Case C‑119/23

Virgilijus Valančius

v

Lietuvos Republikos Vyriausybė

(Request for a preliminary ruling
from the Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas)

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 July 2024

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Third subparagraph of Article 19(2) TEU – Second paragraph of Article 254 TFEU – Appointment of Judges of the General Court of the European Union – Independence beyond doubt – Ability required for appointment to high judicial office – National procedure for proposing a candidate for the office of Judge of the General Court of the European Union – Group of independent experts responsible for assessing the candidates – Merit list of candidates meeting the requirements laid down in the third subparagraph of Article 19(2) TEU and the second paragraph of Article 254 TFEU – Proposal of a candidate named on the merit list other than the top-ranked candidate – Opinion of the panel provided for in Article 255 TFEU on the suitability of candidates)

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction of the Court – Scope – Procedure for the appointment of EU Judges – National procedure for proposing a candidate for the office of Judge of the General Court of the European Union – Request for interpretation of the requirements laid down by the Treaties for appointment of Judges of the General Court – Included

   (Art. 19(2), third subpara., TEU; Art. 254, second para., TFEU)

   (see paragraphs 28-34)

2. EU law – Principles – Right to effective judicial protection – Principle of judicial independence – Scope – Relationship to the right to an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law

   (Arts 2 and 19(2), third subpara., TEU)

   (see paragraphs 46-50)

3. Court of Justice of the European Union – Appointment of Judges of the General Court of the European Union – Requirements of independence and professional ability laid down in EU law – Effect on the national procedure for proposing a candidate for the office of Judge of the General Court – National legislation providing for the participation, in the selection procedure, of a group of independent experts responsible for assessing the candidates and drawing up a merit list – Proposal of the national government to approve a candidate on that list other than the best-ranked candidate – Whether permissible – Guarantees of observance of those requirements

   (Art. 19(2), third subpara., TEU; