The Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ) has rejected the appeal filed by the National Integrity Authority (ANI) against the decision of the Chișinău Court of Appeal, Centru branch, which ruled in favor of former Democrat Dumitru Diacov. He had challenged the finding that, in 2017, he was in a situation of incompatibility of functions. This is the second case in which Diacov has succeeded in proving his innocence. In January 2023, the Supreme Court declared inadmissible ANI’s appeal regarding a substantial discrepancy, amounting to more than 600,000 lei, between the incomes obtained by Dumitru Diacov and his wife during the period from August 1, 2016, to July 9, 2019.

Integrity inspectors found that in 2017, while serving as a Member of Parliament, Dumitru Diacov also held the position of president of the Foundation for Democracy and Progress.

"Although he had a period of up to 30 days to resign from the incompatible position, according to the response provided by the parliamentary committee on appointments and immunities, the subject did not submit a request to resolve the state of incompatibility. The same situation occurred during the following parliamentary mandate, obtained in 2019,” ANI noted in its press release.

The integrity inspector who issued the finding claimed to have discovered documents confirming that Diacov exercised the duties of a leader within the foundation. Specifically, during the period 2018–2020, he signed several documents on behalf of the foundation with banking institutions, internal orders, activity reports, and also participated in several meetings of the foundation.

The former MP confirmed that he held this position but argued that he had no individual employment contract with the foundation, had no employees or paid staff, and that his activity and involvement within the foundation were entirely voluntary. He also stated that the financial documents had been signed by the foundation’s executive director.

In January 2023, the former Democratic MP won another case against the National Integrity Authority (ANI), after the Supreme Court declared ANI’s appeal inadmissible. In the contested finding, the inspector noted a substantial discrepancy of over 600,000 lei between the incomes obtained by Dumitru Diacov and his wife during the period from August 1, 2016, to July 9, 2019.

The specialized panel for examining administrative litigation within the Civil, Commercial, and Administrative Litigation Division of the Supreme Court of Justice concluded that ANI’s arguments were insufficient and contrary to the legal norms in force during the period when Diacov's wealth was under review. The ruling was pronounced by the president of the panel, Ala Cobăneanu, and judges Nina Vascan and Nicolae Craiu.

Democrat Dumitru Diacov challenged the ANI’s act in February 2021. In the statement of claim, the plaintiff argued that the issued finding was illegal and infringed on his rights, including his right of access to a public or dignitary office for a period of 3 years, the right to career and professional development, and the right to honor and professional reputation.

By the ruling of September 23, 2021, the Chișinău Court, Râșcani office, admitted the administrative litigation filed by Dumitru Diacov and annulled finding no. 43/11 dated February 16, 2021. Later, by the decision of May 24, 2022, the Chișinău Court of Appeal rejected the appeal filed by the National Integrity Authority.

The Chișinău Court of Appeal found that the inspector’s conclusions regarding the effective possession or non-possession of the declared amounts in 2012 were entirely arbitrary and outside the inspector’s jurisdiction. The legislator, through Article 226/7 paragraph (1) of the Fiscal Code, required that natural persons who were citizens of the Republic of Moldova and who, as of January 1, 2012, held cash assets amounting to more than 500,000 lei and less than one million lei, were obliged to submit to the tax authorities, by December 31, 2012, a declaration regarding the availability of cash funds. Thus, through this provision, the state recognized the availability of cash assets for persons who declared amounts of less than one million lei, without requiring supporting documentation for the declared amount.

The Supreme Court of Justice also found that the integrity inspector unilaterally determined the method of calculating net income, namely that “net income was calculated based on the cash amounts withdrawn by the claimant and his wife from their card accounts — in other words, only the amounts withdrawn from ATMs.”