We condemn the reprehensible manner in which the SCM attempted to “mitigate” the harmful regulations on media access to courts and reiterate our demand for their repeal
The Independent Journalism Center, together with the co-signing organizations, condemns the reprehensible manner in which the Superior Council of Magistracy attempted to “mitigate” the harmful regulations regarding press access to courts. We repeatedly call on the SCM to repeal the approved regulation and to initiate the process of drafting relevant regulations in accordance with the principle of transparency in decision-making.
On April 8, 2025, the Superior Council of Magistracy (SCM) approved a regulation on access to court premises. At the time of its adoption, the document was a faithful copy of a 2016 regulation that was suspended shortly thereafter by the SCM following protests from media NGOs and editorial offices, as well as from the legal profession, which criticized the abusive restrictions on access to court hearings.
According to the SCM, the recently approved initiative was supported by several courts without objections or proposals after the authority sent them the draft regulation for approval in September 2024. On April 3, 2025, the “final” draft of the regulation was posted for “public consultation” in one of the sections not displayed on the front page of the SCM website.
Due to limited access to and visibility of the document, and because the SCM disregarded the need for real consultation and stakeholder involvement in the decision-making process, the text of the initiative approved on April 8, 2025, remained identical to that of the 2016 regulation.
On April 17, 2025, the SCM published a response to the statement in which media NGOs condemned the regulation in question and called for the abusive regulations to be repealed. The SCM devoted its response mainly to explanations of the necessity and usefulness of rules on access to courts and ignored the issues actually raised by media NGOs.
At the end of the press release, the SCM recommended “active public participation of interested parties in the decision-making process” and “encouraged constructive criticism of ‘already approved documents.'” The Council also stated that it had “taken into account previous criticisms of certain provisions,” that these had been “reflected in the amendments made to the regulation prior to approval,” and that “the final text will be published by the SCM after the drafting process has been completed.”
In other words, the SCM claims that the criticized regulation was amended “before approval,” after the authority took into account “previous criticism of certain provisions” — which is not true. The fact that the document approved on April 8, 2025, had identical content to the “final” draft text published on April 3, 2025 (i.e., the (suspended) regulation of 2016) is confirmed both by the statements of SCM member Ioana Chironeț (see min. 51:59, video recording of the meeting of April 8), and by SCM Decision No. 164/14 of April 8, 2025.
In fact, the SCM chose to substantially intervene in an already approved normative administrative act and, under the pretext of “redrafting,” to mitigate the serious dissonances and inconsistencies in the Regulation on access to court premises.
The “edited version” of the document, published on April 29, continues to pose a threat to the journalistic mission of informing citizens about issues of public interest, including those related to the administration of justice.
Although the SCM has waived the requirement for the press to obtain accreditation from the CCA, the regulation continues to impose abusive and/or unclear restrictions on the authorization of press access to court premises, both during and outside court hearings.
We condemn the SCM’s attempt to “mitigate” the harmful effects of the Regulation on access to court premises by substantially amending the already approved document, under the pretext of “redrafting,” as well as invoking circumstances that do not correspond to the truth to justify these actions.
The signatory organizations reiterate that they recognize and support the need to regulate access to court premises in order to ensure public order and the proper functioning of the courts, including in their interaction with the press. However, abusive provisions and unjustified restrictions on journalists, approved without consulting the parties concerned, undermine press freedom and are unacceptable in a democratic society.
We repeatedly call on the SCM to repeal the Regulation on access to court premises and to initiate the process of drafting relevant regulations in accordance with the principle of transparency in decision-making.
Independent Journalism Center
Organizations that have joined the statement:
RISE Moldova
Center for Investigative Journalism
Association of Electronic Press
Association of Environmental and EcoTourism Journalists of Moldova
Access-Info Center
Press Freedom Committee
