Alexandr Berlinschii, Member of Parliament from Our Party and a representative of the parliamentary opposition, spoke with us about how justice reform in the Republic of Moldova is perceived from the opposition’s perspective. We discussed his views on the selection of international expert Herman von Hebel to the prosecutors’ vetting commission—despite warnings from the opposition, civil society, and the media—as well as his perspective on anti-corruption efforts, expectations for reform, and the need for broader parliamentary consensus. We invite you to read the full interview offered for Foreign Policy Bulletin below:

The need for broad consensus

- Mr. Berlinschii, how do you assess the controversy surrounding the reappointment of the expert Herman von Hebel to the vetting commission? Why do you think the government insisted on this candidacy despite negative opinions coming from multiple directions?

- First of all, the speed with which PAS moved on that amendment is suspicious— an amendment to a law that has absolutely nothing to do with the vetting of prosecutors or judges. The law to which the amendment was attached (through which members of the prosecutors’ vetting commission could be elected with 51 votes instead of 61, as previously—ed.) concerned the physical security of judges in courts.

Therefore, it involved amendments to the Contravention Code. More precisely, provisions were introduced to impose fines if a judge was threatened or harassed. PAS, however, inserted into this law an amendment that had no connection to its subject matter, but instead altered the number of votes required to appoint members of the prosecutors’ vetting commission.

I would like to recall that the law had been submitted to the Venice Commission, which recommended that it be adopted with broad consensus, including the support of the opposition.

Considering all these elements, I can only conclude that this law was adopted specifically for Mr. Herman von Hebel. Another argument supporting this conclusion is that, during the plenary session, both I and other colleagues requested that two separate decisions be voted: one for the appointment of Mr. Bernard Lavigne (to the Prosecutors’ Evaluation Commission—ed.) and another for the appointment of Mr. Herman von Hebel to the same commission.

I regret that the parliamentary majority did not follow our legitimate request. Article 188 of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure clearly grants this right to every MP. Therefore, the Speaker of Parliament, Igor Grosu, was obliged to submit it to a vote. In this context, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the law was tailored specifically for Mr. von Hebel.

I hope I am mistaken, but Mr. von Hebel’s appointment should have been based on competence and experience, not loyalty. His previous role as a member of the Pre-Vetting Commission should have demonstrated his professionalism, not his loyalty to the government. I trust that loyalty was not the decisive factor in the speed of his appointment. Let us recall that the amendment was submitted on Thursday (reducing the required votes from 61 to 51 for appointing members of the prosecutors’ vetting commission—ed.), and by Friday it had already been adopted.

Accordingly, the appointment was made on Friday, and the law was immediately promulgated by President Maia Sandu and published the same day in the Official Gazette.

Another aspect that cannot be overlooked is why similar urgency is not observed when it comes to the composition of the judges’ vetting commission. On 29 December 2025, Parliament took note of the resignation of one of its members.

On 18 February 2026, through the same procedure by which members of the prosecutors’ vetting commission were designated by external partners, a member was also designated for the judges’ vetting commission.

The legal committee is expected to examine three candidates, as there is also a vacancy in the judges’ vetting commission. Three individuals have been nominated for this position. However, from 18 February until mid March, no meeting of the parliamentary legal committee has been scheduled to review these candidacies and propose filling the vacancy in plenary.

What we see are half-measures, accompanied by a narrative in the public space suggesting that the opposition does not support justice reform— which is simply not true. We do not agree with Mr. von Hebel’s inclusion in the prosecutors’ vetting commission. However, with regard to the other candidate, Our Party has no objections and supported his appointment. I reiterate: when it comes to the vetting of judges, no comparable action has been taken.

The need for a credible reform

- How do you assess the vetting process in recent years? What do you consider to be its main positive and negative effects on the justice system?

- We have consistently stated, including during last year’s parliamentary election campaign, that justice reform is necessary. No one disputes this necessity.

However, delays in the vetting process raise serious concerns. At the same time, it is important to underline that the success of this reform does not depend solely on the vetting commission, but also on the individuals who have undergone this extraordinary procedure.

Even more concerning is the growing perception that the vetting process is being used as a legal mechanism to appoint individuals considered convenient to the ruling party. This assessment is based both on ongoing public discussions and on broader societal perceptions.

In my view, and considering the recent actions of PAS, there are persistent doubts regarding how justice reform is being implemented in the context of EU accession. Such reform should be built on broad consensus and enjoy solid support in Parliament. Members of the Venice Commission have repeatedly emphasized this point.

