Notaries and mediators enjoy the highest level of trust among justice sector professionals, being valued for their fairness, effectiveness, and respectful attitude by those who have interacted with the justice system. At the same time, people with lower incomes and those from vulnerable groups are less likely to seek the services of judicial professionals to resolve their issues, primarily due to a lack of specialized knowledge.

These are some of the key findings of a UNDP sociological study on access to justice, presented on 25 March 2025, at a roundtable hosted by the Ministry of Justice. The research was conducted with the financial support of Germany and Sweden. To carry out the research, focus groups and surveys were conducted between April and August 2024 among individuals who had interacted with professionals and institutions within the justice system, based on a nationally representative sample of 3,066 people aged 18 and over from across the country.

Approximately one-third of respondents (31.6%) have been involved in at least one dispute over the past four years, according to the survey. The most common types of disputes involved conflicts with neighbors (17.3%) and issues related to social or public services (12.6%), followed by problems concerning the police, employment, and land disputes.

The nature of disputes varies across demographic and socio-economic groups. Rural residents, men, and individuals with higher incomes are more frequently involved in land disputes, as well as conflicts related to social assistance services and employment. In contrast, individuals with lower incomes are disproportionately affected by disputes concerning social assistance and domestic violence, highlighting the correlation between economic vulnerability and challenges in exercising legal rights.

Another key finding of the UNDP survey is the low level of interest in disputes and the limited capacity for dispute resolution. While the majority of respondents seek initial guidance from trusted individuals (59.6%) or institutions (63.1%), the effectiveness of this support varies significantly. Moreover, 37.5% of survey participants who turned to institutions ultimately abandoned their efforts to resolve disputes, citing significant systemic barriers. As a result, institutions in the Republic of Moldova are perceived with mixed opinions regarding their speed and efficiency in handling disputes.

Respondents who sought assistance from notaries and mediators reported high satisfaction with their services, at rates of 86.5% and 78.5%, respectively. When asked how clearly institutions explained legal procedures, participants indicated that they were most impressed by notaries (88.9%), mediators (78.6%), lawyers (64.2%), and bailiffs (61.5%). In this regard, courts and the police also received positive feedback: 47.7% of those who engaged with the courts stated that procedures were clearly explained to them, compared to 37.7% for the police.

The study highlights disparities in citizens' legal literacy, revealing varying levels of awareness regarding legal provisions. While the majority of citizens demonstrate solid knowledge of procedural rights—such as the requirement for a warrant to conduct home searches (83.1%) and the right to legal counsel after detention (69.3%)—understanding of other legal areas remains limited.

For instance, only 27.7% correctly identified the rights of children with disabilities to be integrated into mainstream education and just 56% are aware that women have the right to divorce without their husband's consent. Meanwhile, the right of women to equal pay for work of equal value is better understood (78.5%), suggesting a higher level of awareness regarding gender equality and the relevant legal framework.

There is a high level of distrust in the justice system in the Republic of Moldova, with 44.6% of respondents having little or no trust in it, and only 11.2% expressing a high level of trust. Mistrust in the justice system is more pronounced among men, urban residents, older people, and individuals facing economic hardships. At the same time, those who have directly interacted with justice sector institutions report higher levels of trust, suggesting a discrepancy between public perceptions and the experiences of actual users.

According to the study, vulnerable groups in the Republic of Moldova face significant and complex barriers to accessing justice. They frequently report indifferent or even hostile treatment from legal institutions and professionals, which may further erode trust in the justice system. Limited knowledge of legal rights and procedures remains a persistent issue, particularly for ethnic minorities, refugees, internally displaced persons, and individuals with disabilities.

The physical inaccessibility of courts and other justice sector institutions disproportionately affects persons with disabilities, while systemic inefficiencies and prolonged delays discourage survivors of domestic violence and other vulnerable groups from seeking justice. Informal support networks and civil society organizations play a crucial role in bridging these gaps by providing legal assistance, emotional support, and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. However, these informal systems often lack the necessary authority to resolve complex legal disputes, leaving individuals without sustainable solutions.

To improve the justice sector and ensure equitable access to fair legal proceedings, the survey’s authors have proposed several measures that should be undertaken by authorities and could serve as a foundation for public policy development:

• Strengthening legal awareness and informing the public about actions to take in common disputes;
• Building trust in the justice system;
• Expanding the use of mediation;
• Enhancing access to a functional legal aid system;
• Continuing efforts to combat corruption in the justice sector;
• Improving access to justice for vulnerable groups;
• Leveraging innovative and evidence-based approaches to enhance access to justice.