bill drafted and submitted to the Government Assessment: action implemented

According to the Annual Report of the MOJ, on November 2013, the bill was submitted to the Government. Despite that, the bill cannot be found on the MOJ website. The project was published only on the website www.particip.gov.md. Further, in the meeting on 29 January 2014, it was mentioned that the Working Group is finalizing the bill. However, on 5 February 2014, the bill was submitted by the Government to the Parliament and was published on Parliament’s website. As a consequence, we can assess the action as accomplished, but due to the fact that it was not published on the MOJ website in the respective section, the date of implementation is unclear. On the other hand, we note the reaction of NUCEO, which was negative. The Union believes that the bill defies the purpose of the specific area of intervention, as it substantially diminishes the authority of self-management bodies of court enforcement officers.

Specific area of intervention: 3.2.1. Strengthening capacities of the professional associations of representatives of jobs related to the justice system, with a special emphasis on the management skills.

23

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR III

Action 3.2.1. section 2. Draft amendments to Law no. 113 of 17 June 2010 on Court Enforcement Officers, and the Execution Code no. 443-XV of 24 December 2004.

• • • •

Deadline for implementation: Quarter IV, 2012 Responsible for implementation: MOJ, NUCEO Performance indicator: Bill drafted and submitted to the Government Assessment: action implemented

Given that the bill referred to court enforcement officers, and bills provided for in Action 3.3.2 section 2 were combined with the bill indicated in Action 3.2.1 section 2, we deem the action as completed.

3. OVERDUE ACTIONS (due by 31 December 2013) Uncompleted actions from the group of overdue actions (deadline - 31 December 2013) (2012 and Quarters 1-3 of 2013) Action

Deadline

Responsible Institution

WG Assessment

Group I. Studies and needs assessments examining current practices, proposing recommendations for reform.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7 8

24

Action 3.2.2. section 1. Developing quality standards for the acts/actions by representatives of justice related professions.

Action 3.2.6. section 1. Conduct a survey of the ethical standards laid out in the codes of conduct for the justice-related professions.

Action 3.2.7. section 1. Conduct a survey of the professional civil insurance system.

Action 3.2.8. section 1. Conduct a survey of the disciplinary liability mechanisms for every justice- related profession.

Action 3.2.9. section 1. Conduct a survey of the tax, social security and medical insurance regime for the justice-related professions.

Action 3.3.2. section 1. Conduct a survey of the operation of the Licensing Commission and the Disciplinary College to identify means for the institutional and functional strengthening of these entities.

Action 3.3.1. section 1. Monitor the impact of current regulations on the enforcement of judgments, including ECtHR judgments.

Action 3.3.3. section 1. Conduct a survey to detect the deficiencies of the information management and communication system that have negative implications on the enforcement of court judgments.

Quart. IV, 2013

Self administration bodies, MOJ

Partially completed

Quart. IV, 2013

Self administration bodies, MOJ

Partially completed

Quart. IV, 2013

Quart. IV, 2013 Quart. IV, 2012

Self administration bodies, MOJ

Self administration bodies, MOJ Self administration bodies, MOJ, MOF, MLSPF

Quart. II, 2012

MOJ, NUCEO

Quart. III, 2012

MOJ, NUCEO

Quart. III, 2012

MOJ, NUCEO

Partially completed

Partially completed Partially completed Partially completed Completed Completed

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR III

9 10 11

12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22

Action 3.3.5. section 1. Conduct a survey of the efficiency of the mechanism in place for recognition and enforcement of the foreign court judgments.

Action 3.1.1. section 2. Conduct a study on the staffing needs of the territorial offices of NLAC and adjust the organizational chart based on that analysis, given the Council’s expanded competencies.

Action 3.2.3. section 1. Conduct a survey of the tariff-setting mechanisms for the services delivered by the justice-related professions.

Quart. III, 2012

MOJ, NUCEO, SCM

Partially completed

Quart. II, 2013,

MOJ, MOF, NLAC

Partially completed

Quart. III, 2013

Self administration bodies, MOJ

Group III. Improve the legal framework, draft laws and bylaws.

Action 3.2.9. section 2. Draft amendments to the legislative framework in order to unify the fiscal, social security and medical insurance regime.

Action 3.1.1. section 4. Design the cost recovery mechanism for the state guaranteed legal aid.

Action 3.1.2. section 2. Design the cost recovery mechanism for the state guaranteed legal aid.

Action 3.2.5. section 1. Develop a curriculum for the initial training and an education plan for the continuous training of representatives of justice-related professions.

Action 3.2.1. section 4. Draft a new bill on notaries.

Action 3.3.3. section 2. Draft amendments to the legal framework to address the deficiencies of the information management and communication system, including in terms of the access to databases.

Action 3.3.5. section 2. Draft amendments to the legal framework on the mechanism of recognition and enforcement of judgments issued by foreign courts.

Action 3.1.1. section 5. Design the mechanism to access databases to check the incomes of applicants for state guaranteed legal aid.

Action 3.3.1. section 2. Draft amendments to the regulatory framework aiming to address the deficiencies in the enforcement of judgments.

Act. 3.3.1. section 3. Draft a Regulation on the enforcement of ECtHR judgments (Action assessed by the WG as obsolete minutes of 29 January 2013 meeting).

Quart. IV, 2013 Quart. IV, 2012 Quart. II, 2013 Quart. II, 2013

Quart. IV, 2012 Quart. IV, 2012 Quart. I, 2013

MOJ, MOF, MLSPF, MOH, Self- administration bodies MOJ, NLAC

NLAC, Lawyers’ Union

NIJ, Self administration bodies MOJ

MOJ, NUCEP, bodies managing the database MOJ, NUCEO, SCM

Uncompleted Partially completed Partially completed Partially completed Partially completed Uncompleted Completed

MOJ, NLAC, MITC and ARFC

Partially completed

Quart. IV, 2012

MOJ, SCM, eGovernment Center

Uncompleted

Quart. II, 2013

MOJ, NLAC, Lawyers’ Union

Quart. III, 2013 Quart. IV, 2012

MOJ, NUCEO

Group VI. Acquisition and installation of equipment. Software updates.

Action 3.1.2. section 4. Create offices of public defenders in the communities where NLAC has territorial offices.

Partially completed

Partially completed

Partially completed 25

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR IV

Chapter IV

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR IV Institutional capacity. Throughout Quarter I of 2014, the WG for monitoring of the implementation of the actions for Pillar IV of the Strategy has gathered for two sessions, on January 31, and February 26. Within the first session, the Group approved the activity report for 2013, and during the second session, approved the Action Plan for 2014. Thus the WG was more active and more punctual compared to 2013, when the Action Plan was approved only toward the end of the year.

1. ACTIONS DUE BY: QUARTER I, 2014 No actions were due for completion in the plan in the first quarter of 2014.

2. OVERDUE ACTIONS (due for completion by 31 December 2013) Regrettably, not a single of the overdue actions was finalized during the reporting period.

Uncompleted actions are covered in the table below.

Uncompleted actions from the group of overdue actions (deadline - 31 December 2013)

Action

Deadline

Responsible Institution

WG Assessment

Group II. Develop methodological recommendations and professional training programs.

1.

Action 4.1.4. section 2. Build the capacities to ensure an anticorruption behavior by formulating relevant methodological recommendations.

Quart. IV, 2013

MOI, NAC, PGO, SCM, SCP, self administration bodies of justice related professions

Uncompleted

MOJ, MOF, MLSPF

Partially completed

Group III. Improve the legal framework, draft laws and bylaws.

2.

3.

26

Action 4.1.1. section 1. Amend the legal framework to simplify the method for calculating wages and re-assess the social guarantees of the justice sector players.

Action 4.1.4. section 4. Revise the legislative framework in order to regulate the margin of discretion of the representatives of the justice sector and draft amendments to the relevant regulatory framework.

Quart. IV, 2012 Quart. IV, 2013

MOJ, SCJ, PGO, SCM, SCP, self-administration bodies of justice related professions

Irrelevant

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR IV

4.

