Case C‑53/23

Asociația ‘Forumul Judecătorilor din România’
and
Asociația ‘Mișcarea pentru Apărarea Statutului Procurorilor’

v

Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție – Procurorul General al României

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Piteşti)

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 8 May 2024

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Rule of law – Judicial independence – Article 19(1) TEU – Cooperation and Verification Mechanism – Benchmarks subscribed to by Romania – Fight against corruption – Investigations of offences committed within the Judiciary – Action challenging the nomination of prosecutors with competence to conduct those investigations – Standing of professional associations of judges to bring proceedings)

1. Member States – Obligations – Provision of remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal protection – Observance of the principle of judicial independence – Appointment of prosecutors competent to conduct criminal prosecutions against judges – National legislation on actions for annulment challenging the appointment of those prosecutors – Professional associations of judges – No locus standi – Admissibility

   (Art. 2 and Art. 19(1), second subpara., TEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 12 and 47; Aarhus Convention; Council Directive 2000/78)

   (see paragraphs 35-37, 40-44, 52, 57-64, operative part)

Résumé

On a request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Piteşti (Court of Appeal, Pitești, Romania), the Court holds that EU law does not oblige the Member States to allow professional associations of judges to bring actions for annulment, with a view to defending the principle of the independence of the judiciary, against decisions relating to the appointment of prosecutors competent to conduct criminal prosecutions against judges.

In 2022, two professional associations of judges, the Asociaţia ‘Forumul Judecătorilor din România’ and the Asociația ‘Mișcarea pentru Apărarea Statutului Procurorilor’, brought an action before the referring court seeking the partial annulment of an order appointing prosecutors for the conduct of criminal prosecutions against judges in corruption cases. Those associations submit, in essence, that the national legislation upon which that order is based is contrary to EU law.

The referring court states that, by application of the Romanian procedural rules, it should declare the action for annulment inadmissible. In respect of associations, the case-law of the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (High Court of Cassation and Justice, Romania) makes the admissibility of such an action subject to there being a direct link between the administrative act subject to judicial review and the objectives pursued by the applicant association. In several judgments, that court has thus found that professional associations of judges do not have an interest in bringing proceedings against decisions relating to the appointment of judges.

However, the referring court emphasises that the applicants in the main proceedings seek to obtain effective judicial protection in a field covered by EU law. It is therefore necessary to determine whether the interpretation of the national procedural rules by the High Court of Cassation and Justice is contrary to Article 2 and Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Articles 12 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’). Consequently, it decided to request a preliminary ruling by the Court.

Findings of the Court

In the first place, the Court emphasises that, subject to the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, it is for the Member States, in principle, to determine the standing and interest of a party to bring legal proceedings, without however undermining the right to effective judicial protection in fields covered by EU law, compliance with which must be ensured by the Member States, for the purposes of the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU.

It is true that the Member States are required, in certain cases, to permit representative associations to bring proceedings in order to protect the environment or combat discrimination. ( 1 ) However, first, those findings flow from procedural rights specifically conferred on representative associations by an international convention ( 2 ) or by acts of secondary legislation. ( 3 ) Secondly, even in those fields, the Member States remain free, where that convention or those acts do not specifically require standing to bring proceedings to be granted to representative associations, to confer, or not to confer, that standing on such associations.

However, as regards professional associations of judges, there is no provision of EU law that requires the Member States to grant procedural rights to professional associations of judges enabling them to challenge any purported incompatibility with EU law of a national provision or measure connected with the status of judges. Hence, it cannot be concluded on the basis of the obligation to establish a system of legal remedies and procedures which ensures respect for the right to effective judicial protection for individuals in the fields covered by EU law that the Member States are required generally to guarantee for those associations the right to bring proceedings based on such an incompatibility with EU law.

In the second place, it is clear from the Court's case-law that, in certain circumstances, the Member States are required, in order to ensure that the requirement for the independence of the judiciary is observed, to provide for certain legal remedies permitting the lawfulness of national measures that have consequences for the careers of judges or the composition of national courts and tribunals to be reviewed. However, the Member States are required to guarantee that the action of prosecutors competent to conduct criminal prosecutions against judges is taken within a framework of effective rules which fully comply with the requirement of the independence of the judiciary. In addition, professional associations of judges are not, in principle, directly concerned by the appointment of prosecutors, including of those who will be competent to conduct criminal prosecutions against judges, and EU law does not require that those associations be granted, generally, specific procedural rights.

Consequently, the sole fact that national legislation does not permit those professional associations to bring an action for annulment against the appointment of those prosecutors does not suffice to create, in the minds of individuals, legitimate doubts as to the independence of judges.

Furthermore, a right for professional associations of judges to initiate legal proceedings against measures such as those at issue in the main proceedings also cannot be derived from Article 47 of the Charter. The Court has already held that an association that submits, before a national court, that national legislation relating to the appointment of judges is incompatible with Article 19(1) TEU cannot be regarded, on that basis alone, as invoking the breach of a right conferred on it by a provision of EU law, within the meaning of Article 51(1) of the Charter. ( 4 )

( 1 ) See, to that effect, judgments of 20 December 2017, Protect Natur-, Arten- und Landschaftsschutz Umweltorganisation (C‑664/15, EU:C:2017:987, paragraph 58), and of 23 April 2020, Associazione Avvocatura per i diritti LGBTI (C‑507/18, EU:C:2020:289, paragraph 60).

( 2 ) Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, signed in Aarhus on 25 June 1998 and approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005 (OJ 2005 L 124, p. 1).

( 3 ) Such as Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).

( 4 ) See, to that effect, judgment of 20 April 2021, Repubblika (C‑896/19, EU:C:2021:311, paragraphs 43 and 44).