OECD Justice Review of the Republic of Moldova

1. Pathways to reform: Assessment and recommendations

Abstract

This chapter outlines the main takeaways of the OECD Justice Review of Moldova. It presents key policy recommendations to support the country’s strategic reform efforts toward a more effective and people-centred justice system aligned with Moldova’s EU accession commitments and ambition to advance toward OECD standards. The chapter concludes with an overview of the project’s objectives and methodology, and structure of the review.

1.1. Introduction and general assessment

Moldova is undertaking an ambitious and far-reaching transformation of its justice sector as part of its European Union (EU) accession process. The country has prioritised reforms aligned with EU legislation and acquis, particularly under Chapter 23 (Judiciary and Fundamental Rights) and Chapter 24 (Justice, Freedom and Security). As one of the most complex chapters in the EU accession framework, Chapter 23 sets high expectations for Moldova to demonstrate substantial and sustainable justice reform outcomes, notably in judicial independence, transparency, integrity, efficiency and human rights protection. According to the 2025 European Commission Report, Moldova has some level of preparation and has made progress in key areas, such as judicial reform, anti-corruption and fundamental rights (European Commission, 2025[1]). These efforts are complemented by Moldova’s willingness to come closer to other international standards, including the OECD Recommendation on Access to Justice and People-Centred Justice Systems.

Specifically, key priorities of the Moldovan justice reforms focus on strengthening judicial independence and integrity, advancing vetting of judges and prosecutors, restructuring judicial governance bodies, building a professional and accountable justice sector and reinforcing anti-corruption mechanisms. While these reforms have already brought about institutional change and improvements in rule of law indicators, challenges remain. The rapid pace of reforms, capacity constraints and entrenched perceptions of corruption continue to affect public trust in the justice system and the sustainability of reform outcomes.

These reforms demonstrate a strong commitment to build robust institutional foundations in Moldova by consolidating the supply side of justice, targeting structures, oversight and legal compliance. Building on these significant institutional and legal reforms, there is an opportunity to place greater focus on how these structural advances translate into tangible improvements in access to justice and the quality of services for people and businesses. Recent strategic directions in the justice sector indicate a gradual shift toward a more people-centred approach. This is included in public policies promoted in the context of the Justice Sector Strategy, ensuring both access to and quality of justice services. Indeed, meaningful and lasting transformation will require viewing justice as a public service, grounded in the needs, rights and experiences of the Moldovan population.

To reinforce attention to the demand side, Moldova could re-balance its reform agenda by continuing to invest in people-centred justice service design and delivery. This encompasses consolidating legal aid and outreach services, embedding user feedback and participation, addressing legal awareness and capability gaps, and strengthening co-ordination across justice and social services. By doing so, Moldova can further embed justice as a public service, continue strengthening the protection of service users’ rights and improve outcomes for both users and providers. In turn, justice reform efforts will become more equitable, efficient and aligned with broader goals of democratic consolidation, economic development and social cohesion.

Combining structural reforms with effective service delivery would allow Moldova to achieve its EU accession objectives, while ensuring that its justice services work for people and businesses. More than being a benchmark for EU membership, an accessible, transparent and user-focused justice system underpins public confidence, legal certainty and socio-economic growth. This also requires ensuring that available resources are used strategically, with budgeting and performance systems helping institutions spend better, not only more.

The following sections present overarching recommendations across the main themes of the review. They will be complemented by an action plan for implementation.1

1.2. Recommendations

1.2.1. Strengthening the sectoral governance of the justice system

Moldova is pursuing wide-ranging reforms to modernise the governance and administration of its justice system, enhance institutional effectiveness, and align with European and OECD standards. These reforms have laid the groundwork for closer engagement with the EU. They have gained significant momentum following the country’s EU candidate status granted in June 2022 and the European Council decision to open accession negotiations in December 2023. Chapter 3 examines how Moldova’s justice sector is governed and steered through its institutional arrangements and strategic vision, with a focus on institutional roles and responsibilities, strategic planning, co-ordination and implementation.

There have been notable positive developments. The strategic directions of the justice sector are shaped by national priorities and the country’s international commitments and aspirations. The country has taken steps to improve the strategic and institutional coherence of the justice system and to strengthen its multi-institutional architecture. Reforms have clarified and reinforced the respective roles of key institutions, including the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), Superior Council of Magistracy (SCM) and the recently established Agency for Digitalisation in Justice and Judicial Administration (ADJJA). This evolving framework reflects efforts to balance judicial independence with executive policy leadership, operational support and other governance values (see below).

