# C_2023189EN.01000901.xml

| 30.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 189/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Pitești (Romania) lodged on 2 March 2023 — Asociația ‘Forumul Judecătorilor din România’, Asociația ‘Mișcarea pentru Apărarea Statutului Procurorilor’ v Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Procurorul General al României

(Case C-53/23, Asociația ‘Forumul Judecătorilor din România’)

(2023/C 189/13)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Pitești

Parties to the main proceedings

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

Defendant: Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Procurorul General al României

Questions referred

| 1. | Do Article 2 and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Articles 12 and 47 [of the] Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude the placing of limits on the bringing of certain legal proceedings by the professional associations of judges — aiming to promote and to protect the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law, and to safeguard the status of the profession — by introducing the condition that there must be a legitimate private interest which has been excessively restricted, on the basis of a binding decision of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, followed by a national practice in cases such as that in which the present question has been raised, which requires a direct link between the administrative act subject to judicial review by the courts and the direct purpose and objectives of the professional associations of judges, laid down in their articles of association, in cases where such associations seek to obtain effective judicial protection in matters governed by EU law, in accordance with the general purpose and objectives of the articles of association? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do Article 2 and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Articles 12 and 47 [of the] Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude the placing of limits on the bringing of certain legal proceedings by the professional associations of judges — aiming to promote and to protect the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law, and to safeguard the status of the profession — by introducing the condition that there must be a legitimate private interest which has been excessively restricted, on the basis of a binding decision of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, followed by a national practice in cases such as that in which the present question has been raised, which requires a direct link between the administrative act subject to judicial review by the courts and the direct purpose and objectives of the professional associations of judges, laid down in their articles of association, in cases where such associations seek to obtain effective judicial protection in matters governed by EU law, in accordance with the general purpose and objectives of the articles of association?

| 2. | In the light of the answer to the first question, do Article 2, Article 4(3) and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, Annex IX to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of Romania and Decision 2006/928 (1) preclude national legislation which limits the competence of the National Anti-Corruption Directorate by conferring exclusive competence to investigate corruption offences (in a broad sense) committed by judges and prosecutors upon certain prosecutors appointed for that purpose (by the Prosecutor General of Romania, acting on a proposal of the plenary assembly of the Supreme Council of Judiciary) in the public prosecutor’s office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice and, respectively, in the public prosecutor’s offices attached to the Courts of Appeal, the latter also being competent for the other categories of offences committed by judges and prosecutors? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the light of the answer to the first question, do Article 2, Article 4(3) and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, Annex IX to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of Romania and Decision 2006/928 (1) preclude national legislation which limits the competence of the National Anti-Corruption Directorate by conferring exclusive competence to investigate corruption offences (in a broad sense) committed by judges and prosecutors upon certain prosecutors appointed for that purpose (by the Prosecutor General of Romania, acting on a proposal of the plenary assembly of the Supreme Council of Judiciary) in the public prosecutor’s office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice and, respectively, in the public prosecutor’s offices attached to the Courts of Appeal, the latter also being competent for the other categories of offences committed by judges and prosecutors?

---

(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).

---