On March 17, 2024, a quote from the judge of the Supreme Court of Georgia, Levan Tevzadze, was published in the news section of the POSTV website, according to which the judge Vsevolod Kniaziev, who was elected on the basis of a “vetting” conducted by the former judge of the European Court of Human Rights in Ukraine, Nona Tsotsoria, was later arrested for taking a large amount of bribe. On March 18, Levan Tevzadze published a post on his Facebook page, claiming that Nona Tsotsoria “admitted” her participation in the reforms carried out in Ukraine, but did not mention her participation in the “vetting” of judges in Moldova, where acting judges were dismissed.
In addition, on March 18, the TV Company “Imedi” aired a story, that argued that Nona Tsotsoria claims on social networks that she has no connection with the judges’ vetting system, although evidence of her participation can be found in the current vetting system in Moldova.
The claim that Nona Tsotsoria participated in the vetting of Vsevolod Kniazev, the Chairman of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, is false. In fact, Kniazev was appointed to the Supreme Court by international experts before the vetting process for judges, while Tsotsoria was a member of the international expert group that selected the head of the specialized anti-corruption prosecutor’s office. As for the claim that judges in Moldova have been dismissed, in fact, the pre-vetting commission in Moldova does not decide on the removal or appointment of judges, and even if the candidate fails the evaluation, he/she will still be able to continue working in the judicial system.
The claim voiced in the story of “Imedi,” as if Nona Tsotsoria denied the connection with the court vetting system on social media is manipulative. Her Facebook posts only talk about the vetting of judges in Ukraine, and nowhere does she deny participating in pre-vetting in Moldova.
The former judge of the European Court of Human Rights, Nona Tsotsoria, did not participate in the vetting of judges in Ukraine, but in the selection process of the leadership of the specialized anti-corruption prosecutor’s office. The group of international experts, of which Nona Tsotsoria was a member, selected Oleksandr Klimenko as the head of the specialized anti-corruption prosecutor’s office. He started his duties in July 2022 and holds this position to this day.
It was on the basis of the investigation conducted by the specialized anti-corruption prosecutor’s office and the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine that Vsevolod Kniazev, the former chairman of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, was arrested in 2023 on charges of taking a large amount of bribe.
Vsevolod Kniazev was appointed to the Supreme Court in 2017, while the Council of International Experts started the process of vetting judges in Ukraine in 2018.
Nonna Tsotsoria herself responded to the disseminated information, who wrote on her Facebook page that she did not participate in the “vetting” of judges in Ukraine, but in the selection process of the chief anti-corruption prosecutor, who arrested the chairman of the Supreme Court on bribery.
In another post, she also noted that at the time of Kniazev’s appointment to the Supreme Court of Ukraine, she was a judge at the Court of Human Rights of the European Union (from 2008 to 2018).
Nona Tsotsoria’s Facebook posts were only about the vetting process of judges in Ukraine. The posts do not talk about Moldova, and therefore, there is no denial of the fact that Nona Tsotsoria is a member of the pre-vetting commission in Moldova.
Taking into account that the vetting procedure in Ukraine and Albania turned out to be long, in the first – pre-vetting stage in Moldova, the commission will assess the members of the self-governing bodies: the Supreme Council of Magistrates and the Supreme Council of Prosecutors, who will then take part in the assessment of other branches of the judicial system. The commission does not directly decide on the removal or appointment of members. It only assesses the ethical and financial integrity of judges and prosecutors who wish to be members of the above-mentioned councils. Candidates who successfully pass the evaluation are appointed to the councils by other judges and prosecutors. If the candidate fails the assessment, he/she will still be able to continue working in the judicial system, but will not be able to participate in the competition for the membership of the said councils. They also have the opportunity to appeal the commission’s decision. Commission decisions and candidate hearings are published on the website of the pre-vetting commission.
According to the data available on the website, the results of the applications considered by the commission at the moment are as follows: 5 out of 28 judges who wanted to be members of the Supreme Council of Magistrates successfully passed the assessment, 9 out of 21 non-judge candidates, and 20 prosecutors who wanted to be members of the Supreme Council of Prosecutors and non- Prosecutor 9 out of 20 candidates. Of the judges who received a negative assessment, 15 appealed the decision, of which 3 appeals were not satisfied, in one case the decision was changed, and the rest of the appeals are in the process of consideration.
As a result of a 14-month observation of the pre-vetting process, the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights determined that the process was conducted objectively, fairly, and in accordance with international standards of human rights and the rule of law.
The article has been written in the framework of Facebook’s fact-checking program. You can read more about the restrictions that Facebook may impose based on this article via this link. You can find information about appealing or editing our assessment via this link.
Read detailed instructions for editing the article.
Read detailed appeal instructions.