In the past, PAS tended to categorize parties as either pro-European or anti-European. Today, however, we observe a different dividing line: between those who support their particular vision of justice reform and those who do not.

This is not a democratic approach; on the contrary, it raises concerns from this perspective.

I hope that the recent episode related to the amendment I mentioned earlier, in connection with Mr. Herman von Hebel, will serve as a lesson for the ruling party, and that it will demonstrate a willingness to return to the negotiating table with all parliamentary parties in order to identify common solutions.

I would also note that the list of candidates for the vetting commission was not discussed with the leaders of all parliamentary factions. This is an area that could be improved—by initiating such discussions, justice reform could truly become a “priority zero,” alongside other key reforms, including at the parliamentary level.

Problems in justice

- How do you assess the fight against corruption in recent years under the current pro-European government? What has been done well, and what do you think has not worked?

- To form a clear opinion, one needs concrete data—which I do not have at hand. I am referring in particular to the number of criminal cases initiated for corruption, how many have reached the courts, and how many have resulted in final judgments.

Recently, Parliament examined the annual report of the National Anti-Corruption Center for 2025. However, I can speak primarily from the perspective of publicly known cases. What is the value of convictions if those individuals have managed to leave the country? This clearly indicates that something is not functioning properly.

In order to combat corruption effectively, decisive measures are needed, addressing the problem at its root. We have seen some isolated cases, including contraventional proceedings initiated by the Ministry of Internal Affairs, particularly in relation to electoral corruption. In 2025, significant progress was made in combating electoral corruption compared to 2023–2024.

This progress reflected a coordinated effort among state institutions. Considerable efforts were made, and we have indeed witnessed a tangible reduction in this type of corruption.

However, there are also other cases, such as the construction of the Leova–Bumbăta road. We are still awaiting the expert assessment in this case. There is no visible in-depth investigative activity. Similarly, we have not seen sufficient clarity regarding how fuel oil and gas were procured during previous winter seasons.

There have also been reports in the public space regarding detentions linked to the embezzlement of public funds, particularly in connection with the “European Village” programme, especially in the area of road construction.

Opposition priorities

- From the opposition’s perspective, what are the main initiatives or projects that Our Party proposes in the field of justice? What should be Parliament’s priorities in this area?

- As stated from the parliamentary rostrum by the leader of Our Party, Renato Usatîi, it is essential, first and foremost, to ensure that judges and employees within law enforcement structures receive decent salaries. At the same time, effective mechanisms for verifying integrity must be established. If this approach is followed, justice reform and the reform of law enforcement bodies can be achieved more quickly and effectively.

As for the initiatives we intend to promote in Parliament, our party’s agenda includes several social projects. There are already a number of draft laws under consideration, but the justice sector remains a particularly important priority. In the coming period, we will also present a series of concrete proposals in this area.

No televised justice

- How do you assess the evolution of high profile cases in the justice system, and to what extent can we expect them to be examined with celerity?

- I would prefer to refrain from expressing an opinion on this matter, as I believe that justice must be carried out exclusively in the courtroom, and we, as politicians, should avoid making such assessments.

We must not have a televised justice system—or, even worse, a politicized one. I sincerely hope that both prosecutors and defense lawyers fulfill their roles professionally, so that judges can ultimately base their decisions solely on the evidence and materials presented in court.

- Do you believe there are currently risks of politicization of justice in the Republic of Moldova? To what extent do you consider that political influence exists within the system?

- Taking into account recent developments, I believe that the political factor is overreaching when it attempts to create loyalty within certain segments of the justice system.

- How do you think justice reform in the Republic of Moldova is perceived in Brussels? What aspects should the authorities pay particular attention to?

- We are awaiting the assessment to be carried out by the European Commission. When we speak about European integration, we refer to several negotiation clusters.

Recently, a meeting of the Parliament’s European Integration Committee took place, during which certain tasks were assigned to the executive authorities.

- Justice reform is a central element of EU accession negotiations. Do you believe that the current approach contributes to accelerating this process, or does it risk complicating it?

- Rather, this approach risks blocking these processes. In my view, the parliamentary majority must understand that, for a reform to succeed and to be understood by society, a clear consensus is essential. It would be both welcome and commendable if the government were to take into account the constructive opinions of the opposition. If this path is followed, the chances of success will be significantly higher.

- Thank you!