​Under the Pressure of Civil Society, the SCM Approved the Alternative Regulation Proposed by the SCJ Regarding the Publication of Judgments

Following the protest organized by journalists, lawyers and civil society, the members of the Superior Council of Magistracy (SCM) approved on Tuesday, October 10, the alternative Regulation on the publication of judgments, proposed by the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ), and not the regulation drafted by the SCM’s working group, which was challenged by civil society.

The draft proposed by the SCM was criticized by journalists, lawyers and civil society representatives, who signed on Monday, October 9, an appeal to the SCM, expressing their confusion about the inclusion into the agenda of the meeting of October 10, 2017, of the new regulation on the publication of judgments.

Over 70 signatories of the appeal asked the SCM to postpone adoption of the regulation and to return to its development “in a working group with the participation of representatives of the media and of civil society, based on the best compared practices and on the draft regulation produced by the Supreme Court of Justice.” Because their plea was not heard, they organized on Tuesday morning a protest in front of the SCM building.

Participants in the protest also showed dissatisfaction with the way the draft regulation was drafted. According to journalist Mariana Rata, coordinating editor at the Journalistic Investigations Center, authorities promised to include media representatives into the working group charged with the development of the regulation, but the date of the meeting was set after the October 10 meeting of the SCM, where the regulation was to be discussed, which caused journalists’ discontent.
Investigative journalists argue that if this draft regulation had been adopted, their access to information would have suffered. “It is not normal to anonymize the names of the prosecutor, the judge and the court clerk. We would like the previous model to be preserved, but also the option of searching cases by the names of litigants to be restored, the agenda of hearings to be available as it was before, and to have not too many ‘X’s and ‘Y’s in the judgments,” commented Victoria Dodon, reporter of Anticoruptie.md portal of the Journalistic Investigations Center, for Media Azi.
Finally, under the pressure of protests, the SCM adopted the Regulation proposed by the SCJ, drafted in accordance with the principles stemming from the European Convention on Human Rights. According to the approved document, data will be anonymized only “when it is necessary in the interest of minors or for the protection of privacy of litigants or to the extent deemed absolutely necessary by the court when, in special circumstances, the interests of justice might be prejudiced.”

The Regulation also stipulates that the authorities responsible for the publication of data on the websites of courts shall ensure “the possibility to search for judgments by the names of litigants and shall act so as to guarantee maximum transparency of judgments by implementing the newest and the most practical ways of searching for information in them.” “We shall see, however, how this Regulation will be applied. Only then we can make conclusions,” commented Victor Mosneag, an investigative journalist of the “Ziarul de Gardă” newspaper, on a social networking website. He noted, among other things: “However, the Regulation proposed by the Supreme Court of Justice kept the provision on removing from the portal of courts information about the agenda of hearings after they are held, as well as the provision on the publication of information about hearings ‘at least three days before the hearing.’ If the search of case files by the names of litigants is not restored, we will have the regulation which journalists and activists protested against.”