# C_2019246EN.01000901.xml

| 22.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 246/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 246/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Brașov (Romania) lodged on 9 April 2019 — SO v TP and Others

(Case C-291/19)

(2019/C 246/09)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Brașov

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: SO

Respondents: TP and Others

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM), established by European Commission Decision 2006/928/EC (1) of 13 December 2006, 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 European Commission Decision 2006/928/EC (1) of 13 December 2006, 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. | Are the requirements set out in the reports drawn up under that mechanism binding on Romania, in particular (but not only) as regards the need to make legislative amendments which comply with the conclusions of the CVM and with the recommendations made by the Venice Commission and the Council of Europe’s Group of States against Corruption? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are the requirements set out in the reports drawn up under that mechanism binding on Romania, in particular (but not only) as regards the need to make legislative amendments which comply with the conclusions of the CVM and with the recommendations made by the Venice Commission and the Council of Europe’s Group of States against Corruption?

| 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 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 prosecutor’s office attached to the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (High Court of Cassation and Justice, Romania), 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? |
| --- | --- |

4.

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 prosecutor’s office attached to the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (High Court of Cassation and Justice, Romania), 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 second paragraph of] Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union relating to the right to a fair trial by means of a hearing within a reasonable time, preclude the establishment of a section for investigating offences committed within the judiciary, within the prosecutor’s office attached to the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (High Court of Cassation and Justice, Romania), in the light of the rules governing the exercise of functions within it and the way in which jurisdiction is established, in connection with the limited number of positions in that section? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Does [the second paragraph of] Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union relating to the right to a fair trial by means of a hearing within a reasonable time, preclude the establishment of a section for investigating offences committed within the judiciary, within the prosecutor’s office attached to the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (High Court of Cassation and Justice, Romania), in the light of the rules governing the exercise of functions within it 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).

---