Author: mihaela cibotaru

Law no. 121 on Ensuring Equality was adopted in the Republic of Moldova in a regional and national context where Europeanization was the main element that mobilized the elites to adopt antidiscrimination rules. The adoption of this law, however, was merely the first step in the process of building an efficient mechanism to fight discrimination and promote equality. To ensure that the provisions of the law can turn from theoretical provisions into daily practice, it is necessary to empower the agencies mandated to enforce the law. Eight years after the adoption of Law no. 121, the LRCM report analyzes how the Equality Council and the courts of law interpret and apply the law, the relationship between various actors, and the opportunities and risks which emerged or are foreseeable.

The Equality Council has grown impressively, and its achievements are due to a large extent to its team. Their passion helped the organization to cope with the lack of resources and to overcome challenges in a transparent and open way. The organization managed to foster dialogue with the society by issuing individual and general recommendations, developing bold case law on sensitive subjects, and taking the lead in sounding the alarm when the public discourse swerved toward hatred and assaults on dignity during election periods and in times of crisis. The Council also proved its worth by acting as a mediator, coming up with general recommendations that offered systemic solutions to some forms of structural discrimination.

The analysis also highlights the risks—triggered by the Council’s limited mandate—in granting efficient remedies as, despite the Council’s power to find acts of discrimination, it cannot punish them. Instead, it has to refer notices of contravention and case files to competent courts of law, which perform a new examination and establish sanctions in light of the Contravention Code. This detour takes time and energy, and sometimes, courts have a poor understanding of the antidiscrimination law as a special law. Another identified risk was that the Council risks losing independence and efficiency because of insufficient resource allocation or the risk of politization due to attempts to make the Council a tool in political strife. Unfortunately, deficiencies in applying the procedural guarantees when issuing Council decisions have often led to the annulment of these decisions by the courts. An unexpected finding concerned the way some judges viewed the Equality Council and their ambiguity regarding its legal status as an administrative-jurisdictional authority, which lead them to take an incorrect and uncooperative stance, as they did not understand the importance of an efficient and loyal cooperation between institutions meant to protect the rule of law.

One of the key elements that can render the application of Law no. 121 meaningful consists in the mandate vested in the courts and their efficient involvement in following the spirit and the letter of the law. While being still in its early stage, the examined case law shows that courts gradually improve their ability to apply the antidiscrimination law. Still, there are some discrepancies caused by judges’ poor understanding that the antidiscrimination law has the status of special law (lex specialis) and there are significant difficulties in aligning, or even failure to align, with international—particularly the ECtHR’s—practice when courts are asked to assess the balance between freedom of expression, on the one hand, and the prohibition of discrimination and protection of equality, on the other hand. The rigid legal interpretation and lack of understanding of the special law status ensured to Law no. 121 also transpire in many instances where courts annul the Council’s decisions, particularly on procedural reasons, with a superficial analysis of the merits and with no analysis of the potential impact their judgments have on victims of discrimination. Another issue concerns judges’ misunderstanding of the Equality Council’s role and of its relationship with courts, including the allegations that the Council interferes with justice or judicial independence by examining complaints against courts or judges, whereas in fact the Equality Council simply carries out its legal mandate. This can be explained by the failure of the National Institute of Justice to provide and regularly assess training and workshops to bring Moldovan judges up to date with the international case law on discrimination, incitement to discrimination, harassment, reasonable accommodation, and accessibility.

Latest court judgments give reasons for optimism as they show the understanding of the need to correlate remedies to the discriminatory deeds and a greater flexibility in establishing sanctions. In the long run, this approach will help to define an efficient mechanism of remedies for cases of discrimination.

In terms of the areas in which discrimination occurs, a greater part of cases brought before both the Equality Council and the courts of law concerned discrimination in the field of employment, and fewer cases are of discrimination in access to education or healthcare. Even in the absence of officially filed complaints, the Equality Council may perform the proactive role of monitoring certain fields strategically and take ex officio action to educate and encourage victims to initiate litigation. Unfortunately, despite its mandate under Article 13 of Law no. 121, the Council hesitates to act ex officio.

The analysis focused on the adequacy of procedures, the effectiveness and impact of remedies for victims of discrimination, as well as the educational role of provided remedies for the community. Finally, the analysis proposes a series of specific recommendations in order to improve existing legislation and practices.

The ”Analysis of the Practice of Courts of Law and of the Equality Council concerning Equality and Non-discrimination in the Republic of Moldova” was developed by Romanița IORDACHE, expert on equality and non-discrimination, within the project ”Promoting rule of law through civil society oversight”, implemented by the LRCM with the support of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

The report in English is available HERE.

