Judge Mikhail Bushulyak refused to participate in the competition for the position of member of the SCM

Judge of the Cahul Court Mikhail Bushulyak, a candidate for the position of member of the Supreme Council of Magistracy (SCM), refused to participate in the competition, while his candidacy was re-evaluated by the Pre-Vetting Commission.

“Due to Mikhail Bushulyak’s refusal to participate in the competition for the position of member of the SCM, which was reported to the evaluation commission today, public hearings of the candidate as part of the re-evaluation scheduled for April 30, 2024 will not take place,” the commission announced, zdg reports. md

The hearing was part of a re-evaluation ordered by the Supreme Court of Justice, which upheld his appeal.

Mikhail Bushulyak has been working in the judicial system since October 2011, as indicated on the portal magistrat.md. Currently he is the deputy chairman of the Cahul Court.

The Pre-Vetting Commission found that the judge “failed to meet the ethical and integrity criteria” for the following reasons: in 2011, he had business dealings with two lawyers and did not abstain from hearing cases involving them; financial integrity violations were found in the purchase of four properties between 2007 and 2017.

Thus, according to the evaluation commission, on June 10, 2021, Mikhail Bushulyak and his wife purchased half of the land plot and half of the administrative building (shopping center – editor’s note), located in the center of Cahul. The objects were purchased from two lawyers for 385,658 lei, which were paid in several installments until March 2022. At the same time, the assessment commission found that in the period 2021-2022, after the acquisition of retail space, the candidate as a judge ruled on six civil cases involving one of the lawyers from whom he acquired the property. In all six cases, according to the commission, the decisions made by the candidate were in favor of the parties whose interests were represented by this lawyer.

The Supreme Court judges, who decided to re-evaluate Mikhail Bushulyak, argue that “it was not proven that the plaintiff acted in bad faith, especially since the sale and purchase transaction was concluded by his wife, and not by him personally.” Regarding the source of funds for the acquisition of four properties between 2007 and 2017, the special panel of the SCJ states that “the so-called violations of financial and ethical integrity were assessed by the commission in strict isolation from the socio-historical context, which affects the security of legal relations.”