While progress has been made, further efforts could focus on strengthening the framing and functioning of justice institutions as public service providers. Enhancing co-ordination across justice entities, fostering their involvement in upstream policy design and cross-sector monitoring, and addressing remaining institutional fragmentation would help improve strategic coherence and accountability for justice outcomes. In particular, clarifying and, where necessary, updating the governance framework for the judiciary and court administration could reinforce effectiveness and shared responsibility.

Moldova has established a range of horizontal co-ordination mechanisms. Building on these foundations, there is scope to enhance their effectiveness by further reducing siloed policymaking, improving data sharing and clarifying institutional mandates to continue eliminating overlaps. More systematic and meaningful stakeholder engagement could also strengthen coherence across institutions and levels of government. In parallel, reinforcing vertical co-ordination between central and local authorities would support more effective delivery of community-based services.

Realising Moldova’s justice reform ambitions will require continuing to move from fragmented and compliance-oriented management towards integrated and forward-looking governance, anchored in performance, trust and user needs. Strengthening institutional capacities and cross-sectoral co-ordination will be essential to embedding reforms, ensuring more equitable justice outcomes and reinforcing public confidence in the justice system.

Moldova may consider the following recommendations:

1. Continue to clarify roles and responsibilities to improve coherence and efficiency in the judiciary. This could include:

• Revising, where appropriate, roles and responsibilities across justice institutions in the functioning of the judiciary to enhance the SCM’s leadership in the judiciary’s efficient functioning;

• Exploring re-allocating selected court administration functions (e.g. collection and analysis of judicial statistics) from the executive to the SCM to reduce duplication and better link data (e.g. workload) to management decisions;

• Exploring sustainable models for a court administration service, including centralising, partially or in full, administrative support functions (e.g. budgeting, human resources (HR), procurement) at the SCM level to strengthen its capacity, improve efficiency and achieve economies of scale.

2. Strengthen inter-institutional, cross-sectoral and vertical co-ordination. This could include:

• Establishing a permanent co-ordination mechanism on access to justice that brings together key justice and non-justice institutions under the leadership of the MoJ, including, among others, the National Council for State Guaranteed Legal Aid (NCSGLA), Equality Council, Ombudsoffice, Ministry of Labour and Social Protection, Ministry of Interior, National Institute of Justice (NIJ), Police Academy and civil society, to strengthen coherent policy implementation and service delivery;

• Institutionalising permanent national and local co-ordination platforms for service design and delivery involving justice, social protection, health, education and law enforcement actors;

• Ensuring these structures have clear mandates, decision-making authority and dedicated resources to support integrated, responsive and efficient justice services;

• Clarifying and formalising institutional roles and responsibilities across programmes and strategies that intersect with justice functions, especially where justice institutions are not the lead entity, but have key delivery or oversight functions;

• Improving vertical co-ordination between central and local authorities for the broader delivery of justice services through clearer mandates, equitable financing, targeted capacity-building support and meaningful, participatory planning processes;

• Expanding transparency and public engagement, including systematising participatory processes in justice reform initiatives, engaging civil society in monitoring and evaluation, and promoting transparency through regular performance reporting by justice institutions to the public and other public institutions.

3. Advance evidence-based justice policy with a view to designing and implementing a comprehensive, responsive and integrated policy on people-centred justice. A stronger evidence base would support not only better policy design, but also the more systematic use of performance information and expenditure reviews to assess the effectiveness of spending and inform future resource allocation decisions. This could include:

• Developing and implementing a measurement framework and co-ordinated justice data strategy that promotes the collection and management of both administrative and people-centred justice data, by gathering standardised, regularly updated and disaggregated data for an agreed set of people-centred variables across all justice institutions and through surveys;

• Consolidating and modernising justice information systems to enable service providers and policymakers to rely on them for evidence-based decision making, monitoring and evaluation. These systems would support performance tracking, assessment of service-delivery effectiveness, value for money, and the identification of user needs and emerging trends;

• Strengthening disaggregated data collection and exchange by investing in interoperable technologies and improving the seamless integration of information systems. Justice-related data could be disaggregated by relevant demographic, geographic and socio-economic variables to better identify barriers to access and differences in justice experiences and outcomes;

• Enhancing the use of justice statistics for policymaking and resource prioritisation by, for instance, re‑engaging the National Bureau of Statistics in compiling and disaggregating data across a range of data sources. This could include supporting the regular conduct of legal needs and justice problems surveys or other research to better understand demand for justice services, especially among vulnerable populations.

