Case: Joined cases C-83/19, C-127/19, C-195/19, C-291/19, C-355/19 and C-397/19.

Descriptors: Judges' appointment procedure and judicial independence.

In the context of Romania's accession procedure to the European Union, the Commission recognized, within the framework of its Decision 2006/928, the existence of a series of deficits regarding the organization of its judicial system and the dominant corruption in the country candidate, which should be addressed through a series of reforms aimed at guaranteeing the proper functioning of the internal market, as well as a European ​​justice, freedom and security. As the CJEU clearly states, the incorporation of a State into the Union implies that it assumes the values ​​by which it is governed, among which respect for the rule of law stands out; shared values ​​without which mutual trust between the different States would not be possible (paragraph 160). Precisely for this reason, the Court establishes the binding nature of the recommendations that it made to Romania in the framework of the accession procedure; declaring, in addition, the primacy of this Law over those national ones that seek to contravene it, even though they have been validated by the national constitutional courts (paragraph 252).

In the different assumptions that cause the process, it is noted that the judicial system reforms approved during 2018 and 2019, modify the regime adopted in the framework of the process of joining the EU, to precisely guarantee the effectiveness and independence of the judicial system (paragraph 181). In this sense, the reforms approved in relation to the Judicial Inspectorate and the Prosecutor's Office (paragraph 182-185) stand out, by means of which the capacity to designate, temporarily and outside the ordinary appointment procedure, people with the capacity to conduct disciplinary investigations against judges. A reform that the Court considers to cast reasonable doubts about the possibility that the powers and functions of the Judicial Inspectorate are used to violate the magistrates’ judicial independence ex article 19.1 TUE (paragraph 207).

Likewise, the reform of the Prosecutor's Office, empowered to conduct investigations against judges, is considered by the CJEU as contrary to the principle of judicial independence, since there is a notable absence of objective justification for the measure, as well as an absence of specific guarantees to avoid that the reform becomes an instrument of political control of the judges.

But, in any case, the Court considers that the judicial reform approved by Romania in which it is intended to elucidate the existence of a possible personal responsibility of the Judge due to a judicial error, would be contrary to article 19.1 TEU, since it would not have been heard in the prior judicial process to determine the patrimonial responsibility of the State, and inasmuch as it is not provided with the necessary guarantees to preserve its independence and avoid the possible use of this reform as an instrument to control the exercise of its jurisdictional function.

Read the decision