Inițiativa privind crearea unei instanțe judecătorești anticorupție nu este oportună în Republica Moldova, deoarece nu este justificată din punct de vedere al necesităților juridice, vine în contradicție cu procesul de optimizare a hărții judecătorești și, în esență, este contrară obiectivelor declarate de autoritățile moldovenești cu privire la lupta cu corupția. Acestea sunt unele dintre concluziile documentului de politici „Instanța anticorupție  - este oare aceasta necesară în Republica Moldova?”, lansat de Centrul de Resurse Juridice din Moldova (CRJM) în octombrie 2020.

Pentru prima dată ideea creării instanței anticorupție în Republica Moldova a fost lansată în 2015 de Ministerul Justiției. În 2020, autoritățile naționale au revenit la această inițiativă, chiar dacă, potrivit autorilor documentului, crearea unei instanțe judecătorești anticorupție este în contradicție cu obiectivele stabilite și acțiunile întreprinse în ultimii ani, când au desființate toate instanțele judecătorești specializate.

Analiza relevă că în Republica Moldova nu există un număr de cauze suficient pentru crearea unei instanțe specializate anticorupție. În perioada 2015-2019, numărul mediu de dosare penale privind faptele de corupție examinate de instanțele de judecată a constituit 199 de dosare pe an, pe când sarcina medie anuală a fiecărui judecător în ultimii cinci ani este de circa 620 de dosare. În cazul în care o instanță anticorupție ar fi creată, cei 9 judecătorii care vor activa, ar avea cea mai mică sarcină de muncă – circa 22 de dosare anual per judecător. Mai mult, faptele de corupție sau cele conexe corupției, nu sunt nici numeric mai multe, decât alte tipuri de fapte penale.

Potrivit analizei, examinarea tuturor cauzelor de corupție de o singură instanță de fond, care probabil se va afla în mun. Chișinău, va crea dificultăți în examinarea cauzelor din regiuni, or aceasta va necesita deplasarea tuturor participanților la proces în capitală. În ultimii doi ani, în Republica Moldova în jur de două treimi de cauze de corupție au fost examinate în judecătoriile regionale.

Nu există standarde internaționale privind înființarea instantelor specializate anticorupție, această decizie fiind luată de fiecare stat, reieșind din situația și specificul lui. Majoritatea țărilor care au decis înființarea acestora sunt de pe continentul asiatic și cel african. Instanțe judecătorești specializate pe cauze de corupție și de combatere a infracționalității organizate au fost fondate în câteva țări europene, însă eficiența practică a acestora nu a fost dovedită convingător. Înființarea instanțelor anticorupție în sine nu poate eradica corupția, iar, pe de altă parte, în statele unde nivelul corupției este cel mai redus asemenea instanțe specializate nu există.

Autorii consideră că dosarele de corupție pot fi examinate cu ușurință de judecătoriile de drept comun, care uneori soluționează cazuri mai complicate. Specificul cauzelor de corupție nu ține de examinarea lor în instanța de judecată, ci de modul de investigare a acestora, respectiv, din acest motiv este justificată consolidarea capacităților Procuraturii Anticorupție, inclusiv în investigarea cauzelor de corupție mare.

În urma analizei efectuate, autorii documentului recomandă judecarea cauzelor de corupție nu după locul comiterii infracțiunii, ci la locul aflării organului de urmărire penală (subdiviziunile CNA / eventual ale Procuraturii Anticorupție), și specializarea judecătorilor din câteva instanțe. Aceasta va permite sporirea capacităților judecătorilor în domeniul cauzelor de corupție, fără a crea o instanță scumpă și a o expune prea simplu  influenței din partea terților. 

Documentul de politici publice „Instanța anticorupție  - este oare aceasta necesară în Republica Moldova?” a fost elaborat de CRJM în cadrul proiectului „Promovarea supremației legii prin monitorizare de către societatea civilă”, implementat cu suportul Agenției Statelor Unite pentru Dezvoltare Internațională (USAID).

Documentul în limba română este disponibil AICI.

The civil society represented by the National Platform of the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum and other organizations is concerned about the unprecedented attacks on non-governmental organizations, development partners and democracy launched by MP Bogdan Țîrdea.

On 21 October 2020, Socialist MP Bogdan Țîrdea unleashed the toughest, most thorough and deliberate frontal attack ever made by a Moldovan politician against the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova, the fundamental rights and freedoms of the citizens of this country, and the modernization of our state in line with the European standards.

The attack employs faking and defamatory accusations to discredit civil society on the whole and targeting the organizations working in the field of human rights protection, justice reform, anticorruption, freedom of the press, pro-European reforms, and social and healthcare reforms.