1.2.2. Sustaining the governance value ecosystem: Safeguarding independence and reinforcing integrity, accountability and transparency

Moldova is undergoing meaningful progress in aligning its legal and institutional frameworks with European and international standards, particularly regarding judicial independence, integrity and transparency. Recent constitutional amendments, the vetting processes and reforms to the SCM reflect Moldova’s determination to rebuild public trust and strengthen the legitimacy of its justice institutions.

Nonetheless, the justice system continues to face interrelated and complex challenges. These include perceptions of corruption, implementation gaps between legal provisions and practice, limited institutional capacity and resource constraints. While core judicial and prosecutorial values are firmly enshrined in law, stronger and more consistent co-ordinated implementation application across the sector is needed to translate them into practice. Advancing a more integrated and coherent approach to reform would help consolidate Moldova’s value-based governance efforts and enhance trust in the system.

Beyond legal safeguards, adequate financing and effective communication, workforce planning and institutional co-ordination would further promote a well-functioning judicial and prosecutorial value ecosystem. Advancing this agenda would also require fostering a culture that prioritises coherence, ethics and people-centred service delivery as key drivers of judicial performance and public confidence.

Moldova may consider the following recommendations:

1. Ensure coherence and effective implementation of judicial and prosecutorial reforms grounded in a value-based governance approach. This could include:

• Further institutionalising co-ordination between the SCM, the Superior Council of Prosecutors (SCP), the MoJ and other justice sector actors to align reform objectives, operational planning and performance monitoring;

• Strengthening the operational capacity of the SCM and the SCP, particularly regarding resource allocation, workload analysis and implementation of the judicial and prosecutorial maps;

• Embedding public trust and legitimacy as central indicators of reform success, with participatory mechanisms and systems for collecting and responding to user feedback.

2. Clarify the legal and institutional framework addressing judicial liability. This could include:

• Narrowing and clarifying the grounds for criminal liability, in line with international best practice, to ensure provisions are precise, objective and resistant to misuse or arbitrary interpretation;

3. Review regulatory frameworks governing judicial transfers and performance evaluation of judges and prosecutors. This could include:

• Continuing to ensure that transfers are clearly distinguished by law and, when enforced in practice, accompanied by robust safeguards for judicial independence;

• Undertaking a review of judicial performance evaluation frameworks to ensure they adequately reflect and account for prevailing working conditions, in line with international standards.

4. Strengthen integrity, transparency and accountability in the selection and appointment of judges. This could include:

• Publishing decisions refusing appointment proposals from the SCM to reinforce procedural safeguards, promote transparency, uphold judicial independence and balance the role of powers in the appointment process;

• Establishing an institutional mechanism within the SCM and SCP to support judges and prosecutors on accountability matters as a preventive measure against disciplinary actions.

5. Support implementation of judicial and prosecutorial ethics frameworks. This could include:

• Developing additional guidance on the application of the Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct of Judges;

• Creating an ethics advisory mechanism for prosecutors to support ethical decision making;

• Aligning recusal procedures across civil, criminal and administrative proceedings;

• Ensuring ongoing implementation of National Integrity Authority’s (NIA) capacity and resources to enhance verification of asset and personal interest declarations.

6. Consolidate and build on current vetting processes to establish strong foundations for a transparent, accountable and integrity-driven recruitment and promotion framework for judges and prosecutors. This could include:

• Strengthening accountability of Vetting Commission (VC) members, including by clarifying circumstances for disciplinary and criminal liability;

• Introducing clearer and enforceable mechanisms for the monitoring and verification of asset and interest declarations of VC members;

• Improving the capacity of the SCM and SCP to implement integrity controls, while ensuring consistency with existing standards and procedures by formalising institutional co‑operation with the NIA and other relevant institutions;

• Strengthening and implementing the legal framework and operational protocols for inter-institutional co-operation and ensuring the timely provision of information, including on ongoing criminal investigations by competent state and non-state authorities in accordance with legal safeguards. This may encompass banks, educational and health institutions, and border and customs agencies to provide relevant data to the vetting bodies within specified timeframes.

7. Enhance judicial transparency, openness and communication to improve public trust in the justice sector. This could include:

• Developing a proactive communication strategy and response protocols, including further engaging with media and civil society organisations;

• Linking open government initiatives in the justice sector to Moldova’s Open Government Partnership Action Plan beyond 2025;

• Expanding civic education and public awareness initiatives on judicial processes and rights;

• Ensuring user-friendly language in court proceedings and judicial drafting.

