# C_2021320EN.01001302.xml

| 9.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Ploiești (Romania) lodged on 6 April 2021 — Asociația ‘Forumul Judecătorilor din România’ and YN v Consiliul Superior al Magistraturii

(Case C-216/21)

(2021/C 320/17)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Ploiești

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Asociația ‘Forumul Judecătorilor din România’ and YN

Defendant: Consiliul Superior al Magistraturii

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM), established by Commission Decision 2006/928/EC of 13 December 2006, (1) be regarded as an act of an institution of the Union, within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU, and therefore amenable to interpretation by the Court of Justice of the European Union? Do the terms, nature and duration of the CVM established by Commission Decision 2006/928/EC of 13 December 2006 fall within the scope of the Treaty concerning the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union, signed by Romania in Luxembourg on 25 April 2005? Are the requirements laid down in the reports prepared in accordance with the CVM binding on the Romanian State? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM), established by Commission Decision 2006/928/EC of 13 December 2006, (1) be regarded as an act of an institution of the Union, within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU, and therefore amenable to interpretation by the Court of Justice of the European Union? Do the terms, nature and duration of the CVM established by Commission Decision 2006/928/EC of 13 December 2006 fall within the scope of the Treaty concerning the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union, signed by Romania in Luxembourg on 25 April 2005? Are the requirements laid down in the reports prepared in accordance with the CVM binding on the Romanian State?

| 2. | Can the principle of judicial independence, enshrined in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as well as in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, with reference to Article 2 TEU, be interpreted as also applying to procedures for the promotion of judges in office? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can the principle of judicial independence, enshrined in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as well as in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, with reference to Article 2 TEU, be interpreted as also applying to procedures for the promotion of judges in office?

| 3. | Is that principle infringed by the introduction of a system for promotion to a higher court which is based solely on a brief assessment of activities and conduct that is carried out by a board composed of the President of the court responsible for judicial review and of the judges of that court which, in addition to the periodic assessment of judges, separately carries out both assessments of judges for promotion purposes and the judicial review of judgments delivered by those judges? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is that principle infringed by the introduction of a system for promotion to a higher court which is based solely on a brief assessment of activities and conduct that is carried out by a board composed of the President of the court responsible for judicial review and of the judges of that court which, in addition to the periodic assessment of judges, separately carries out both assessments of judges for promotion purposes and the judicial review of judgments delivered by those judges?

| 4. | Is the principle of judicial independence, enshrined in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as well as in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, with reference to Article 2 TEU, infringed if the Romanian State undermines the foreseeability and legal certainty of EU law by accepting the CVM and reports prepared in accordance with that mechanism and adhering to them for more than 10 years and then, with no forewarning, changing the procedure for the promotion of judges to executive positions, contrary to CVM recommendations? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is the principle of judicial independence, enshrined in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as well as in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, with reference to Article 2 TEU, infringed if the Romanian State undermines the foreseeability and legal certainty of EU law by accepting the CVM and reports prepared in accordance with that mechanism and adhering to them for more than 10 years and then, with no forewarning, changing the procedure for the promotion of judges to executive positions, contrary to CVM recommendations?

---

(1)  Commission Decision 2006/928/EC of 13 December 2006 establishing a mechanism for cooperation and verification of progress in Romania to address specific benchmarks in the areas of judicial reform and the fight against corruption (OJ 2006 L 354, p. 56).

---