Action 4.1.5. section 2. Draft amendments to the regulatory framework in order to regulate the procedure for application of tools to prevent any interference in doing justice and corruptive behavior.

5.

Action 4.2.5. section 1. Draft a regulation on the involvement of the civil society representatives in the monitoring of the legislation on the professional ethics of the justice sector representatives.

6.

Action 4.2.3. section 1. Amend or, if appropriate, develop the regulatory framework on the performance of the entities in charge of investigating noncompliance with the professional ethics.

7.

8.

Action 4.3.2. section 2. Develop the regulatory framework for the voluntary polygraph testing of representatives of the justice sector.

Action 4.3.4. section 1. Conduct a survey of the appropriateness to amend the legal framework regarding the publication and media coverage of court judgments convicting justice sector representatives for acts of corruption.

Quart. IV, 2013 Quart. IV, 2013

MOJ, NAC, SCM, SCP, PGO

MOJ, SCM, SCP, MOI, NAC, NIC

Irrelevant Partially completed

MOJ, NAC, SCM, PGO, MOI, unions of justice related professions

Partially completed

NAC, PGO, SCM, MOI

Obsolete

Quart. IV, 2012

SCM, MOJ

Obsolete

Quart. II, 2013

SCM, SCP, PGO, NAC, MOI

Quart. IV, 2013 Quart. II, 2013

Group V. Develop and use information and awareness raising mechanisms.

9.

10

11.

Action 4.3.3. section 2. Create internal institutional mechanisms to allow whistle-blowers to signal irregularities (SCM, SCP, PGO, NAC, MOI).

Action 4.3.3. section 4. Media coverage of the whistle-blower institution.

Quart. IV, 2013

SCM, PGO, MOI, NAC, CS

Quart. IV, 2013

SCM, courts

Partially completed Completed

Group VI. Acquisition and installation of equipment. Software updates.

Action 4.1.5. section 7. Procure polygraphs to detect simulated behavior.

Partially completed

27

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR V

Chapter V

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR V Institutional capacity. During the first Quarter of 2014, WG V met in two sessions, on 31 January and 3 March. Both the agendas and minutes of the sessions of the first quarter, covered by this reporting period, were published on the Justice Reform web page on 31 March 2014. At the first meeting of the WG, subjects related to the presentation of the report for 2013 has been put into discussion, and the second discussed the approval of the Action Plan for 2014.

Regrettably, the two WG meetings convened in the first quarter of 2014 did not tackle overdue actions. Members of the WG were not provided confirmative materials regarding the degree of implementation of the result indicators for actions that were due for completion during the first quarter of 2014.

1. ACTIONS DUE BY: QUARTER 1, 2014 Group III. Develop methodological recommendations and professional training programs.

Specific area of intervention: 5.1.2. Develop guidelines for the use of alternative mechanisms for dispute resolution (criminal, civil, commercial) and establish mediation and arbitration institutions as alternative means of disputes resolution.

Action 5.1.2. section 4. Develop a training program in the field of mediation (arbitration) for judges, lawyers, mediators, arbitrators, and public officials in charge with representing their institutions in court and resolving requests and petitions from citizens.

• • • •

Deadline: Quarter 1, 2014 Responsible for implementation: NIJ, Academy of Public Administration Performance indicator: Training program developed Assessment: action implemented

The deadline for the implementation of the mentioned action has expired on 31 March 2014.

On November 1, 2013, the Council of the NIJ passed Decision no.11/414, which approved the Plan for continuous training for the year 2014. This plan included the subject: “Mediation and Arbitration – an alternative means for dispute resolution in civil, criminal and commercial cases.” Although the training seminar with the respective subject is scheduled only for judges, prosecutors and court staff, whose training is the area of responsibility of the NIJ, the subjects and materials of the course can be made available for other stakeholders mentioned in the Action Plan.

Based on the mentioned above, provided that for this reporting period the performance indicators estimated in the Action Plan were reached, action 5.1.2 section 4 is deemed as implemented.

28

14 www.inj.md/files/u1/_2013_aprobare_Plan_de_formare_continua_2014_0.doc

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR V

2. OVERDUE ACTIONS implemented during the I Quarter, 2014 Group II. Improve the legal framework, draft laws and bylaws.

Specific area of intervention: 5.2.1. Creation the framework necessary for the organization and functioning of insolvency administrators.

Action 5.2.1. section 3. Develop drafts of bills for authorization and qualification of insolvency administrators.

• • • •

Deadline: Quarter 4, 2012 Responsible for implementation: MOJ Performance indicator: Bills drafted and approved Assessment: action completed

The deadline for the implementation of the action has expired on December 31, 2012. According to the Activity Plan of the MOJ for 201315, the GLD and the Division of Legal Jobs and Services are responsible for the completion of this action until December 20, 2013.

On January 25, 2014, the MOJ submitted the draft of the law on authorized administrators of the insolvency for public debates16, and subsequently the project was sent for examination to the Government and Parliament.

Based on the mentioned above, taking into account that the performance indicators for the reporting period met the ones scheduled in the Action Plan, action 5.2.1. section 3 is deemed as completed.

3. OVERDUE ACTIONS (till December 31, 2013) Uncompleted actions from the group of overdue actions (with a deadline by 31 December 2013) Action

Deadline

Responsible Institution

WG Assessment

Group I. Studies and needs assessments examining current practices; proposing recommendations for reform.

1.

2.

Action 5.1.1. section 1. Conduct the survey of the statistical data on: a) number of economic cases filed with courts located in the range of the parties’ office (residence) b) number of businesses registered in territorial administrative units that could be involved in economic litigations.

Action 5.1.2. section 1. Conduct surveys on the performance of the mediation institution in specific fields (family, civil, commercial or labor disputes, administrative, consumer protection litigations) and the opportunity of developing a community mediation system and the institution of arbitration.

Quart. III, 2012

MOJ, SCM, NBS

Uncompleted

Quart. IV, 2012

MOJ, MLSPF, MOE, Mediation Council, SCM, Chamber of Commerce and Industry

Partially completed

15 http://www.justice.gov.md/public/files/file/planurirapoarte/Planul_anual_de_actiuni_al_Ministerului_Justitiei_pentru_anul_2013.pdf 16 http://particip.gov.md/proiectview.php?l=ro&idd=711

29

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR V

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

30

Action 5.3.1. section 1. Conduct a study on ways to upgrade the system of electronic registration of companies.

Action 5.3.2. section 1. Conduct a study on a unified registry of businesses and non-profit organizations.

Quart. IV, 2012 Quart. IV, 2012

e-Government Center, MOJ, MOE, MITC e-Government Center, MOJ, MOE, MITC

Group II. Improve the legal framework, draft laws and bylaws.

Action 5.1.2. section 2. Draft amendments to the regulatory framework on mediation in specific sectors (family, civil and commercial, labor, administrative, consumer protection disputes).

Action 5.1.4. section 2. Amend the legal framework to regulate the mechanisms of recognition and enforcement of judgments issued by foreign arbitration courts.

Action 5.2.1. section 2. Create the institutional framework for exercising the profession of authorized insolvency administrator.

Quart. IV, 2013

Quart. II, 2013

MOJ, MLSPF, MOE, Mediation Council, Chamber of Commerce and Industry MOJ, courts, Chamber of Commerce and Industry, NUCEO

Partially completed Partially completed

Partially completed Partially completed

MOJ, MOE

Partially completed

Quart. IV, 2013

NIJ, MOJ, MOE

Uncompleted

Quart. IV, 2013

MOJ, MOE, e-Government Center, MITC

Uncompleted

Quart. III, 2012

Group III. Develop methodological recommendations and professional training programs Action 5.2.2. section 3. Develop the manual of the authorized administrator.

Group V. Develop and use information and awareness raising mechanisms (for example, websites for the publication of court decisions) Action 5.3.3. section 2. Upgrade the electronic system of free of charge and paid delivery of information on businesses.