1.2.3. Managing resources and performance for effective justice delivery

In Moldova, strengthening the resource management and performance of the justice system is a strategic imperative, particularly in the context of ongoing institutional reform, court consolidation efforts and EU accession objectives. Effective management of financial, human and technological resources is key to improving justice sector efficiency and achieving long-term justice sector goals. Moldova continues to address these needs through various reform efforts; however, further attention and adjustments remain necessary.

Moldova’s justice budgeting framework remains in transition as performance and programme budgeting are not yet fully institutionalised across the sector. In practice, budgets continue to rely on traditional line-item classifications, limiting the ability to link resources with expected outcomes and performance, measure efficiency or re‑allocate funds based on evolving needs. Implementation challenges, such as delays in the budget calendar and limited review periods, further constrain planning, scrutiny and stakeholder engagement. Overall, budgeting remains reactive and input-based, while connections between financial allocations, institutional performance and long-term justice reform objectives could be further strengthened. Better aligning these elements would also provide a stronger basis for using performance information and spending reviews to identify opportunities to improve the quality, efficiency and prioritisation of justice spending.

Moldova’s Justice Sector Strategy 2022-2025 emphasises improving human resource management (HRM) across the justice system. To fulfil this commitment, further efforts could focus on enhancing workforce analysis, budgeting and professional development to ensure that institutions are equipped to deliver high-quality services. Addressing the current fragmentation in recruitment and promotion practices would help create a more coherent and merit-based justice workforce. Reducing disparities in performance and ensuring a more balanced distribution of justice professionals, particularly in rural and underserved areas, could contribute to greater fairness and consistency in service delivery.

These priorities are closely linked to broader systemic needs, including sustained investment in infrastructure, and information and communication technologies (ICT), stronger performance data collection and analysis, and deeper cross-institutional collaboration. Together, these measures could help build a modern, efficient and people-centred justice system capable of supporting Moldova’s reform objectives.

Moldova may consider the following recommendations:

1. Strengthen budgeting and financial management. This could include:

• Improving justice sector financial planning by strengthening inter-institutional co‑ordination including with the Ministry of Finance, developing a unified financial management framework and reinforcing credibility, accuracy and reliability of the medium-term budgetary framework to support strategic planning and financial capacity across the sector;

• Strengthening financial management in the justice sector by establishing a centralised budget monitoring system that promotes co-ordination across institutions and enhances transparency through accessible, disaggregated financial data and simplified reporting, as well as a more active role for the SCM in resource allocation;

• Advancing performance-informed, participatory and needs-based budgeting by introducing disaggregated budget ceilings and outcome-based indicators aligned with institutional mandates and service delivery objectives. This could involve stronger engagement between the Ministry of Finance and justice sector institutions on budget performance, improving the quality of performance indicators and the prioritisation of budget proposals. Measures could also include allocating court budgets based on objective workload analyses to better reflect actual resource needs and reduce disparities in funding across jurisdictions, while supporting a more equitable, efficient and responsive justice system;

• Strengthening judiciary budgetary management and performance by advancing system-wide strategic planning, developing meaningful performance indicators, and implementing robust monitoring and evaluation frameworks respecting judicial independence and enabling the judiciary to carry out its constitutional mandate. Measures could include incorporating case complexity and incoming case volume into court budgeting formulas, linking staffing budgets to workload indicators, improving transparency and accountability through integrated judicial statistics and cost analyses, and gradually expanding performance-based budgeting to cover capital investment and HR planning;

• Introducing regular spending reviews or targeted expenditure reviews in the justice sector to assess whether resources are aligned with strategic priorities, identify efficiency gains and support the reallocation of funding toward higher-impact services and reform priorities;

• Improving and consolidating capital investment planning in the justice sector by developing a national capital investment strategy for the justice sector anchored in a multi-year budget framework. This could be accompanied by targeted efforts to enhance the execution capacity of key institutions, such as the SCM and ADJJA, for effective delivery and mobilising donor support for infrastructure modernisation. Beyond planning, this would require building a new set of institutional capacities, specialised skill sets and a more enabling operating environment.

