Amicus Curiae #Justice4Moldova: Position Paper on the complaint no 233/23 and No 77/24, pending before the Equality Council

This Opinion refers to cases no. 233/23 and no. 77/24, pending before the Equality Council regarding the compliance with the provisions of art. 10 para. (2) letter g) of the State Budget Law for 2024 no. 418/2023 with the standards on non-discrimination, with reference to the size of the differentiated reference value for the professional group (prosecutors and judges) who passed the assessment according to the provisions of Law no. 26/2022, in comparison with those who have not yet been subjected to external evaluation and those for whom the law does not provide for the obligation of external evaluation.

The conclusions of the Justice Expert Group (EYG) are:

• The external evaluation carried out with a view to ensuring the integrity of judges and prosecutors and increasing society’s trust in justice could be qualified as a legitimate aim.
• The salary gap between the professional group (prosecutors and judges) who have passed the evaluation and those who have not yet been subjected to the evaluation, in the context of the broad margin of the authorities, does not raise essential questions regarding the lack of justification and reasonableness;
• The salary difference between the professional group (prosecutors and judges) who passed the evaluation and those for whom the law does not provide for the obligation of external evaluation could, in principle, raise questions about the lack of a fair balance between the measures applied and the legitimate aim.