# C_2019246EN.01001201.xml

| 22.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 246/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 246/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Bihor (Romania) lodged on 14 May 2019 — Criminal proceedings against IG, JH, KI, LJ

(Case C-379/19)

(2019/C 246/12)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Bihor

Parties to the main proceedings

IG, JH, KI, LJ

Questions referred

| 1. | Are the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM), established by Commission Decision 2006/928/EC of 13 December 2006, (1) and the requirements laid down in reports prepared in accordance with that mechanism binding on Romania? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM), established by Commission Decision 2006/928/EC of 13 December 2006, (1) and the requirements laid down in reports prepared in accordance with that mechanism binding on Romania?

| 2. | Is Article 2, in conjunction with Article 4(3), of the Treaty on European Union, to be interpreted as meaning that the obligation on Romania to comply with the requirements laid down in reports prepared in accordance with the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM), established by Commission Decision 2006/928/EC of 13 December 2006, forms part of the Member State’s obligation to comply with the principles of the rule of law, including in so far as concerns a constitutional court (a politico-judicial institution) refraining from intervening in order to interpret the law and to establish the specific and mandatory rules for the application of the law by judicial bodies, a task which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the judicial authorities, and in order to introduce new legislative measures, a task which falls within the exclusive competence of the legislative authorities? Does EU law require that the effects of any such decision, adopted by a constitutional court, should be disregarded? Does EU law preclude a provision of national law which governs the liability to disciplinary action of the judge who disapplied the decision of the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court), in the context of the question referred? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 2, in conjunction with Article 4(3), of the Treaty on European Union, to be interpreted as meaning that the obligation on Romania to comply with the requirements laid down in reports prepared in accordance with the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM), established by Commission Decision 2006/928/EC of 13 December 2006, forms part of the Member State’s obligation to comply with the principles of the rule of law, including in so far as concerns a constitutional court (a politico-judicial institution) refraining from intervening in order to interpret the law and to establish the specific and mandatory rules for the application of the law by judicial bodies, a task which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the judicial authorities, and in order to introduce new legislative measures, a task which falls within the exclusive competence of the legislative authorities? Does EU law require that the effects of any such decision, adopted by a constitutional court, should be disregarded? Does EU law preclude a provision of national law which governs the liability to disciplinary action of the judge who disapplied the decision of the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court), in the context of the question referred?

| 3. | Does the principle of judicial independence, enshrined in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU and in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber, judgment of 27 February 2018, Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses, C-64/16, EU:C:2018:117), preclude the competences of courts being replaced by decisions of the Curtea Constituțională (Decision No 51 of 16 February 2016, Decision No 302 of 4 May 2017 and Decision No 26 [of 16 January 2019]), the result of which is that criminal proceedings are unforeseeable (retroactive application) and that it is impossible to interpret the law and apply it in the case under consideration? Does EU law preclude a provision of national law which governs the liability to disciplinary action of the judge who disapplied the decision of the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court), in the context of the question referred? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the principle of judicial independence, enshrined in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU and in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber, judgment of 27 February 2018, Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses, C-64/16, EU:C:2018:117), preclude the competences of courts being replaced by decisions of the Curtea Constituțională (Decision No 51 of 16 February 2016, Decision No 302 of 4 May 2017 and Decision No 26 [of 16 January 2019]), the result of which is that criminal proceedings are unforeseeable (retroactive application) and that it is impossible to interpret the law and apply it in the case under consideration? Does EU law preclude a provision of national law which governs the liability to disciplinary action of the judge who disapplied the decision of the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court), in the context of the question referred?

---

(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).

---