2. Improve HR and institutional capacity. This could include:

• Implementing a sector-wide strategic workforce planning framework covering courts, prosecution services, legal aid and the penitentiary system. This could include forward-looking projections of staffing needs by role, institution and location aligned with reform milestones, such as court re-organisation and the implementation of judicial vetting;

• Developing and operationalising a shared human capital strategy, including civil servants and judicial staff, to support real-time, evidence-based staffing decisions across the justice sector;

• Enhancing HR data collection and analytics capacity, including institutional capabilities in forecasting, workforce planning and strategic staffing allocation;

• Continuing to address the current and anticipated high number of judicial vacancies, particularly in high-workload courts, by ensuring a sufficient pool of qualified candidates. This could include measures to attract and retain talent from within the judiciary, as well as from other experienced legal professions, in order to mitigate delays, reduce case backlogs and preserve access to timely justice during and after the vetting process;

• Ensuring judges’ salaries are consistently maintained at a level that ensures the attractiveness of a judicial career among top legal professionals and is proportional to the salaries of comparable positions within the executive and legislative branches;

• Strengthening the continuous training ecosystem for civil servants and justice professionals by establishing a co-ordinated, adequately resourced and accountable training system that is accessible and based on identified needs;

• Establishing structured career development pathways and sound performance-based incentives to attract and retain qualified administrative and support staff across justice institutions;

• Promoting balanced representation within the justice system through institutionalised policies, leadership commitment and regular monitoring of progress across judicial roles and hierarchies.

3. Enhance the performance and efficiency of courts by promoting procedural and institutional innovation, reinforcing evidence-based decision making and monitoring mechanisms, increasing judicial specialisation and further simplifying selected procedures. This could include:

• Adopting and operationalising a data-driven approach to management that supports both workload balancing and broader managerial decision making. This could cover developing case-weighting models, using disaggregated performance indicators (e.g. share of old cases, time to disposition, clearance rates) and applying strategic staffing to ensure equitable workload distribution across courts. Strengthening the use of judicial statistics could also support decisions on case allocation, court specialisation and resource planning;

• Enhancing judicial specialisation across different areas of law, including the establishment or reinforcement of specialisation in administrative disputes;

• Exploring the practice of specialisation throughout the justice chain to enhance expertise, consistency and efficiency in handling specific types of cases among all actors involved in the case;

• Developing automated procedures for small uncontested civil claims to reduce workload and increase efficiency;

• Delegating resolution of minor civil/contravention cases to notaries and delegating some frequently occurring contravention cases (e.g. contraventions related to parental obligations or traffic violations involving licence suspension) to competent administrative authorities as the first instance;

• Exploring procedural simplifications, such as use of single judges in appeals, abbreviated decisions and expanded roles for judicial assistants;

• Building the institutional and professional capacity of court support staff to handle administrative responsibilities, thereby enabling judges to devote their attention to complex judicial functions.

4. Accelerate digital transformation and strengthen data governance. This could include:

• Developing and implementing an integrated digital justice strategy, with clearly defined leadership, inter-institutional co-ordination mechanisms, and robust monitoring and evaluation frameworks to guide implementation and track progress;

• Ensuring responsive and user-driven design of the Integrated Case Management System (ICMS) by establishing structured consultation processes with all levels of the judiciary, including judges, clerks, judicial assistants and SCM officials, to ensure the system responds to evolving judicial and operational needs;

• Increasing domestic investment in court ICT systems to reduce reliance on external donors and ensure long-term sustainability, including regular system upgrades, maintenance and capacity building;

• Prioritising ongoing development of the ICMS, including strengthening interoperability with other national registries and justice sector case management systems, while improving data quality, accessibility and transparency;

• Establishing a permanent, fully integrated digital justice interoperability framework to enable seamless exchange of data and end-to-end digital processing of judicial proceedings, including:

  • Implementing a national justice interoperability platform that integrates data and workflows across judicial and administrative systems;

  • Establishing a national-level digital leadership hub with responsibility for co‑ordinating the implementation, maintenance and evolution of the interoperability framework.

1.2.4. Strengthening people-centred justice service as a foundation for sector reform

While Moldova has made important strides in justice reform, there is scope to embed a more people-centred approach in the design, planning and delivery of justice services. A human-centred service design lens can help modernise the justice system by re-balancing the focus between institutional structures and justice outcomes, i.e. needs and experiences of users. The starting point would be to deepen understanding of people’s legal needs and justice problems, and experiences, and systematically use this evidence to guide reforms at every stage, from policy design to service delivery.

Expanding ongoing efforts to conduct legal needs and justice problems surveys and leveraging administrative and statistical data from all justice institutions and other relevant services would strengthen this evidence base. Insights generated by non-governmental organisations (NGOs), civil society organisations (CSOs) and international partners could also be more systematically incorporated into justice sector planning and evaluation. Special attention could be paid to the needs of vulnerable or underserved groups across different regions and demographics to ensure that reforms effectively address the diversity of legal needs and justice problems.

