The Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ) has rejected the appeal filed by former prosecutor Ion Tețcu, confirming that the Prosecutor Vetting Commission conducted the evaluation fully in line with Law No. 26/2022 on measures for selecting candidates to the self-administration bodies of judges and prosecutors.

The Court reiterated that the law requires failure whenever serious doubts arise regarding a candidate’s ethical or financial integrity. According to the ruling, “even the smallest discrepancy between income and expenditures accumulated over a 15-year period is enough to justify a failure under Law 26/2022.”

In Mr. Tețcu’s case, the Commission identified unexplained wealth in the amount of 141,420 lei for 2021. In other words, his family’s expenditures were larger than his income – a discrepancy the Court described as proven through “bank records and asset declarations”.

This is the eleventh challenge filed by candidates who failed the integrity evaluation under Law 26/2022 and the eleventh dismissed by the Supreme Court. All of the Commission decisions issued under this law have been upheld.

Overview of the Commission’s Work under Law 26

The failure rate of candidates was high. Under Law No. 26/2022, the Prosecutor Vetting Commission has assessed 32 candidates for the Discipline and Ethics Board and the Selection and Evaluation Board under the Superior Council of Prosecutors. Fifteen candidates passed the evaluation; seventeen did not.

Among the negative outcomes, the Commission identified both ethical and financial integrity concerns in 9 cases, ethical integrity concerns in 3 cases, and financial integrity concerns in 1 case. Three candidates failed due to withdrawing from the process, and one candidate refused to submit the required five-year asset and interest declaration and the ethical integrity questionnaire.

Integrity Criteria

Under Article 8(2) of Law No. 26/2022, a candidate meets ethical integrity requirements only if

  1. they have not committed serious violations of professional conduct
  2. have no reasonable suspicions of corruption
  3. and have complied with all rules on declaring assets, conflicts of interest, incompatibility, and related restrictions.

Under Article 8(4) to satisfy the financial integrity requirement, the Commission must establish that:

  1. the candidate’s assets were declared in accordance with the law
  2. the assets acquired over the last 15 years correspond to the candidate’s declared income.

Ethical Integrity Concerns

 The Commission identified a wide variety of serious ethical concerns among the candidates – serious violations of ethical and professional conduct – including:

  • involvement in a case that resulted in a judgment against the Moldova at the European Court of Human Rights
  • purchasing an apartment at a preferential price and failing to declare the income obtained from its sale
  • declaring an artificially low purchase price for a home in Chisinau
  • engaging in entrepreneurial activity while serving as a prosecutor
  • using revolving credit lines to finance agricultural activities for third parties
  • purchasing, financing, and using a house registered under the candidate’s brother, later described by the candidate as a “fictitious” contract
  • obtaining a construction plot free of charge without justification
  • receiving social housing without meeting eligibility criteria
  • using the bank card of a deceased relative

The Supreme Court concluded that these actions raise serious doubts about respect for the obligation to maintain irreproachable conduct and fall short of the standards set by the Prosecutors’ Code of Ethics.

Financial Integrity Concerns

Regarding the financial integrity requirement – whether assets acquired in the past 15 years correspond to declared income – the Commission identified the following concerns:

  • income–expenditure gaps exceeding 100,000 or even 200,000 lei in a single year
  • unexplained funds used for constructing a residential home or acquiring movable property
  • unjustified bank deposits amounting to 60,000 EUR
  • alleged loans from close relatives lacking supporting evidence
  • unexplained resources used to acquire three vehicles registered under the candidate’s mother.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the explanations offered by candidate did not convincingly address inconsistencies between declared and established data and revealed a lack of transparency and responsibility.

Combined Ethical and Financial Concerns

With respect to both ethical and financial integrity criteria – properly declaring assets and personal interests – the Commission identified the following serious doubts:

  • undeclared income from real estate transactions, including income not reported to the State Tax Service
  • substantial undeclared cash savings accumulated over several years
  • undeclared active bank accounts holding deposits of up to 500,000 lei
  • misdeclared or undervalued vehicles (e.g. only 10,000 lei)
  • undeclared real estate owned domestically or abroad, including omissions lasting up to nine years
  • failure to declare the right of habitation in an apartment owned by a relative, where the candidate and family lived.

In several instances, these omissions were repeated over many years. In one case, the Commission noted that new omissions appeared even after the evaluation process had already begun.

The Commission emphasized that, although its decisions were challenged, the nomination process for the self-administration bodies of prosecutors remained fully functional.