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 constitutes an act of an institution of the Union which is amenable to interpretation by the Court of Justice under Article 267 TFEU. As regards its legal nature, content and temporal effects, that decision falls within the scope of the Treaty between the Member States of the European Union and the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania, concerning the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union. The benchmarks set out in the annex to that decision are intended to ensure that Romania complies with the value of the rule of law, set out in Article 2 TEU, and are binding on that Member State, in the sense that it is required to take the appropriate measures for the purpose of meeting those benchmarks, taking due account, under the principle of sincere cooperation laid down in Article 4(3) TEU, of the reports drawn up by the European Commission on the basis of that decision, and in particular the recommendations made in those reports.

2.

The second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 2 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that a piece of national legislation relating to the scheme for the promotion of judges is required to ensure compliance with the principle of the independence of judges.

3.

The second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 2 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, must be interpreted as not precluding a piece of national legislation pursuant to which the scheme for the promotion of judges to a higher court is based on an assessment, carried out by a board composed of (i) the president of that higher court and (ii) members of that court, of the work and conduct of the persons concerned, provided that the substantive conditions and procedural rules governing the adoption of decisions relating to effective promotion are such that they cannot give rise to reasonable doubts, in the minds of individuals, as to the imperviousness of the judges concerned to external factors and as to their neutrality with respect to the interests before them, once they have been promoted.

4.

Decision 2006/928 must be interpreted as not precluding a piece of national legislation altering the scheme for the promotion of judges when, in the reports drawn up under that decision, the European Commission has not made any recommendation relating to such an alteration.