Interview with Lavly Perling: How Moldova is reorganizing its judiciary with international vetting

From the editorial team of Tiflis24

Georgia argues, Moldova reforms. While in Tbilisi the term "vetting" is demonized as a supposed threat to judicial independence, Moldova shows how it's done: concretely, legally legitimized, and with international participation. And, above all, with tangible results.

Tiflis24 spoke with Lavly Perling – former Estonian Prosecutor General, now an international member of the Moldovan Vetting Commission and an expert on judicial reforms in Ukraine. Her answers show: Those who are clean have nothing to fear. Those who are afraid should perhaps think about their finances. The full interview follows verbatim.

Interview – Excerpts from the conversation with Lavly Perling

Tiflis24: Ms. Perling, you are a member of the second vetting commission in Moldova. What motivates you?

Lavly Perling: I'm from Estonia and worked as a prosecutor for most of my professional life—from 1994 to 2019. After that, I moved to Ukraine, where I was also involved in the vetting process. I'm also involved in the Council of Europe's judicial reform initiatives. I support countries that are serious about strengthening the rule of law. Every country needs its own model. Moldova is very different from Estonia or Ukraine—different conditions, different systems. I can't speak the absolute truth, but I'm happy to share my experiences.

Tiflis24: How are international members of the commission selected?

Perling: That's a good question. I don't know exactly how it worked for others—in my case, the invitation came from an EU representative. International experts are completely independent. We don't represent political interests and are not affiliated with our countries of origin. We were simply asked if we would be willing—and I accepted. As far as I know, the commission consists of three international and three local members. The Moldovan authorities make the final decision, usually with input from international partners. Experience with judicial reform and integrity counts.

Tiflis24: How are decisions made within the Commission?

Perling: The local members were interviewed in the Moldovan parliament. In Ukraine, all local members were judges; in Moldova, it's more diverse: one person from the defense, one from the law enforcement community, one from an integrity institution. That's important. Effective vetting requires three things: political will, a clear legal framework, and motivated professionals. Without political will, everything else is meaningless.

Tiflis24: What happens after your mandate expires?

Perling: Our mandate ends in December of this year. After that, the Supreme Council of Magistrates (SCM), comparable to the High Council of Justice in Ukraine, will take over. These institutions must be prepared to continue our work. It would be a mistake to believe that vetting alone can solve everything. We are just the beginning. What matters is how the system adopts and continues our standards.

Tiflis24: Have there been any media or political attacks on your work?

Perling: I can't say much about the Moldovan media landscape, but yes – such attacks occur everywhere. It was the same in Ukraine. They said international experts were unconstitutional. But our mandate is clear: It comes from Moldovan law, passed by parliament. Our appointments are made through state institutions. Vetting is an emergency tool. In a clean system, it would be superfluous. But in a system riddled with corruption, it's essential.

Tiflis24: Is there cooperation with anti-corruption authorities?

Perling: Not directly. We request information from about 50 public and private entities. If we receive data, we evaluate it. If not, we can't use it. It's a very democratic process. We check ethical and financial integrity. This includes income, expenses—is it justified? If we receive information about criminal activity, we pass it on. But we don't investigate ourselves.

Tiflis24: In Georgia, judges often say: “That was a gift.” How do you react to such statements?

Perling: This excuse is classic—and widespread. But we don't evaluate feelings, we evaluate facts. Is the gift plausible? If not, we report legitimate doubts. Everything we do is evidence-based. In Moldova and Ukraine, transparency is crucial. Public hearings are part of that. I've heard many very "creative" stories. But in the end, math and logic count.

Tiflis24: What about political influence?

Perling: The Commission doesn't make final decisions. We submit reports – national bodies make the decisions. Our recommendations can be challenged. I say with complete conviction: There is no political pressure. Everything is based on law. Of course, there are bizarre explanations – but that's precisely why vetting exists. In Ukraine, for example, there were public hearings – some candidates explained their finances in astonishing ways...

Tiflis24: How do you measure success?

Perling: We've completed 89 reports—that's an achievement considering we started two years ago without any staff, procedures, or office. But the real success will be revealed later: Will the system continue? Will our standards be internalized? Three elements are decisive: political will, legal instruments, and committed people. If that persists, so will the reform. If not, it was just an episode.

Questions and answers about the Moldovan Vetting Commission

1. How is the Vetting Commission in Moldova structured, who appointed it, and how is its independence ensured?

The Judicial Vetting Commission was established as a unique, external review body for the ethical and financial integrity of judges, particularly those of the Supreme Court. It consists of six members: three Moldovan nationals nominated by parliamentary factions and three international experts proposed by development partners. All were elected by a three-fifths parliamentary majority. The commission operates independently with its own, non-political secretariat. It has extensive investigative powers. Its decisions are based on verified facts.

2. How did vetting gain political momentum in Moldova?

Society had high expectations of a functioning justice system. Politicians recognized that without trust in the justice system, there would be neither investment nor prosperity. So, vetting was introduced as a tool.

3. What criteria apply when examining judges?

It's about financial and ethical integrity – not legal competence. The assessment takes into account the origin of wealth, tax practices, conflicts of interest, and ethical behavior.

4. How is the accuracy of the information verified?

Using data from over 50 public and private institutions, a multi-level comparison is carried out, supported by experts and international partners.

5. What happens in the event of serious disagreements?

The commission recommends a "pass" or "fail" grade to the Supreme Council of Magistrates (SCM), which makes the final decision publicly.

6. Was there resistance to the process?

Yes – this was addressed with maximum transparency, public hearings and international support.

7. Were there any legal hurdles?

Seventeen decisions have been appealed in court – 14 of which have been upheld. The remaining decisions are pending.

8. How is political influence prevented?

Through clear structures, international participation, legally defined criteria and an independent secretariat.

9. What has been achieved so far?

   - Reappointment of central judicial bodies

   - Resignation of almost all Supreme Court judges

   - Review of the appeal courts almost completed

   - Focus on management positions in courts of first instance

10. Was there an impact on public trust?

Yes – according to Perling, the effect is already noticeable. However, the long-term impact remains to be seen.

11. Does vetting endanger the independence of the judiciary?

No. It protects them – because only judges with integrity enjoy trust. Vetting creates transparency and standards.

12. Is the model transferable to Georgia?

Yes – but only under clear conditions: political will, transparent procedures, international participation.

13. What advice do you have for Georgian reformers?

Good preparation, tailored laws, clear communication – and above all: credible and courageous people.

14. What mistakes should other countries avoid?

Unclear communication and unsuitable people in key positions. Expectations must be communicated realistically.

15. What role does international support play?

A key one: financing, legitimacy, and protection from political influence. Without international partners, the process would not be possible.

16. What is your hope for Moldova?

That in ten years no one will say: “We need vetting” – but rather: “Our justice system is credible and strong.”