Moldova’s diverse ecosystem of legal and justice service providers, ranging from judges and prosecutors to paralegals, legal clinics, NGOs, social workers and mediators, offers a strong foundation for developing an integrated continuum of services. Such an approach enables individuals to receive timely and holistic support throughout their justice journey, i.e. from prevention and early intervention to adjudication and post-resolution support. Moldova has taken significant steps to introduce integrated service delivery models, notably through multi-disciplinary and co-ordinated mechanisms, to address violence against women and children. While these are promising practices in cross-sectoral collaboration, systemic challenges persist that limit their impact, such as overlapping mandates and the need for better co‑ordination across the justice, social, health, education and administrative sectors. Strengthening these linkages, supported by a strategic review and re-design of service delivery models, could promote greater coherence, interoperability and specialisation, allowing more tailored and effective support for groups whose needs are not yet adequately met.

Justice service delivery remains predominantly court-centric. Judicial map reforms have had wide-reaching effects on improving legal and justice service delivery. Yet these developments do not fully reflect the broader landscape of legal assistance and dispute resolution mechanisms available outside the courts. This limitation could be addressed by complementing the judicial map with a comprehensive “justice services map” that captures the full range of formal and informal justice-related services and the pathways people use to resolve their issues. Streamlining the implementation of ongoing judicial map reforms and aligning them with this broader perspective would help ensure a more balanced, accessible and people-centred justice system.

Moldova may consider the following recommendations:

1. Deepen public institutions’ and service providers’ understanding of people’s legal needs and justice problems, as well as experiences across regions and population groups. This could include:

• Strengthening the collection and analysis of disaggregated data. This includes data by age, income, disability, ethnicity, minority status and region, and other relevant demographic characteristics, using legal needs and justice problems assessments, administrative records and participatory research methods involving civil society and local communities.

2. Broaden the strategic focus of legal and justice services to promote a people-centred continuum of services, from prevention and early intervention to resolution and post-resolution support. This could include:

• Expanding the legal and policy definitions of access to justice beyond the courts, acknowledging diverse justice pathways and encompassing the full spectrum of formal, informal, alternative and community-based mechanisms;

• Improving public access to justice-related information by ensuring that justice information systems are accessible, up-to-date and user-friendly, and safeguarding personal information by ensuring compliance with privacy regulations and data protection standards, in line with relevant EU directives and regulations;

• Reviewing existing legal and justice services to identify duplication and overlapping mandates, and service linkages, and to enhance accessibility and quality through seamless referral pathways and integrated case management;

• Scaling specialised, integrated, multi-disciplinary services, particularly for vulnerable groups.

3. Promote a more problem-solving approach to justice service design and delivery by complementing institution- and infrastructure-focused reforms with the development of a comprehensive justice services map that identifies and visualises all formal and informal justice-related services. This could include:

• Establishing a whole-of-government approach to legal and justice services planning. This includes aligning justice sector strategies with broader public administration reforms, integrating legal and justice services planning into national development strategies and ensuring funding mechanisms to support service expansion and accessibility;

• Mapping existing formal and informal services using a standard taxonomy (or categorisation framework) and participatory methodology that involves CSOs, local authorities and service users;

• Reviewing and analysing current service maps, including judicial, prosecutorial, legal aid and Ombudsoffices, to detect territorial disparities and improve co-ordination and co‑location of services;

• Developing strategies to address service gaps and inequities, including enhancing geographic coverage, alignment and integration of justice-related services, and prioritising needs of underserved communities and areas for resource allocation and service expansion.

4. Operationalise the “justice services map” to enable people to seamlessly navigate services and support government efforts to design, deliver, monitor and evaluate service delivery and resource allocation. This could include:

• Creating a user-facing digital platform that displays available services with filter functions (e.g. by location, language or service type), including accessibility features and multi‑lingual support, taking into account digital literacy levels;

• Using the map for strategic resource planning and investment, such as mobile legal aid deployment and expansion of alternative dispute resolution in rural areas or targeting outreach to underserved regions;

• Institutionalising regular updates and feedback mechanisms that leverage population data, administrative records and civil society input to track changes in demand, identify gaps and improve service quality and coverage over time.

5. Advance implementation of the current judicial map reform by analysing options within the existing courthouse network. This could include:

• Assessing opportunities for courthouse mergers and closures, where possible, including transferring judges from current branch courthouses to central courthouses of district courts, where actual need for judges, current number of judges and availability of space allow a merging of judges in the existing system of district courts;

• Creating court service desks in towns affected by closures to maintain proximity to essential court functions (e.g. document submission, video hearings);

• Re-investing savings from closing courthouses in renovating or building new courthouses, where relevant.