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR VI

Chapter VI

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR VI Institutional capacity. During the 1st Quarter of 2014, WG VI met twice, on 29 January and 20 February 2014. Both agendas and minutes of the sessions carried out during the reporting period by the WG were published on the web page of the Justice Reform, as of 31 March 2014.

During the first meeting of the WG, the presentation and approval of the Action Report for 2013 was discussed, while during the second, the members approved the Action Plan for 2014.

Regrettably, the WG meetings held during the first Quarter of 2014, actions due for completion in the respective period were not put into discussion. Members of the WG did not receive any confirmative materials showing progress on the result indicators for the actions due for implementation during the first quarter of 2014.

1. ACTIONS DUE BY: QUARTER I, 2014 No actions were due to be completed during the first Quarter of 2014, under VI Pillar.

2. ACTIONS DUE BY: QUARTER IV, 2013 Group I. Studies and needs assessments examining current practices; proposing recommendations for reform.

Specific area of intervention: 6.5.5. Strengthening the system of forwarding and examination of complaints on the parole services and penitentiary system.

Action 6.5.5. section 1. Conduct a study on the procedures of resolution of complaints related to the functioning of probation service and penitentiary system.

• • • •

Deadline: Quarter II, 2013 Responsible Institution: MOJ Performance Indicator: Study conducted, recommendations formulated Assessment: action implemented

The deadline for the implementation of the action expired on June 30, 2013. The WG members were not provided detailed data regarding the implementation of the action during the monitoring period.

In the MOJ Activity Report for 201317, this action is assessed as completed, only because, on 25 June 2013, there was a meeting at MOJ where a decision was made to hire an expert in order to conduct a study on the procedures of solving of the petitions, and two additional sessions occurred.

17 http://www.justice.gov.md/public/files/file/planurirapoarte/RAPORT_MJ_pentru_2013_din_10-01-2014.pdf

31

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR VI

However, on an undefined date during the reporting period, a study was published on the webpage of the MOJ on the topic: ”A study of the system of examination of the petitions referring the activity of the penitentiary system and the probation service.18” From the mentioned reasons and taking into account the fact that for the reporting period, the performance indicators presented in the Action Plan were reached, Action 6.5.5. section 1 is deemed to be completed.

3.OVERDUE ACTIONS (due by 31 December 2013) Uncompleted actions from the group of overdue actions (due by 31 December 2013) Action

Deadline

Responsible Institution

WG Assessment

Group I. Studies and needs assessments examining current practices; proposing recommendations for reform.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

32

Action 6.1.1. section 1. Conduct a study on the regulatory framework on the performance, membership of and criteria for selecting judges to the Constitutional Court.

Action 6.2.4. section 1. Conduct a study of the performance of the ombudsman for children’s rights protection, including the appropriateness of creating the institution of child’s advocate as a separate institution.

Action 6.3.3. section 6. Assess the necessary financial, material and human resources for the probation system.

Action 6.3.5. section 1. Review the regulatory framework on collection and processing of data on the children in contact with the justice system and, if appropriate, draft amendments to it.

Action 6.4.2. section 1. Detailed review of the financial needs of the penitentiary institutions in order to gradually increase the budgets allocated to these institutions.

Action 6.5.1. section 1. Develop a concept of the probation institution that will contribute to community safety through effective rehabilitation of offenders.

Quart. IV, 2013 Quart. IV, 2013 Quart. IV, 2013

Constitutional Court, MOJ CHRM MOJ

Action 6.3.4. section 3. Develop the methodology of individual planning of sentence execution by children in detention.

Action 6.3.4. section 5. Develop programs to prepare children for their release from prison.

Uncompleted Completed

CHRM, MOI, PGO, MOJ, SCM, MLSPF, NBS

Partially completed

Quart. I, 2013

MOJ

Partially completed

Quart. IV, 2013

PGO, CSM, MOI, NLAC

Partially completed

Quart. IV, 2013

MOJ

Partially completed

Quart. IV, 2013 Quart. IV, 2013

MOJ, MOF

Group II. Improve the legal framework, draft laws and bylaws.

Action 6.3.2. section 1. Formulate comments to the legislation on the review of cases with children victims or witnesses of crimes.

Partially completed

Quart. IV, 2013

MOJ

Partially completed

Completed

18 http://www.justice.gov.md/public/files/file/reforma_sectorul_justitiei/pilon6/Studiu_de_examinare_a_plingerilor_referitoare_la_ probatiune_si_institutiile_penitenciare-_Galoi-2013.pdf

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR VI

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

Action 6.5.1. section 4. Develop the probation officer’s occupational standard and link the probation performance indicators with the new system of performance indicators in the justice sector.

Action 6.4.3. section 2. Create internal and independent disciplinary mechanisms for the examination of complaints regarding acts of torture and ill treatment.

Action 6.4.3. section 4. Draft amendments to the regulatory framework to ensure a direct subordination of anti-torture prosecutors to the Prosecutor General’s Office.

Action 6.4.4. section 1. Develop a concept of a system of registration and records of apprehension, detention and arrest cases; draft relevant amendments to the legal framework, if appropriate.

Action 6.4.5. section 1. Draft amendments to the legal framework to ensure the professional independence of medical workers in detention facilities by transferring them to the Ministry of Health in order to grant probative value to their independent examination in alleged cases of torture, to eliminate contradictions with regard to qualifying actions as acts of torture, and to introduce more serious sanctions for acts of torture depending on the severity of these acts.

Action 6.4.6. section 1. Develop the regulatory framework necessary for the rehabilitation of victims of torture and ill treatment.

Quart. IV, 2013

MOJ

Uncompleted

Quart. IV, 2012

PGO, MOJ, MOI, NAC

Partially completed

Quart. IV, 2012

MOJ, PGO

Partially completed

Quart. IV, 2012

MOI, PGO, NAC, CS, MOJ

Partially completed

Quart. IV, 2012

MOJ, CHRM, PGO, MOI, NAC, CS, MOH

Partially completed

Quart. IV, 2012

MOJ, MLSPF

Uncompleted

33

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR VII

Chapter VII

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR VII Institutional capacity. Throughout the first quarter of 2014, the WG for monitoring of the implementation of the actions for Pillar VII of the strategy met in a meeting, on 21 and 22 February.

During the meeting, the members approved the 2013 WG Activity Report and the integrated monitoring methodology developed by experts hired by the support to the coordination of the justice sector reform project.

1. ACTIONS DUE BY: QUARTER I, 2014 No actions under Pillar VII were scheduled to be completed during the first quarter of 2014.

2. OVERDUE ACTIONS (due by 31 December 2013) Regrettably, not a single action from the list of overdue actions was completed during the reporting period. Uncompleted actions are presented in the table below.

Uncompleted actions from the group of overdue actions (due by 31 December 2013) Action

Deadline

Responsible Institution

WG Assessment

Group I. Studies and needs assessments examining current practices.

Proposing recommendations for reform.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

34

Action 7.1.4. section 1. Review the functions and structure of each institution involved in the Justice Sector Reform process.

Action 7.2.3. section 1. Develop a study on the public access to regulations (database).

Quarter IV, 2012 Quarter II, 2012

Justice sector institutions MOJ, CGE

Partially completed Partially accomplished

Group II. Develop methodological recommendations and professional training programs.

Action 7.2.2. section 4: Develop a handbook on drafting legislation.

Quarter IV, 2012

MOJ

Uncompleted

Quarter II, 2012

MOJ, State Chancellery

Partially completed

Quarter IV, 2013

MOJ

Group III. Improve the legal framework, draft laws and bylaws.

Action 7.2.2. section 3: Develop regulatory framework on ex-ante methodology.

Group VI. Acquisition and installation of equipment, software updates.

Action 7.1.6. section 1. Design the concept of and deploy the integrated informational system of collecting, analysis and exchange of information on reform implementation.

Completed

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR VII

6.

7.

Action 7.2.3. section 2. Optimize the database of secondary legislation.

Quarter II, 2013

MOJ, eGovernment Center

Partially completed

Quarter IV, 2013

Justice sector institutions

Uncompleted

Group VII. Create and streamline the work of justice sector bodies (committees, colleges, etc.).

