In June 2024, Moldova officially opened negotiations for accession to the European Union, marking a decisive phase in its European integration pathway and accelerating the transformation of its justice system. This transformation includes a strong focus on aligning legal frameworks, institutions and practices with EU requirements, particularly under Chapter 23 on the judiciary and fundamental rights. The process is not limited to formal compliance: it is reshaping how justice is organised, delivered and perceived, with implications for public trust, economic activity and democratic governance.
Reforms have concentrated on strengthening judicial independence and integrity, improving the vetting of judges and prosecutors, restructuring governance bodies and reinforcing anti-corruption mechanisms. These efforts have led to significant legislative and institutional changes, supported by a broad set of national strategies and action plans. At the same time, the pace and sequencing of reforms have put pressure on institutional capacity. Persistent perceptions of corruption, operational constraints and uneven implementation continue to affect public confidence and the sustainability of reform outcomes.
Institutional roles and responsibilities have been progressively clarified, with the Ministry of Justice, the Superior Council of Magistracy and other justice sector bodies assuming more defined functions. Co-ordination mechanisms have been established to support policy alignment and implementation. However, fragmentation remains. Overlapping mandates, limited data sharing and uneven stakeholder engagement continue to constrain strategic coherence. Strengthening cross-sectoral and vertical co-ordination, improving the use of evidence and reinforcing the role of justice institutions as public service providers would support more consistent and effective delivery of justice outcomes.
Efforts to reinforce independence, integrity, accountability and transparency have become central to the reform agenda. Constitutional amendments, governance reforms and the vetting process have aimed to restore confidence in the judiciary and prosecution services. These measures reflect a strong commitment to address long-standing integrity concerns. At the same time, tensions between these values remain visible in practice. Performance evaluation, disciplinary accountability and appointment procedures require clear safeguards and consistent application to avoid risks of arbitrariness or undue influence. Strengthening the implementation of ethical frameworks, improving verification of asset and interest declarations, ensuring transparency in appointments and enhancing public communication are key to consolidating trust.
Resource management and institutional capacity have emerged as critical factors shaping the effectiveness of reforms. Budgeting remains largely input-based, limiting the ability to link resources with workload, performance and reform objectives. Human resource management is fragmented, with shortages, vacancies and uneven distribution of staff affecting service delivery. Courts continue to face backlogs and operational constraints, while infrastructure and digital systems require sustained investment. Although digital tools such as the Integrated Case Management System and public platforms have improved access to information, challenges persist in interoperability, data quality and governance. Addressing these gaps would support more efficient, transparent and data-driven justice management.
Reforms have so far focused predominantly on institutional structures and legal frameworks. Increasing attention is now being given to how these changes translate into access to justice and service quality. Data indicate that many legal problems remain unresolved through formal justice institutions, pointing to barriers in accessibility, awareness and trust. Justice services continue to be largely court-centred, with limited integration across legal aid, mediation, administrative and community-based mechanisms. Developing a more comprehensive understanding of people’s legal needs and justice problems, strengthening co-ordination across service providers and expanding pathways to resolution would support a more responsive justice system.
Overall, justice reform in Moldova has moved from legislative alignment and institutional restructuring to a phase where implementation, capacity and service delivery are central. Sustaining progress will depend on strengthening co-ordination across institutions, aligning resources with workload and reform priorities, improving data use and reinforcing safeguards that balance independence and accountability. Consolidating a people-centred approach to justice, grounded in the needs and experiences of users, will be essential to ensure that reforms translate into tangible improvements in access, quality and trust.