1.3. About the OECD Justice Review of the Republic of Moldova

1.3.1. Approach and methodology

Moldova’s reform agenda is closely tied to its European integration path: after being granted EU candidate status in June 2022, the country formally opened accession negotiations in June 2024. Comprehensive screening across the 35 chapters of the EU acquis was completed in September 2025, with Chapter 23 on Judiciary and Fundamental Rights, part of the Fundamentals cluster, playing a central role.

Against this backdrop, Moldova requested OECD assistance through the project "Supporting the Ministry of Justice and Justice Sector Reforms in the Republic of Moldova", supported by the EU Delegation to the Republic of Moldova. Launched in January 2024, the project is structured around three components:

• Conducting a comprehensive OECD Justice Review of Moldova’s justice system and the functioning of the MoJ;

• Supporting evaluation of the Justice Sector Strategy;

• Building the capacity of the MoJ and other key justice institutions to ensure sustainable and impactful reforms.

The primary beneficiary of the project is the MoJ of Moldova, which provides strategic oversight through the minister's cabinet and relevant units, including the Secretariat of the Monitoring Group for the Justice Sector Strategy.

An Advisory Group brings together key institutions involved in Moldova’s justice sector reform, including representatives of the MoJ, the SCM, the SCP, the NIJ and other key institutions.2 Following fact-checking from the MoJ, the Advisory Group also reviewed this report.

The methodology underpinning this review combines qualitative and quantitative research, based on a dedicated OECD questionnaire designed to gather targeted insights across institutional domains, desk-based analysis involving a review of legislation, regulations, policies, academic literature, jurisprudence and materials provided by national authorities, structured interviews and extensive stakeholder engagement. It draws on primary data collection and documentation provided by Moldovan institutions alongside comparative evidence from OECD and EU member countries. The availability and quality of data varied across the topics covered in this report. For areas where robust and reliable data were accessible (either through research or data received from public institutions upon request) the report offers in-depth analysis. In cases where data were limited, the analysis reflects these constraints and highlights the need for further data collection and research. In this context, most of the information was derived from institutional sources, with limited representation of people-centred justice data. The data cut-off date for this report is December 2025, unless otherwise indicated.

The project benefits from the OECD peer review methodology, incorporating the expertise of senior officials and practitioners from OECD and EU member countries, including Australia, Canada, Estonia, Latvia, Malta, Portugal, Romania, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States. These peers contributed comparative insights and good practices to support Moldova’s reform efforts.

1.3.2. Presentation of the Review

The OECD Justice Review of the Republic of Moldova begins by establishing key foundations for building a trusted, effective and people-centred justice sector. These include the shared values of the rule of law and democratic governance, Moldova’s EU integration trajectory, the concept of justice as a core public service and an understanding of people’s legal needs, justice experiences and problems. Grounded in EU and OECD standards, this foundation recognises that justice institutions must be designed and governed not only to uphold rights, but also to serve the public effectively, equitably and transparently (Chapter 2).

Building on this foundation, the report adopts a whole-of-sector approach to explore how Moldova’s justice sector is governed and steered through its institutional arrangements, and strategic vision and co‑ordination mechanisms. It analyses the roles and interlinkages of key institutions, assessing how governance structures enable sector-wide planning and coherence. The chapter also reviews existing policy frameworks and reform strategies, identifying opportunities to improve prioritisation, sequencing and alignment (Chapter 3).

The report then explores the functioning of Moldova’s governance value ecosystem, analysing how key principles of independence, impartiality, accountability, integrity and transparency are embedded and balanced within its governance and institutional frameworks. The chapter also considers lessons from the vetting process of judges and prosecutors, and emphasises the importance of transparency, civil society participation and open communication in reinforcing accountability and public trust (Chapter 4).

The report next examines how institutional resources and management practices shape the delivery and performance of justice in Moldova. This includes the governance of budgets and financial resources, infrastructure and human capital, with a focus on recruitment, retention and capacity development. The chapter also assesses court performance and efficiency, digital transformation and data governance, identifying opportunities to modernise service delivery and strengthen evidence-based management across the justice system (Chapter 5).3

The report then turns to how justice services are delivered on the ground, analysing delivery models and identifying pathways for Moldova to move beyond a court-centric approach toward more integrated, responsive and service-oriented justice delivery. This includes the country’s transition from a traditional judicial map to a whole-of-sector justice services map – one that enables diverse access points and joined-up services across courts, legal aid, mediation, administrative redress and community-based support, better meeting the needs of all people in Moldova (Chapter 6).

