LAW OF THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

of July 25, 2014 No. 178

About disciplinary responsibility of judges

This organic law is adopted based on provisions of article 106-1 of the Constitution by acceptance on itself the Government of responsibility to Parliament.

Chapter I. General provisions

Article 1. Regulation subject

This law regulates bases of disciplinary responsibility, category of the disciplinary violations made by judges, the authority punishments applied to them, stages of disciplinary production, obligation of the organizations involved in disciplinary production, and also procedure for consideration, acceptance and appeal of decisions on disciplinary cases in the relation of judges.

Article 2. The principles of disciplinary production concerning judges

Disciplinary production concerning judges is based on the principles:

a) legality;

b) respect for independence of justice;

c) fair production;

d) proportionality between the sanction and committed disciplinary violation;

e) transparency.

Article 3. Bases of disciplinary responsibility

Judges are brought to disciplinary responsibility for making of the disciplinary violations provided by this law. Violation of provisions of other regulations involves disciplinary responsibility only in cases if act is disciplinary violation according to Article 4.

Article 4. Disciplinary violations

(1) Disciplinary violations are:

a) non-compliance, intended or by rough negligence, obligation on rejection when the judge knows or shall know about existence of one of the circumstances provided by the law for rejection, and also formulation of repeated and unjustified statements about rejection on the same case therefore consideration of the case drags on;

b) pronouncement of the court decree in which intentionally or by rough negligence the basic rights and freedoms of physical persons or legal entities guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova and international treaties on fundamental human rights which party is the Republic of Moldova were violated;

c) ceased to be valid;

d) intervention in justice implementation activities by other judges;

e) illegal intervention or operation of line item of the judge in the relations with other authorities, organizations or employees or for the solution of certain requirements, claim or consent with the purpose of satisfaction of private interests or interests of other persons, or for receipt of undue benefit;

f) non-compliance with mystery of meeting of judges or confidentiality of activities of such nature, and also other confidential information which became to it available in case of accomplishment of powers according to the law;

g) violation because of the judge and without the bases of service duties, reasonable on that, including terms of accomplishment of legal proceedings if it directly affects legitimate rights, freedoms and interests of participants of process or other persons;

h) unmotivated absence from work, delay or premature going away from work if it did harm to activities of instance;

i) violation in the course of implementation of justice of peremptory rules of the legislation;

j) ceased to be valid;

k) the disrespectful relation in the course of implementation of justice to colleagues, lawyers, experts, witnesses or other persons;

l) violation of regulations on incompatibility and the prohibitions established in part (3-1) and Item a) parts (3-2) articles 8 of the Law on the status of the judge No. 544/1995;

m) ceased to be valid;

m-1) non-compliance with provisions of part (2) article 7 of the Law on assessment of institutional integrity No. 325 of December 23, 2013;

n) hindrance by all means activities of judicial inspectors;

n 1) unreasonable refusal of the judge to check condition of the health according to article 6-1 of the Law on the status of the judge No. 544/1995;;

o) ceased to be valid;

p) other acts which can affect honor, professional decency or prestige of justice in that measure in which it mentions trust to justice, made on duty or out of their execution which on the weight cannot be qualified only as violations of the Code of professional ethics and behavior of judges.

(2) the Disciplinary violation made by chairmen and deputy chairmen of degrees of jurisdiction is failure to carry out or accomplishment with lateness or inappropriate accomplishment, without reasonable reasons, obligations, the stipulated in Clause 16-1 Law No. 514-XIII of July 6, 1995 on judicial system and if it affected activities of degree of jurisdiction.

(3) the Disciplinary responsibility does not depend on the fact, it is disputed or not the act issued by the judge, which is the subject of disciplinary case or from result of appeal or the claim.

Disclaimer! This text was translated by AI translator and is not a valid juridical document. No warranty. No claim. More info