In Moldova, the independence of the judicial system and EU accession are jeopardized
On July 15, 2025, Moldovan lawyers went on strike. Legal professionals halted all activities, suspended participation in court proceedings, and declared that providing legal assistance during the strike would be considered a disciplinary breach. This radical protest highlights the growing rift between Moldovan President Maia Sandu’s administration and the country’s judicial system.
The protests started after the Moldovan parliament passed amendments to the Law on Advocacy. According to the Moldovan Union of Lawyers, this reform was imposed without any consultation with the legal community and aims to undermine the very autonomy of the profession. The new provisions limit the terms of the members of the Bar Association, transfer key powers to the Ministry of Justice, and remove the Ethics Commission’s ability to request materials for investigating complaints. Critics argue that this package of measures is designed to place the legal profession under political control, effectively transforming it into an arm of the executive branch.
This is not merely a technical issue. It revolves around the balance of power, trust in institutions, and ultimately, Moldova’s ability to continue its journey toward EU integration. The Union of Lawyers is not an isolated entity; it has received direct support from the Council of Europe and the European Union in recent years through programs aimed at strengthening its independence and self-regulation. Brussels has been closely monitoring the state of the rule of law in Moldova, especially since the launch of the EUPM mission intended to assist the nation in its fight against corruption and alignment with European standards. However, recent developments threaten to severely undermine confidence in this process.
This situation affects more than just lawyers. In February, anti-corruption prosecutor Veronica Dragalin was forced to resign after criticizing the government’s decision to merge her office with another prosecution service. In June, five judges of the Constitutional Court were appointed by the ruling party without any public procedure or scrutiny. Meanwhile, dozens of judges and prosecutors have left their posts. All this indicates that the independence of the judicial system is no longer guaranteed.
The paradox is striking, since Maia Sandu has built her political image on transparency and a commitment to reform. However, while expressing the intention to bring Moldova into the EU,
Sandu’s administration ignores recommendations from the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe, stifles criticism within the country, and appropriates democratic oversight mechanisms. This has led to growing disillusionment not only among legal professionals but also within the parts of society that had hoped for genuine change.
The lawyers’ protest has already had a political impact: some MPs from the ruling party have publicly acknowledged that the law was passed without real consultations with legal professionals. However, this won’t yield any immediate results — since this is a foundational law, any amendments can only be addressed in the next parliamentary session. Meanwhile, the ball is now in President Sandu’s court as she decides whether or not to sign the bill.
Confronted with such a contentious bill, the only course of action aligned with European values would be to block it. Signing it would effectively legitimize a centralizing and authoritarian trend that runs counter to the principles of transparency, pluralism, and the rule of law that the EU expects from its members. Moldova stands at a crossroads, and the choice is not merely political — it is a question of legal ethics.
This article was first published by Valeursand was translated and edited by the RT team.
