# C_2023216EN.01000401.xml

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/4

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Timişoara — Romania) — T.A.C. v Agenția Națională de Integritate (ANI)

(Case C-40/21, (1) Agenția Națională de Integritate)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Decision 2006/928/EC - Mechanism for cooperation and verification of progress in Romania to address specific benchmarks in the areas of judicial reform and the fight against corruption - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 15(1) - Article 47 - Article 49(3) - Elective public office - Conflict of interests - National legislation prohibiting the holding of elective public office for a predetermined period - Penalty additional to the termination of the term of office - Principle of proportionality)

(2023/C 216/04)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Timişoara

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: T.A.C.

Defendant: Agenția Națională de Integritate (ANI)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to national legislation which provides, following an administrative procedure, for a measure prohibiting the holding of any elective public office for a predetermined period of three years against a person who has been found to have a conflict of interest in the holding of such an office, in the event that that measure is not criminal in nature. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to national legislation which provides, following an administrative procedure, for a measure prohibiting the holding of any elective public office for a predetermined period of three years against a person who has been found to have a conflict of interest in the holding of such an office, in the event that that measure is not criminal in nature.

| 2. | The principle of proportionality must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation which provides for a measure prohibiting the holding of any elective public office for a predetermined period of three years against a person who has been found to have a conflict of interest in the holding of such an office provided that, in the light of all the relevant circumstances, the application of that legislation results in the imposition of a penalty commensurate with the seriousness of the breach which it penalises, having regard to the objective of ensuring integrity and transparency in the exercise and holding of public functions and offices and preventing institutional corruption. That would not be the case where, exceptionally, the unlawful conduct found to have taken place, having regard to that objective, does not have an element of seriousness, whereas the impact of that measure on the personal, professional and economic situation of that person proves particularly serious. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The principle of proportionality must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation which provides for a measure prohibiting the holding of any elective public office for a predetermined period of three years against a person who has been found to have a conflict of interest in the holding of such an office provided that, in the light of all the relevant circumstances, the application of that legislation results in the imposition of a penalty commensurate with the seriousness of the breach which it penalises, having regard to the objective of ensuring integrity and transparency in the exercise and holding of public functions and offices and preventing institutional corruption. That would not be the case where, exceptionally, the unlawful conduct found to have taken place, having regard to that objective, does not have an element of seriousness, whereas the impact of that measure on the personal, professional and economic situation of that person proves particularly serious.

| 3. | Article 15(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights must be interpreted as meaning that the right to exercise an electoral mandate obtained following a democratic electoral process, such as that of mayor, is not covered by that provision. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 15(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights must be interpreted as meaning that the right to exercise an electoral mandate obtained following a democratic electoral process, such as that of mayor, is not covered by that provision.

| 4. | Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation which provides for a measure prohibiting the holding of any elective public office for a predetermined period of three years against a person who has been found to have a conflict of interest in the holding of such an office, provided that the person concerned has had an effective opportunity to challenge the legality of the report that made that finding and the penalty imposed on the basis of it, including its proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation which provides for a measure prohibiting the holding of any elective public office for a predetermined period of three years against a person who has been found to have a conflict of interest in the holding of such an office, provided that the person concerned has had an effective opportunity to challenge the legality of the report that made that finding and the penalty imposed on the basis of it, including its proportionality.

---

(1)  OJ C 289, 19.7.2021.

---