The attack borrows techniques specific to totalitarian regimes that consist in disinformation and discrediting the adversary before acting to eliminate him/her:

1. Depicting the adversary as the enemy of the people and the Republic of Moldova: Bogdan Țîrdea falsely and slanderously claims that civil society acts as “an army financed from outside” that “engages in information warfare” and “works for certain donors against national interests,” all while “stating” that it fights for “democratization, monitoring, human rights”.
2. Cultivating fears, distrust, and resentments aimed at the public enemy identified as civil society. Bogdan Țîrdea falsely and manipulatively says that civil society controls the Moldovan state.
3. Cultivating hatred towards civil society and dividing the society, unscrupulously making use of the poverty the Republic of Moldova is confronting with: The entire public rhetoric spouted by Bogdan Țîrdea is directed to attain this result, still, his preferred methods are manipulation of financial data and erroneous and ill-intended comparisons with the budgets of public entities.
4. Discrediting civil society and its opinion leaders by transfer of image attributes and scandals that have discredited the political class over onto them: corruption, oligarchy, the one-billion-euro theft, where justice failed to shed light so far, thus allowing politicians to make public statements with whatever “indictments” they saw fit against their adversaries.
5. Discrediting development partners—both countries that support the democratization of the Republic of Moldova and the European Union, with whom our country has an Association Agreement that explicitly provides for the development of civil society and cooperation between the state and the nonprofit sector as integral elements of the development and strengthening of a rule-of-law state.
6. Pretending that his defamatory statements are in fact the result of scientific research, which is a cover-up to prevent the legitimate denunciation of disinformation, data manipulation, and reinterpretation of reality in a false vein. Beyond false numbers and statements about the NGOs attacked to support his theses and although he claims that he has carried out a study on the civil society of the Republic of Moldova, MP Bogdan Țîrdea has never spoken about so-called “charity foundations” established by politicians and used in their election campaigns. Even the spouse of President Igor Dodon has such a foundation, and it is hardly believable that a serious scientific research could have overlooked it.
7. Promising that this was not an isolated fit and that he will continue attacks, which is indicative of a complex and orchestrated campaign likely aimed at weakening and even destroying civil society.
8. Releasing a so-called book in a press conference in the full swing of the election campaign, just days before the presidential election, which serves as a diversion to distract public attention from the recently published journalistic investigations about President Igor Dodon and to drag civil society into political strife against its will.

We, the signatories of this public alert, draw the attention of the citizens of  the Republic of Moldova and foreign partners of our country that the attack launched by MP Bogdan Țîrdea is not merely an rhetorical exercise of totalitarian inspiration but an assault on the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova, the Moldovan legal framework, the rule of law, and the fundamental rights and freedoms of Moldovan citizens, because:

1. Civil society organizations are based on citizen’s fundamental rights to opinion, freedom of expression, and association guaranteed under the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova. Any citizen has the right to get involved in any cause he/she cares about. Any citizen has the right to act, to criticize, and to keep the state under scrutiny. The state is not above citizens, and citizens have the right to organize themselves into organizations to be able to act professionally and efficiently.
2. Civil society organizations must abide by a legal framework, and if they deviate from it, state institutions are empowered and must act to ensure the observance of the law. Under the law, liability is individual rather than collective.
3. Civil society organizations are meant to complement the work and expertise of the state in the fields where they are needed to ensure better services for its citizens.
4. Civil society organizations have played a key role in defending human rights, reforming the justice sector, and democratizing the Republic of Moldova to bring it closer to the European Union in accordance with the will of the majority of people of this country. If democratic reforms did not move as fast as Moldovan citizens would like them to, to get rid of poverty and the uncertainty of tomorrow, it is because of the stubbornness with which the political class has dragged them out.
5. Civil society organizations receive foreign funding to promote democracy and human rights as long as these areas are insufficiently functional in the Republic of Moldova. Once the Republic of Moldova becomes a functional democracy, foreign donors will reduce funds for these areas, as was the case of other countries that made transition from totalitarianism to democracy. It is therefore the politicians who oppose the democratization of the Republic of Moldova who send the donors the message that there is still need to support this process and civil society.
6. Civil society is a prerequisite for democracy everywhere in the world. If citizens cannot organize themselves in associations and fight for their causes, then there is no democracy in that country.
7. In fact, the money civil society attracted from donors has filled the financing gaps that the public budget of the Republic of Moldova, being sparse as it is, could never have covered, thus enabling our country to access the expertise, services, and projects that otherwise would have been impossible. Moreover, part of donor’s money for NGOs went into the state budget as NGOs pay taxes and create new jobs.
8. The Association Agreement between the Republic of Moldova and the European Union explicitly provides for the strengthening of civil society. The Eastern Partnership, to which the Republic of Moldova is a party, also provides for mechanisms meant to develop civil society in the region. Therefore, the state has taken on international obligations to respect and allow the development of civil society.

