# C_2019187EN.01003201.xml

| 3.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 187/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 187/32

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Pitești (Romania) lodged on 18 February 2019 — Asociația ‘Forumul Judecătorilor din România’, Asociația ‘Mișcarea pentru Apărarea Statutului Procurorilor’ v Consiliul Superior al Magistraturii

(Case C-127/19)

(2019/C 187/37)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Pitești

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Asociația ‘Forumul Judecătorilor din România’, Asociația ‘Mișcarea pentru Apărarea Statutului Procurorilor’

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? |
| --- | --- |

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?

| 2. | Do the terms, nature and duration of the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (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 that mechanism binding on Romania? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Do the terms, nature and duration of the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (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 that mechanism binding on Romania?

| 3. | Must Article 2, in conjunction with Article 4(3), TEU be interpreted as meaning that the obligation on Romania to comply with the requirements laid down in the 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? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must Article 2, in conjunction with Article 4(3), TEU be interpreted as meaning that the obligation on Romania to comply with the requirements laid down in the 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?

| 4. | Does Article 2 TEU, and more specifically the obligation to comply with the values of the rule of law, preclude legislation which establishes and organises the section for the investigation of offences committed within the Judiciary, within the prosecutors office attached to the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (High Court of Cassation and Justice, Romania), because of the possibility of indirect pressure being exerted on members of the judiciary? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does Article 2 TEU, and more specifically the obligation to comply with the values of the rule of law, preclude legislation which establishes and organises the section for the investigation of offences committed within the Judiciary, within the prosecutors office attached to the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (High Court of Cassation and Justice, Romania), because of the possibility of indirect pressure being exerted on members of the judiciary?

| 5. | 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 case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (judgment of 27 February 2018, Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses, C-64/16, EU:C:2018:117), preclude the establishment of the section for the investigation of offences committed within the Judiciary, within the prosecutors office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, in the light of the rules governing the appointment/removal of prosecutors as members of that section, the rules governing the exercise of functions within that section and the way in which jurisdiction is established, in connection with the limited number of positions in that section? |
| --- | --- |

5.

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 case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (judgment of 27 February 2018, Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses, C-64/16, EU:C:2018:117), preclude the establishment of the section for the investigation of offences committed within the Judiciary, within the prosecutors office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, in the light of the rules governing the appointment/removal of prosecutors as members of that section, the rules governing the exercise of functions within that section and the way in which jurisdiction is established, in connection with the limited number of positions in that section?

---

(1)  Commission Decision 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, Special edition: Chapter 11 Vol. 51 p. 55).

---