Action 7.1.4. section 2. Draft and implement structural and functional changes in the institutions involved in the justice sector reform to make them active players in the reform process.

35

TRIAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF USER SATISFACTION WITH THE ACT OF JUSTICE

CHAPTER VIII

TRIAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF USER SATISFACTION WITH THE ACT OF JUSTICE A. APPEARANCES OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE – PERCEPTIONS OF PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE The survey is aimed at measuring the perception of the parties in the trial and their representatives (not the perception of the observer/monitor) regarding the act of justice based on the following indicators (parameters): 1. Availability of Information and Transparency; 2. Quality of Facilities and E-justice; 3. Access to justice; 4. Capacity, Independence and Impartiality of Judges; 5. Fairness of Proceedings; 6. Quality of the Outcome of the Proceedings (Judgments); 7. General State and Trends in the Quality of Administration of Justice.

Thus, the 22 questions of the survey were divided by the above categories. The respondents were asked to choose between three levels of satisfaction, totally dissatisfied, partially satisfied and totally satisfied. The option “undecided” was also included for the cases when the question was not applicable or the respondent chose not to answer it.

The parties to the trials observed by the monitors during Quarter I, 2014, were asked to fill in these questionnaires. A total of 480 questionnaires were completed. Given the different level of training and understanding of judiciary proceedings of the participants in the survey, it was suggested to divide the respondents into three categories:

1. Lawyers, a total of 139 people; 2. Prosecutors, a total of 75 respondents; and 3. Court users (which include plaintiffs, defendants, witnesses, respondents and victims), totaling 266 persons.

In order to create a comparative image for every question diagrams were created indicating the choice per surveyed categories.

36

TRIAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF USER SATISFACTION WITH THE ACT OF JUSTICE

1. Access to legal information and available case law of the court (brochures, leaflets etc.): 70% 61%

57%

60% 50%

43% totally dissatisfied

40% 32%

32%

29%

30%

partially satisfied totally satisfied

20%

13%

11%

12%

8%

10%

2%

0%

0% Lawyers

undecided

Prosecutors

Court users

Note: As we could find, most satisfied with the access to legal information were the prosecutors, and the most dissatisfied were the court users: only 13% said they were totally dissatisfied, and only 43% totally satisfied with the access to legal information and case law of the court, which represent the lowest rates among all categories.

2. Politeness and attitude of the registrar staff: 90% 77%

80%

70%

70%

61%

60%

totally dissatisfied

50%

partially satisfied

40%

totally satisfied

16%

20% 10%

undecided

27%

27%

30%

4%

0%

0% Lawyers

5%

6%

6%

1%

Prosecutors

Court users

Note: Research data shows that a majority of the surveyed highly appreciates the politeness and attitude of the registrar staff, thus totally satisfied are 77% prosecutors, 70% lawyers and 61% court users.

37

TRIAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF USER SATISFACTION WITH THE ACT OF JUSTICE

3. Professionalism of the court clerks: 80% 69%

70%

64%

63%

60% totally dissatisfied

50%

partially satisfied

40%

totally satisfied

31%

30%

undecided

25%

24%

20% 10%

4%

3%

4%

3%

7%

5%

0% Lawyers

Prosecutors

Court users

Note: As in the previous diagram, the majority appreciates the professionalism of the court clerks, the number of the totally satisfied having a similar quota. Thus totally satisfied are 69% of prosecutors and 64% court users and 63% lawyers.

4. Court premises (access for persons with disabilities, chairs on the hall, room for consultation of the case, room for lawyers, prosecutors, bathroom): 50%

47%

45%

42%

40%

44%

43%

38%

35%

35%

totally dissatisfied

30% 25% 20%

partially satisfied totally satisfied

20%

undecided

16%

15% 8%

10%

5%

5%

3%

0%

0% Lawyers

Prosecutors

Court users

Note: For this question, we can observe that the court users are the most satisfied group: 44% of the court users are totally satisfied with the court premises, compared to 38% of the lawyers and 43% of the prosecutors. On the other hand, 20% of lawyers said they were totally dissatisfied by the facilities provided by the court premises, along with 16% of court users and 8% of the prosecutors.

38

TRIAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF USER SATISFACTION WITH THE ACT OF JUSTICE

5. Signs to the court building and inside premises: 50%

45%

45%

44%

41%

40%

35%

33%

35%

33% totally dissatisfied

30% 25% 20%

partially satisfied 20%

19%

totally satisfied

18%

undecided

15% 10%

5%

5%

4%

2%

0% Lawyers

Prosecutors

Court users

Note: The responses regarding the signs towards and inside the court building are quite similar. Thus totally satisfied are 41% of the prosecutors vs. 33% of the lawyers and court users. The rate of those totally dissatisfied is 19% for all surveyed categories.

6. Furnishing and equipment of the courtroom: 80% 71%

70%

64%

65%

60% totally dissatisfied

50%

partially satisfied

40%

totally satisfied

30%

25%

undecided

26%

24%

20% 10%

6%

4%

4%

8% 1%

3%

0% Lawyers

Prosecutors

Court users

Note: Based on the obtained data we can remark that the rates of the totally satisfied by the furnishing and equipment of the courtrooms are basically similar across all categories. Thus totally satisfied are round 71% of the prosecutors, 65% lawyers and 64% court users.

39

TRIAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF USER SATISFACTION WITH THE ACT OF JUSTICE

7. Quality of court webpage, including search engine: 60%

53% 47%

50%

47%

40%

35%

totally dissatisfied

33%

partially satisfied

30%

25% 26%

totally satisfied undecided

20% 10%

11%

9% 6%

6%

2%

0% Lawyers

Prosecutors

Court users

Note: The rate of those satisfied is bigger than those unsatisfied even if it does not represent the majority. However the responses in the 4th category (not applicable) allow us to conclude that 47% of court users, 6% of lawyers and 11% of the prosecutors did not browse the webpage of the court.

8. E-Management of the cases and judiciary process, including computerized management of the proceedings: 70% 57%

60% 50%

45%

45% 43%

40%

35%

31%

30%

22%

totally dissatisfied partially satisfied totally satisfied undecided

20% 10%

7%

5%

4%

4%

2%

0% Lawyers

Prosecutors

Court users

Note: Similar to the previous diagram, we can see that the electronic case management system is highly appreciated by 57% of the prosecutors, 43% of the lawyers and 31% of the court users. On the other hand, 45% of dissatisfied court users prove they do not understand how case distribution works.

40

TRIAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF USER SATISFACTION WITH THE ACT OF JUSTICE

9. Ease of the consultation of the case file: 90%

81%

80% 68%

70%

59%

60%

totally dissatisfied

50%

partially satisfied

40%

totally satisfied

30%

undecided

27%

22%

20% 10%

11%

9% 5%

4%

5%

4%

4%

0% Lawyers

Prosecutors

Court users

Note: Research data show that the consultation of the case file is not an issue. This is proved by the data, as 81% of prosecutors declared they are totally satisfied with the way files are offered for consultation, and the same opinion is shared by 68% lawyers and 59% of court users.

10. Court fees and other costs of access to justice (excluding lawyers’ fees): 45%

41%

42%

40% 33%

35%

36%

33%

32%

30% 25%

totally dissatisfied

23%

21%

partially satisfied totally satisfied

20%

undecided

15% 10% 5%

28%

5%

4%

3%

0% Lawyers

Prosecutors

Court users

Note: The court fees do not represent an issue for the court users. Thus only 5% of the court users, 4% of lawyers and 3% of the prosecutors are totally dissatisfied by the court expenses and other costs related to case examination.

41

TRIAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF USER SATISFACTION WITH THE ACT OF JUSTICE

11. Punctuality of the court in conducting hearings on time: 70% 60%

57%

53%

52%

50% totally dissatisfied

40%

35%

35%

partially satisfied

32%

totally satisfied

30%

undecided

20% 10%

10%

10%

7% 1%

6%

1%

0% Lawyers

Prosecutors

Court users

Note: The majority of the respondents are totally satisfied with the punctuality in conducting hearings. Thus 57% of the prosecutors, 53% of the lawyers, and 52% of the court users have declared themselves totally satisfied with the timely conduct of the hearings. On the other hand, 10% of lawyers and 7% of the prosecutors said they were totally dissatisfied with the punctuality of the judges in conducting hearings.