Given the above, the signatories of this public alert:

• Call on the Parliament, the Government, the President of the Republic of Moldova, Igor Dodon, PSRM and other politicians to distance themselves from and to refute the manipulative statements made by PSRM MP Bogdan Țîrdea and not to encourage or pick them up. Considering his role in the state, the stand President Igor Dodon chooses to take is essential to show publicly that he respects the Constitution and the laws of the Republic of Moldova. His stand on this subject is even more important considering that he has promoted the release of Bogdan Țîrdea’s so-called book.

• Call on the political class to stop the attacks and defamation against civil society. It is not NGOs but those who oppose democratization, justice reform, anticorruption efforts, and individual rights and freedoms who keep the Republic of Moldova in poverty and underdevelopment!

• Call on PSRM MP Bogdan Țîrdea to stop this defamation campaign and to withdraw the so-called book from the market, as it uses and spreads false information, defamation, and manipulation. Call on PSRM MP Bogdan Țîrdea to refute the false statements he made at the press conference of 21 October 2020.

• Call on the media outlets to carefully verify politicians’ statements that strike at civil society, as campaign drives in full swing and the fight seems to have shifted onto the territory of fundamental freedoms. If politicians succeed in limiting freedom of association on the pretext of defending national interests and the state, all other freedoms, including freedom of expression, will be at risk.

Signatories:

All member organizations of the National Platform of the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum (92 organizations): https://www.eap-csf.md/membrii-eap-moldova/

Other organizations:

• Amnesty International Moldova
• Associations of Investigative Reporters and Editorial Security RISE Moldova
• AO Media Alternativa
• Institute of Oral History of Moldova (IIOM)
• Mold-Street.com
• Human Rights Embassy
• Moldova.org
• Centre for Corruption Analysis and Prevention
   
• IM Swedish Development Partner
• ”Partnership for Every Child” („Parteneriate pentru Fiecare Copil”) (see the Annex)

The list is open for new signatories. To sign the public alert, please, contact  jantoan.veronica@gmail.com.

The National Platform of the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum was established in 2011 and currently has 92 member organizations, of which 7 are umbrella organizations for other 255 organizations. The mission of the Platform is to strengthen the European integration and democratic development of the Republic of Moldova and to contribute to advocacy and monitoring for the implementation of the EU – RM Association Agreement and other documents applicable to the Eastern Partnership and the EU – RM relationship. More information about the Platform is available at https://www.eap-csf.md/en/.

The National Platform’s contact information: https://www.eap-csf.md/en/contact/.

The Public Appeal in English is available HERE.

The Public Appeal in Romanian is available HERE.

The Public Appeal in Russian is available HERE.

Accesul la informație versus secretul comercial, dreptul cetățeanului de a cunoaște și datele cu caracter personal, standarde internaționale în domeniul accesului la informație – acestea sunt câteva dintre subiectele discutate în cadrul instruiri „Accesul la informație și datele cu caracter personal” pentru jurnaliști și avocați, care se desfășoară la Chișinău în zilele de 2 și 3 octombrie 2020.

În cadrul instruirii jurnaliștii și avocații discută diversele aspecte legate de accesul la informație și datele cu caracter personal – prevederile legislației naționale și standardele internaționale în domeniul dat, precum și procedurile judiciare de valorificare și apărare a dreptului de acces la informație.

Formatori în cadrul instruirii sunt Eugeniu RÎBCA, jurist, expert în legislația mass-media, Bogda MANOLEA, director executiv al Asociației pentru Tehnologie și Internet (România) și avocatul Vasili CIUPERCA.

Activitatea continuă șirul de instruiri organizate de Centrul de Resurse Juridice din Moldova (CRJM) și Centrul pentru Jurnalism Independent (CJI) ce au drept scop fortificarea cunoștințelor participanților pentru a crea capacitatea de a reacționa prompt și a oferi un suport profesionist jurnaliștilor în situațiile în care aceștia se confruntă cu încălcări flagrante ale drepturilor lor.

Anterior în cadrul instruirilor au fost discutată libertatea de exprimare, inclusiv în balanță cu alte drepturi, proceduri în cazurile de calomnie, injurie și intruziune în viața privată – din perspectiva legislației naționale și practica Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului în cauzele moldovenești privind defăimarea și apărarea vieții private.

Instruirea este desfășurată de CJI în cadrul proiectului „Presa în sprijinul democrației, incluziunii și responsabilității în Moldova” (MEDIA-M), implementat de Internews în Moldova, finanțat de USAID și UK Aid și CRJM în cadrul proiectului „Suport instituțional pentru dezvoltarea organizației”,  finanțat de Suedia.