The project benefits from the OECD peer review methodology, incorporating the expertise of senior officials and practitioners from OECD and EU member countries, including Australia, Canada, Estonia, Latvia, Malta, Portugal, Romania, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States. These peers contributed comparative insights and good practices to support Moldova’s reform efforts.

1.3.3. Presentation of the Review

The OECD Justice Review of the Republic of Moldova begins by establishing key foundations for building a trusted, effective and people-centred justice sector. These include the shared values of the rule of law and democratic governance, Moldova’s EU integration trajectory, the concept of justice as a core public service and an understanding of people’s legal needs, justice experiences and problems. Grounded in EU and OECD standards, this foundation recognises that justice institutions must be designed and governed not only to uphold rights, but also to serve the public effectively, equitably and transparently (Chapter 2).

Building on this foundation, the report adopts a whole-of-sector approach to explore how Moldova’s justice sector is governed and steered through its institutional arrangements, and strategic vision and co‑ordination mechanisms. It analyses the roles and interlinkages of key institutions, assessing how governance structures enable sector-wide planning and coherence. The chapter also reviews existing policy frameworks and reform strategies, identifying opportunities to improve prioritisation, sequencing and alignment (Chapter 3).

The report then explores the functioning of Moldova’s governance value ecosystem, analysing how key principles of independence, impartiality, accountability, integrity and transparency are embedded and balanced within its governance and institutional frameworks. The chapter also considers lessons from the vetting process of judges and prosecutors, and emphasises the importance of transparency, civil society participation and open communication in reinforcing accountability and public trust (Chapter 4).

The report next examines how institutional resources and management practices shape the delivery and performance of justice in Moldova. This includes the governance of budgets and financial resources, infrastructure and human capital, with a focus on recruitment, retention and capacity development. The chapter also assesses court performance and efficiency, digital transformation and data governance, identifying opportunities to modernise service delivery and strengthen evidence-based management across the justice system (Chapter 5).4

The report then turns to how justice services are delivered on the ground, analysing delivery models and identifying pathways for Moldova to move beyond a court-centric approach toward more integrated, responsive and service-oriented justice delivery. This includes the country’s transition from a traditional judicial map to a whole-of-sector justice services map – one that enables diverse access points and joined-up services across courts, legal aid, mediation, administrative redress and community-based support, better meeting the needs of all people in Moldova (Chapter 6).

References

[1] European Commission (2025), Republic of Moldova - 2025 Report, COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT, SWD(2025) 758 final, https://enlargement.ec.europa.eu/document/download/23fa6af0-89b3-4532-a3d9-d1638727d14c_en?filename=moldova-report-2025.pdf.

Notes

← 1.  The action plan will be designed to complement and integrate existing strategies and action plans, helping to ensure coherence, avoid duplication and maximise impact. It will be structured along a continuum of implementation timelines and offer different levels of ambition: quick wins, as in practical, low-cost reforms that can be implemented rapidly to build momentum and demonstrate early impact (e.g. clarifying roles, centralising functions, engaging civil society); short- and medium-term reforms that focus on key operational and institutional measures aimed at improving co-ordination, budgeting, performance management and justice service delivery; long-term structural changes that require sustained investment and cross-sectoral collaboration to address more complex challenges (e.g. workforce planning, digital interoperability, strategic capital investment); and aspirational objectives that aim to position Moldova as a forward-thinking regional leader in driving responsive, data-driven and people-centred justice innovation.

← 2.  The Advisory Group includes representatives from the OECD (Public Governance Directorate and Global Relations and Co-operation Directorate), the EU Delegation to the Republic of Moldova, a trusted partner throughout the project, and the Ministry of Justice, including several relevant units. Other participating institutions are the Superior Council of Magistracy, the Superior Council of Prosecutors, the Agency for Digitalisation in Justice and Judicial Administration, the National Institute of Justice, the Mediation Council, the National Council for State Guaranteed Legal Aid and the Union of Lawyers. International partners joined the Advisory Group meetings as observers.

← 3.  Given that courts remain the primary interface for justice in Moldova, represent the most institutionalised components of the system and provide most of the available data, the analysis necessarily focuses on their structures and capacities.

← 4.  Given that courts remain the primary interface for justice in Moldova, represent the most institutionalised components of the system and provide most of the available data, the analysis necessarily focuses on their structures and capacities.