12. Adequacy in time between the summons and hearing: 90% 77%

80%

69%

70%

62%

60%

totally dissatisfied

50%

partially satisfied

40%

totally satisfied

18%

20% 10%

undecided

28%

30% 16% 11% 4%

4%

1%

5%

5%

0% Lawyers

Prosecutors

Court users

Note: We can estimate that the majority of the respondent lawyers, namely 77%, are totally satisfied with the adequacy in time between summons and hearing, same as 69% prosecutors and 62% of the court users.

42

TRIAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF USER SATISFACTION WITH THE ACT OF JUSTICE

13. Politeness and attitude of the judge(s): 90% 77%

80%

71%

70%

70%

60%

totally dissatisfied

50%

partially satisfied

40%

totally satisfied undecided

30%

23%

10%

23%

17%

20% 5%

1%

3%

3%

4%

3%

0% Lawyers

Prosecutors

Court users

Note: We can consider that the absolute majority of the interviewed are completely satisfied by the politeness and attitude of the judges, thus 77% prosecutors, 71% lawyers, 70% court users agree to this. On the other hand, 3% of the prosecutors, 4% of the lawyers and 5% of court users are totally dissatisfied with the politeness and attitude of the judge.

14. Professionalism and competence of judge(s), including clarity of judgments: 90%

80%

80% 69%

70%

68%

60%

totally dissatisfied

50%

partially satisfied

40%

totally satisfied undecided

30%

25%

25%

20% 10%

16% 4%

1%

1%

0% Lawyers

Prosecutors

3%

3%

4%

Court users

Note: Same as for the previous question, we found that the majority of those surveyed are totally satisfied by the professionalism and competence of the judges; thus, 80% of prosecutors, 69% of lawyers, 68% of court users agree to this. On the opposite side, an average 3%, 4% and 1% of the same categories are totally dissatisfied with the judges’ professionalism.

43

TRIAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF USER SATISFACTION WITH THE ACT OF JUSTICE

15. Impartiality of judge(s): 90% 77%

80% 70%

64%

58%

60%

Total nesatisfăcut

50%

Parţial satisfăcut

40%

Total satisfăcut Indecis

30%

24%

20%

20% 10%

13% 6%

6%

0%

9% 5%

0%

Avocați

16%

Procurori

Justițiabili

Note: 77% of the prosecutors, 64% of the lawyers and 58% of the court users are totally satisfied by the impartiality of the judges. As many as 6% of the lawyers and 5% of court users declared themselves totally dissatisfied, no prosecutors agreeing to that.

16. Professionalism and competency of lawyer(s): 70% 60%

57%

54%

50%

42%

40%

36%

30%

38%

undecided 16%

13% 9%

10%

4%

3%

1%

partially satisfied totally satisfied

27%

20%

totally dissatisfied

0% Lawyers

Prosecutors

Court users

Note: The professionalism of the lawyers was assessed by prosecutors as totally satisfactory at a rate of 57%, and by the court users at a rate of 42%. Totally dissatisfied were 3% of prosecutors and 4% of court users. Surveyed lawyers assessed their colleagues by total satisfaction at a rate of 36%, while 54% refrained from an answer.

44

TRIAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF USER SATISFACTION WITH THE ACT OF JUSTICE

17. Professionalism and competency of prosecutor(s), by case: 60%

54%

50%

45%

42% 40%

48%

totally dissatisfied

35%

totally satisfied undecided

19%

20% 10%

partially satisfied

27%

30%

15% 4%

4% 3%

4%

0% Lawyers

Prosecutors

Court users

Note: The professionalism of the prosecutors has been assessed by the lawyers as totally satisfactory at a rate of 42%, and by the court users at a rate of 27%. Totally dissatisfied were 4% of lawyers and 4% of court users. Surveyed prosecutors assessed their colleagues by total satisfaction at a rate of 45%, while 48% refrained from an answer.

18. Sufficient time and opportunity to present arguments and evidence and refute opposite evidence: 90% 77%

80%

71%

70%

63%

60%

totally dissatisfied

50%

partially satisfied

40%

totally satisfied undecided

30%

22%

24%

20% 10%

15% 3%

4%

5%

3%

5%

8%

0% Lawyers

Prosecutors

Court users

Note: The majority of those surveyed said they were totally satisfied with the time and possibilities to present their arguments and refute the evidence brought by the opponent side, thus 77% of the prosecutors, 71% of the lawyers and 63% of court users declared totally satisfied with that.

45

TRIAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF USER SATISFACTION WITH THE ACT OF JUSTICE

19. Reasonable time of the proceedings: 70%

63%

60% 48%

50% 40%

40%

39%

44%

totally dissatisfied partially satisfied

35%

totally satisfied

30%

undecided

20% 10%

10%

9% 1%

1%

7%

1%

0% Lawyers

Prosecutors

Court users

Note: For about 63% of the prosecutors, 48% of the lawyers and 44% of the court users, the duration of the proceedings seems to take a reasonable amount of time, considering their total satisfaction with this, and only 10% lawyers and 9% of the court users were totally dissatisfied with that.

20. Publicity of proceedings for third parties and media: 80%

76%

70%

65%

59%

60% 50%

totally dissatisfied partially satisfied

40%

totally satisfied

30%

25% 18%

20% 10%

4%

13%

8%

12%

4%

undecided

11% 4%

0% Lawyers

Prosecutors

Court users

Note: The publicity of the proceedings and media access in the courtrooms was positively appreciated by those surveyed. Thus 76% of the prosecutors, 65% of the lawyers and 59% of court users are totally satisfied by the publicity of hearings.

46

TRIAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF USER SATISFACTION WITH THE ACT OF JUSTICE

21. Clarity of the judgment: 60% 47%

50%

48% 42%

40%

40%

37%

35%

totally dissatisfied partially satisfied

30%

totally satisfied undecided

18%

20% 12% 10%

5% 7%

5%

2%

0% Lawyers

Prosecutors

Court users

Note: Most of the respondents could not share their opinion on the clarity of the adopted decisions because the situation was not applicable. Despite of this, 48% of the prosecutors, 42% of the court users and 35% of lawyers said they are totally satisfied with the clarity of the court decision.

22. Promptness or delay in the written judgment: 50%

47%

47%

45%

41%

40%

39%

36%

42%

35% totally dissatisfied

30%

partially satisfied

25%

totally satisfied

20% 15% 10% 5% 0%

15%

14% 5% 7%

undecided

4%

2% Lawyers

Prosecutors

Court users

Note: The same situation as in the previous diagram is reflected with regard to the question on how satisfied those surveyed were with the promptness of the written judgment.

47

TRIAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF USER SATISFACTION WITH THE ACT OF JUSTICE

B. CHARTS FOR MEASURING THE QUALITY OF JUSTICE VIA DIRECT OBSERVATION OF COURT HEARINGS To develop the diagrams, the authors analyzed 300 questionnaires completed by the field monitors in the period between 1 January and 31 March 2014. The methodology of developing the diagrams consisted of entering the direct numerical values corresponding to each questionnaire response options (yes, no, undecided, not applicable). The “undecided” value ​​was used in situations where an objective assessment of response was not possible; it was not entered in cases where the action to which it refers did not occur during the hearing.

The questionnaire was put together based on a methodology developed as part of this project, but also on other instruments, such as: the Model Methodology for Measuring User Satisfaction of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), OSCE Legal Bulletin on International Rights to a Fair Trial and Council of Europe Manual on Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights. The monitoring effort involved 36 observers who monitored meetings in all types of courts, including specialized courts, courts of appeal and the Supreme Court of Justice. Thus, according to analyzed data, hearings were monitored in courts of different levels, as follows: 252 trials were monitored in regular courts, 12 – in specialized courts, 30 – in courts of appeal, and six – in the Supreme Court. Of the total number of 300 trials, 147 were civil trials and 153 – criminal cases.

