CJEU Judgment on Romanian Judicial Promotion Regime
Download
Read an extract
Themes
Judicial independence, impartiality, rule of law, European Union, CJEU, judicial promotion regime, Romania, structural independence, functional independence, irremovability of judges, financial autonomy, transparency, evaluation criteria, subjective assessments, jurisdictional protection, separation of powers, mutual trust, national courts, EU law, Article 19 TFEU, Article 47 CFREU, effective judicial remedy, independent and impartial court, appeal court presidents, legitimacy of promotion process, Court of Justice of the European Union, C-216/21, C-64/16, judicial organization, national reforms, jurisdictional system, litigants trust, jurisdictional review, public institutions, legal standards, judicial review, European requirements, judicial integrity.
Reader
Abstract
Extract
of 8
Abstract
The CJEU judgment in case C-216/21 highlights structural gaps in Romania's judicial promotion regime, undermining judicial independence and impartiality.
Extract
[...] In order to fully grasp the scope of this judgment, it is essential to clarify the concept of judicial independence. This latter is broken down into two complementary dimensions: structural independence, which imposes a strict separation between the judiciary and other public powers, and functional independence, which guarantees judges the freedom to judge, protecting them from any influence, whether direct or indirect. These guarantees, consecrated by Article 19 TFEU and Article 47 of the CFREU, ensure litigants access to an equitable judicial remedy before a court endowed with the attributes of independence and impartiality, thus protecting individual rights against arbitrary decisions3. [...]
[...] This provision illustrates in a striking way the cardinal place of judicial independence within the normative architecture of the European Union. In fact, this independence transcends the simple separation of powers to constitute the foundation of the legitimacy of national jurisdictions as ' judges of the common law of the Union ». In this regard, the judgment of Asocia?ia "Forumul Judec?torilor din România" (C-216/21) is part of a jurisprudential continuity aiming to recall that, although the organization of judicial systems falls within the sovereign competence of the Member States, this prerogative must be exercised in respect of the supranational requirements in terms of independence, impartiality and procedural transparency1. [...]
[...] This position is in line with the judgment Commission v. Poland (C-791/19), in which the Court had found that the absence of clear criteria in disciplinary procedures reinforced the hierarchical dependence of judges and hindered their ability to exercise their functions with full autonomy18. Another structural weakness highlighted by the CJEU lies in the concentration of decision-making powers in the hands of appeal court presidents, who have a predominant influence on the evaluations and promotions of judges19. In the judgment The Association "The Forum of Judges of Romania"", the CJEU recalled that the predominance of appeal court presidents, without independent recourse, alters the appearance of impartiality and calls into question the legitimacy of the promotion process. [...]
[...] In the judgment Repubblika v Malta (In Case C-896/19), the CJEU clarified that judicial independence requires the absence of any external pressure and the guarantee that the composition of the courts does not compromise the appearance of impartiality. The Court emphasizes that ' the appearance of impartiality is also as decisive as impartiality itself », in so far as it conditions the trust of litigants in the judicial institution. This requirement has been reaffirmed in the judgment Getin Noble Bank (C-132/20), where the CJEU has held that the legitimacy of judicial decisions depends on the transparency of the selection processes of judges and the absence of suspicions of partiality9. [...]
[...] The CJEU recalls that one of the essential foundations of any fair procedure lies in the adoption of objective and measurable criteria, allowing for the reduction of the risk of arbitrary assessments22. In the judgment The Association 'The Forum of Judges of Romania'"", the Court has firmly condemned the use of vague notions such as ' integrity » or ' professional competence », noting that these ambiguous terms can be interpreted divergently by evaluators. In addition to the adoption of objective criteria, the CJEU places particular emphasis on the need to compose evaluation commissions in a pluralistic and representative manner.23. [...]