All observers had previously been involved in civic monitoring of democratic processes, benefited from in-depth training on the principles mentioned above, and were consulted during the monitoring effort.

The results below arise from personal evaluation of the monitor during the observation of the court proceedings. Particular attention was paid to:

1.

Access to Justice and Equality;

2. Competent, Independent and Impartial Court; 3. Publicity of Hearings; 4. Specific Aspects of Fairness of Criminal Trials, including Presumption of Innocence; 5. Adversarial Principle, Equality of Arms and Defense Rights; 6. Public, Timely and Reasoned Judgment and Quality of Outcome of Proceedings.

Unlike the first part of the Monitoring Survey, this part involved a personal evaluation of the monitor of the procedural realities observed. Hearings were randomly selected: some lasted several minutes, while others went on for hours. In effect, the observers did not fill the parts in the questionnaires related to stages in the hearing they did not attend/observe. Half of the monitored hearings referred to civil and litigation cases; the other half related to criminal and administrative cases. Only criminal cases were monitored at the Supreme Court of Justice. So the numbers are: 147 or trials on civil cases, and 153 trials on criminal/administrative cases.

48

TRIAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF USER SATISFACTION WITH THE ACT OF JUSTICE

1. ACCESS TO JUSTICE AND EQUALITY 1. Were there any restrictions imposed on the ability to summon to court, or to submit claims or complaints in court?

Note: Of the total 300 trials observes, in 289, the monitors believed that no restrictions were imposed on the ability to summon to court, or to submit claims or complaints in court.

350 289

300 250 200 150 100 50 0

0 yes

no

4

7

undecided

not applicable

2. COMPETENT, INDEPENDENT AND IMPARTIAL COURT 2. Were there any suspicions regarding the independence of the court, in particular the presence of any influence, pressure or threats?

Note: In most of the trials (293), the observers stated no reasonable suspicions that the judge(s) were under pressure, threat or were not independent;

350 293

300 250 200 150 100 50 0

3 yes

no

4

0

undecided

not applicable

3. Were there reasons to believe that the court was partial? Were there grounds to disqualify the judge from the case (the judge showed bias, prejudice or a pre-determined attitude towards the examined case; the judge expressed his opinion on the guilt of a person during the trial, inside or outside the courtroom; the judge communicated with the prosecutor or the defense counsel before the hearing or between proceedings, was there a potential conflict of interests that raised reasonable fear that the judge could not act impartially)?

49

TRIAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF USER SATISFACTION WITH THE ACT OF JUSTICE

Note: In almost all trials monitored (293 trials), the observers found no grounds for disqualifying the judge.

Only in two cases did the monitor notice that the judge has a biased opinion formed in advance.

350 293

300 250 200 150 100 50 0

2 yes

no

5

0

undecided

not applicable

3. PUBLICITY OF HEARINGS 4. Did the court ask certain categories (media, public, observers, etc.) to leave the hearing?

Note: Observers noted that throughout the quarter the court did not demand any groups to leave the courtroom.

350 297

300 250 200 150 100 50 0

0 yes

no

3

0

undecided

not applicable

5. Was the hearing held in a courtroom?

Note: Of the 300 trials monitored, 239 hearings were held in courtrooms, and 60 hearings – in judges’ offices. We note that, compared with Quarter IV of 2013, the number of hearings held in courtrooms went up by 22, or by 10%

300 250

239

200 150 100 60 50 0

50

yes

no

1

0

undecided

not applicable

TRIAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF USER SATISFACTION WITH THE ACT OF JUSTICE

6. Was the size of the courtroom adequate to accommodate all the participants in the case?

350 300

288

250 200 150 100 50 0

11 yes

no

1

0

undecided

not applicable

Note: In 288 of 300 monitored trials, the rooms used to conducting the hearings were spacious enough to accommodate all the parties in the trial. In 11 cases, it was established that the venues did not ensure the necessary comfort and conditions for the conduct of the trial. Similar data were observed during previous reporting periods.

7. Was the courtroom equipped with the necessary furniture?

300

Note: 284 of the 300 monitored court hearings were conducted in wellfurnished rooms, and 14 hearings were held in facilities insufficiently furnished to allow the parties to take notes or hold their papers.

284

250 200 150 100 50 0

14 yes

no

1

1

undecided

not applicable

8. Was the court hearing audio-recorded?

Note: In Quarter 1 of 2014, 261 of 300 trials were audio which is 12% more than in the previous Quarter.

We note that the number of audiorecorded hearings is rising.

300 261 250 200 150 100 38

50 0

yes

no

1

0

undecided

not applicable

51

TRIAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF USER SATISFACTION WITH THE ACT OF JUSTICE

9. Was any person denied access to the courtroom?

Note: In the overwhelming majority of the monitored trials (296 cases), there were not cases of denying anyone the right to enter the courtroom. Only three cases were reported when persons were denied access into the courtroom.

350 296

300 250 200 150 100 50 0

3 yes

no

1

0

undecided

not applicable

4. SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF FAIRNESS OF CRIMINAL TRIALS, INCLUDING PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE 10. Did the court pre-determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant (offender)?

160

147

144

140 120 100 80 60

Note: Only on one case of the 153 of criminal and administrative cases monitored was it established that the court pre-determined the offender/defendant’s guilt, and the judge had a biased attitude towards the defendant.

40 20 0

8

1 yes

no

undecided

not applicable

11. Was the defendant (offender) treated in any way such as to indicate that he is guilty (i.e. was he kept in handcuffs during the hearing, was he kept in a cage, etc.)?

160

147

134

140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

52

10

9 yes

no

undecided

not applicable

Note: Of the 153 hearings of criminal case trials monitored, in 9 hearings, it was found that the defendant/ offender was treated in a way as to indicate that he was guilty; in the remaining 134 cases, this was not observed.

TRIAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF USER SATISFACTION WITH THE ACT OF JUSTICE

12. Did the news coverage of the case undermine the presumption of innocence and encouraged bias of judges against the defendant (offender)?

160

147

140

113

120 100 80 60

40

40 20 0

Note: In all the hearings, it was found that the media coverage of the trial did not undermine the presumption of innocence of the defendant or inflict the court’s biased attitude towards them. So, in 40 hearings, the monitors reported that there were no such circumstances; while in 113 cases they were undecided.

0 yes

no

undecided

not applicable

13. Did any public authority make an unequivocal declaration on the defendant (offender)’s guilt before his conviction?

180 160

159

140 120 97

100

Note: In only one case of 153 did the monitor believe that there were statements made regarding the defendant (offender)’s guilt before their conviction.

80 60

38

40 20 0

6 yes

no

undecided

not applicable

14. Did the defendant (offender) enjoy the privilege against self-incrimination? Did the judge explain to the defendant his right not to testify against himself?

160

147

140 120

115

100 80 60

34

40 20 0

Note: The monitors found that there were four cases in which the defendant/offender did not seem to benefit from their right not to testify against themselves, as the observed stage of the hearing did not make clear whether that right was guaranteed.

4 yes

no

undecided

not applicable

53

TRIAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF USER SATISFACTION WITH THE ACT OF JUSTICE

15. Was the defendant compelled to give testimony in court?

160

147

140

123

120 100 80 60 40 20 0

Note: A single case was reported when the defendant/respondent was compelled to testify. In another 123 cases, no such instance was established, while in 29 cases the monitors were undecided.

29 1 yes

no

undecided

not applicable

5. ADVERSARIAL PRINCIPLE, EQUALITY OF ARMS AND DEFENSE RIGHTS A. Adequate Preparation for the Case 16. Did the parties have „adequate time� to prepare the case?

Note: Of the monitored trials, in 15 hearings it was reported that the parties had insufficient time to prepare for the trial, with in 255 hearings, such circumstances were not found.

300 255 250 200 150 100 50 0

15 yes

5 no

undecided

25 not applicable

17. Were there any objections from the parties to the trial that they had not been communicated all the information relevant to the case or that they did not have time to familiarize themselves with documentary evidence held by the adverse party?

300 256 250 200 150 100 50 0

54

23

18 yes

3 no

undecided

not applicable

Note: With regard to the objections from the parties to the trial that they had not been communicated all the information relevant to the case or that they did not have time to familiarize themselves with the documentary evidence held by the adverse party, 18 such cases were reported; at the same time, in 256 cases, such circumstances were not reported.

TRIAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF USER SATISFACTION WITH THE ACT OF JUSTICE

B. Timely Hearing 18. Were procedural delays or postponements of the hearing unreasonable, given the circumstances of the case?

Note: With regard to reasonable delays, the monitors found that, in 11 trials, the monitors assessed the delays as unreasonable, while in 211 cases the delays were deemed reasonable.

250 211 200

150

100

74

50 11 0

yes

4 no

undecided

not applicable

19. Did the delays have any detrimental effect upon the individual’s legal practical position (for instance, where he has been detained in custody or during trial) or his legal position (questions related to statute of limitations, etc.)?

250 200

200

150

100

83

Note: With regard to hearing postponements that could have harmed the trial, monitors found that in 14 hearings such delays could have harmed the trial, while in 200 cases the delays did not affect the trial.

50 14 0

yes

3 no

undecided

not applicable

C. Right to Presence at Hearing and Effective Participation

20. Was the respondent (defendant/offender) given the opportunity to participate in a hearing to present his case?

300

Note: In the absolute majority of cases (267), the respondent (defendant/offender) was given a real opportunity to participate at the trial to present their case. There were only five cases when that right was restricted.

267

250 200 150 100 50 0

yes

25

5

3

no

undecided

not applicable

55

TRIAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF USER SATISFACTION WITH THE ACT OF JUSTICE

D. Right to Legal Representation or Self-Representation 21. Did the parties to trial have representation?

Note: In the majority of court hearings, the parties were represented by lawyers or legal representatives (198 sittings); in 95 cases, the parties did not have legal counsel or representation.

250

200

198

150 95

100

50

0

0 yes

no

undecided

7 not applicable

22. Were the parties prohibited to represent themselves during the hearing?

Note: no cases of prohibition of selfrepresentation were reported.

300 253

250 200 150 100

43

50 0

4

0 yes

no

undecided

not applicable

23. Did one or more parties seek representation by counsel?

180

Note: In 58 monitored trials, a lawyer’s assistance was requested; in other 160 hearings, such requests were not submitted.

160

160 140 120 100

78

80 60

58

40 20 0

56

4 yes

no

undecided

not applicable

TRIAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF USER SATISFACTION WITH THE ACT OF JUSTICE

24. If the party did not have sufficient means for legal assistance, did it request state-guaranteed legal aid?

180

162

160 140

Note: A lawyer from the NLAC was requested in 19 hearings.

115

120 100 80 60 40 20 0

19 4 yes

no

undecided

not applicable

25. Did the counsel act in an independent, competent and efficient manner?

180

171

160 140

118

120 100 80

Note: In 171 hearings where lawyers were present, the monitors noted that the lawyers acted in an independent, competent and efficient manner; in other six hearings, this was not the case.

60 40 20 0

yes

6

5

no

undecided

not applicable

E. Examination of Witnesses 26. Were the parties provided with the same opportunities to examine witnesses and experts, which had been summoned to testify at trial?

160

150

132

140 120 100 80

Note: In half of the hearings (150), monitors found that the sides had equal possibilities to interview witnesses and experts, and in eight cases this possibility was not provided.

60 40 20 0

yes

8

10

no

undecided

not applicable

57

TRIAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF USER SATISFACTION WITH THE ACT OF JUSTICE

27. Were there all measures taken to ensure the participation of all witnesses and experts summoned by the court/parties?

160

142

132

140 120 100

Note: In 19 cases, it was established that the court could have taken additional measures to ensure the presence of witnesses and other sides.

80 60 40 19

20 0

7 yes

no

undecided

not applicable

F. Interpretation and Translation 28. Did the parties request the presence of a translator/interpreter?

Note: In 31 hearings, a translator’s assistance was requested.

250 202

200

150

100 65 50

0

31 2 yes

no

undecided

not applicable

29. Was the appointed translator/interpreter an official court interpreter selected from the list of court interpreters?

300 252

250 200 150 100 50 0

58

31 0 yes

no

17 undecided

not applicable

Note: For all cases the interpreters were authorized

TRIAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF USER SATISFACTION WITH THE ACT OF JUSTICE

30. Did the defendant/parties appear to fully understand the translated questions?

300 250

250 200 150 100 50 0

30

19

1 yes

no

undecided

not applicable

G. Additional question regarding the equality of arms 31. Do you think there were any other aspects in the proceedings that led to inequality of the parties in the process of the incapacity of one of the parties to fully represent its case and object to the evidence considered fake?

300

Note: In 275 cases no such elements were reported. Only in 18 cases, the parties in the trial invoked various aspects of inequality.

275

250 200 150 100 50 0

18 yes

no

3

4

undecided

not applicable

6. THE PUBLICITY OF JUDGMENT AND QUALITY OF THE OUTCOME OF THE PROCESS A. General Requirements 32. Do you think the judgment is clear?

180 160

Note: In 159 cases the judgments were clear, and in 6 cases, the judgment was not understood.

159

140 120 97

100 80 60

38

40 20 0

6 yes

no

undecided

not applicable

59

CONCLUSIONS

CONCLUSIONS The results of the fifth Quarterly Monitoring Report for the Implementation of the Justice Sector Reform Strategy allow us to draw some significant conclusions.

Unfortunately, we found that progress in the implementation of the Action Plan is continuously slow. Thus, of the 264 actions due for implementation by 31 March 2014, 157 were implemented, and 107 remain overdue, which represents a ratio of 59% to 41%, respectively. Although in terms of percentage the report demonstrates a positive growth compared to the previous one, a worrisome fact is that very few actions were planned for the reference period, and even fewer have been implemented (only 1 out of 7). As for the pillars where no action has been planned during this period, we have did not notice an intention to catch up on the overdue actions.

Additionally we outline that two essential studies for the reform of the judicial system were presented during the reporting period, namely: the study concerning the optimization of the courts location and one on the specialization of the judges. The Justice Reform Council Moldova developed both studies, and we hope they will encourage the stakeholders to act subsequently as early as possible.

One cannot acknowledge a real fight against corruption at this time. Those few criminal cases filed against several judges and the sentence of convicting a judge from Telenesti19 to 7 years of imprisonment for a 200 US dollars bribe, do not demonstrate the genuine intention of the authorities to eradicate the corruption from the justice system, since judges that have made serious errors in enforcing the law while in their capacity remain untouched.

On the other hand, the civil society is unhappy with the absence of responses to its calls. Thus, in late 2013, several organizations signed a common petition to the President of the Republic of Moldova, asking him not to promulgate the Law on the Ombudsperson, voted in second lecture on December 23, 2013. Following a month of no response, the organizations sent out a repeated petition20, which also remained unanswered. To date, the status of the legal document is uncertain; the only available information on the Parliament website indicates that the document is “in transition”21.

Institutional capacity

We reiterate the good activity of the secretariat of the working groups, which ensures a good occurrence of the sittings, as well as availability of the files on the webpage dedicated to the reform. In the same context, a special section has been created in the reports section of the ministry’s website to publish JSRS products. Although not all reports/studies are available there, this shows a certain amount of effort and transparency on behalf of the stakeholders.

The Support for Coordination of the Implementation of the Justice Sector Reform Project produced a new methodology for monitoring and reporting actions within the project. Every action is assigned a certain weight, respective of its importance in achieving the objective for the intervention area. The methodology has been introduced to the secretariat, and their personnel was trained to use it, so that the next report should take into account the changes proposed by the new methodology.

60

19 http://www.zdg.md/video/video-judecatorul-prins-cu-200-de-dolari-mita-condamnat-la-7-ani-de-inchisoare 20 http://crjm.org/news/view/261 21 http://www.parlament.md/ProcesulLegislativ/Proiectedeactelegislative/tabid/61/LegislativId/1927/language/ro-RO/Default.aspx

CONCLUSIONS

Achievements under Pillar I Although no actions were planned for this reporting period under the JSRS AP, the responsible institutions were not equally active about catching up with the overdue actions. We note the implementation of four actions, of which three were implemented with the help of the LRCM. Although delayed, the respective actions establish the basis for implementation of certain subsequent actions, whose implementation was delayed by the non-elaboration of the three studies. Also note that of the 23 actions that remain unaccomplished under this Pillar, eight were due back in 2012.

Achievements within Pillar II

According to the Action Plan for the Implementation of the Justice Sector Reform Strategy for 2011-2016, 84 actions are scheduled for implementation under Pillar II. 43 actions were scheduled for implementation by the end of the first quarter of 2014 (31 March 2014). Out of these, 24 were implemented, and 19 were not completed. During the reporting period (1 January – 31 March 2014), none of the five due actions were implemented. At the same time, two actions of those overdue at the beginning of the reporting period were completed.

Achievements under Pillar III

We appreciate the efforts undertaken by the National Council for Free State Guaranteed Legal Aid (NCLA) to implement the actions in its responsibility, as this institution finally publicized three studies on the activity of the NCLA, thus reducing the ratio of incomplete actions.

Additionally, we note the fact that two other actions related to the legal framework regulating the activity of the court enforcement officers have been implemented. Thus amendments were made to the Execution (Enforcement) Code and to the Law on the court enforcement officers (actions 3.3.2 section 2 and 3.2.1 section 2). Despite all of these, the National Union of Court Enforcement Officers has reacted quite tough to several of the proposed amendments. In the Union’s opinion, these amendments will not lead to a institutional and functional capacity of the court enforcement officers, rather creating a dependence, on the Ministry of Justice. Thus the court enforcement officers would be discriminated in regard to the other offices linked to the justice system.

Also, during the 24 January 2014 meeting of the Working Group on Pillar III, a decision was taken to declare obsolete action 3.3.1. section 3, developing the regulation on the enforcement of the ECtHR decisions. This decision was adopted with regard to the fact that the new Law on the Government Agent was to introduce a mechanism of parliamentary control of the execution of the ECtHR decisions, thus removing the need to develop other acts.

Achievements under Pillar IV

Although no new actions were planned for implementation during the reporting period according to the action plan of the JSRS, the responsible institutions did not succeed in finalizing any of the overdue actions. Thus of the 11 overdue actions, none was implemented.

Achievements under Pillar V

According to the Action Plan for the implementation of the Justice Sector Reform Strategy for 2011-2016, a total 28 actions are scheduled for implementation under Pillar V. Of those, 20 actions were to be completed by the end of the first quarter of 2014 (31 March 2014). Out of these 61

CONCLUSIONS

20, 11 were achieved, and other nine were not achieved. During the reporting period (1 January – 31 March 2014), a single due action was implemented. Additionally one of the actions overdue at the beginning of the reporting period was implemented.

Achievements under Pillar VI

According to the 2011-2016 JSRS Action Plan, within the Pillar VI, in total 100 actions are scheduled for implementation. 45 actions were supposed to be completed by first quarter of 2014 (31 March 2014). Out of these 45, 30 were implemented, and 15 were not achieved. During the reporting period, a single due action was implemented. Additionally, one of the actions overdue at the beginning of the reporting period was implemented.

Achievements under Pillar VII

Although no actions were scheduled for the reporting period in the JSRS AP, the responsible institutions did not succeed in achieving any of the overdue actions. Thus of the seven overdue actions, none was achieved, and more than half of these are overdue since 2012.

Trial monitoring

Thanks to the effort undertaken by the team of monitors in the first quarter of the 2014, 300 trials were monitored in all the courts across country. Of these, 153 were criminal/contravention cases, and were 147 civil cases. Additionally, 480 participants in the trials were given the possibility to fill in court satisfaction surveys.

An analysis of the obtained data does not reveal any negative trends in comparison to the previous quarters.

A positive indicator of growth is the number of recorded sittings, which has grown by 12% compared to the fourth quarter of 2013. Concomitantly, the number of sittings that occurred inside sitting rooms went up by 10%.

Registered shortcomings include issues related to court facilities that were negatively assessed by 20% of the lawyers and court users. Most frequent complaints concern the lack of offices to become familiar with the case, locker rooms for lawyers, and not in the last mention – the functioning of the court bathrooms.

Monitoring of court websites

Throughout February-March 2014, monitors observed the functioning and availability of the web pages of the courts. In order to carry out this monitoring, observers were asked three main questions: 1. Is the agenda of the courts published on the web pages?

2. Are the decisions of the Courts published in time or not?

3. Do the web pages have a search engine?

Thus, during the mentioned period, 50 web pages of the courts throughout the country have been monitored. The observers found that in 12 cases of 50 (24%), agendas were not published on the website. There were also cases of inconsistency between the real agendas (printed and walled inside the courts) and the ones published on the websites.

62

CONCLUSIONS

Regarding the second question, in 22 cases (44%), court decisions were published online on time. Additionally, there were cases when publicized decisions contained broken links. In some cases, decisions were not published for over a month.

Although the absolute majority of the pages have search engines, only in 35 cases (70%) these engines are more or less effective, while in most of the cases the observers reported deficiencies in using the search engine.

Note: the experts deemed it appropriate to avoid repeating the text for overdue actions unachieved during each of the reports, so these are presented in the form of tables at the end of every Pillar chapter. As a consequence, the text of the report is continuously structured on pillars, and each of the pillars is divided by current and overdue status of actions. Under the current actions, due actions are analyzed and assessed as achieved and unachieved. For the overdue actions, the text presents actions that were completed during the reporting period, and uncompleted actions are mentioned in special tables.

63

64

0

0

23

73 50

TOTAL

Total for Quarter I, 2014 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ministry of Justice Supreme Council of Magistrates National Institute of Justice National Anticorruption Center National Legal Aid Council National Union of Judicial Officers Ministry of Internal Affairs Prosecutor General's Office Center for Human Rights of Moldova National Council for Reforming the Law Enforcemen Bodies National Integrity Commission Parliament Central Public Administration E-Governance Center Justice sector Institutions Constitutional Court Supreme Council of Prosecutors

Responsible institution

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 43 5

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 24 19 0 5

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

33 10 23 1 0 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0

0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0

0

0

15 11

2 1 1

2 1 1

26

0

0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 11 1 1

0 0 0 0 1 0 0 9 0

0 0 0 0 1 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 1

1

0 0 0 0 0 0

1

0 0 0 0 2

45 30 15 24 17 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 1

0

7

2 0

0 0 0 0

0

7

1

6

1 1 0 2 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 264 157 107

14%

100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 59%

86%

0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 41%

Actions implemented / not implemented / % Pillar 1 Pillar 2 Pillar 3 Pillar 4 Pillar 5 Pillar 6 Pillar 7 Total Total I N/I Total I N/I Total I N/I Total I N/I Total I N/I Total I N/I Total I N/I Total I N/I % I % N/I 42 30 12 23 14 9 24 5 19 12 8 4 13 6 7 30 21 9 21 16 5 165 100 65 61% 39% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 14 9 61% 39% 19 14 5 4 0 4 1 1 0 1 0 1 6 5 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 25 16 9 64% 36% 12 6 6 2 1 1 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 5 2 71% 29% 4 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 5 2 71% 29% 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0% 100% 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 5 1 4 20% 80% 0 0 0 12 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 0 0 0 15 7 8 47% 53% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 4 2 0 0 0 6 4 2 67% 33%

Table 1 - Implementation of actions per Pillar

CONCLUSIONS

CONCLUSIONS

Chart 1 – Total actions: implemented and not implemented

Total - Actions implemented / Actions not implemented

160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 Implemented

0

Not implemented

157 107

65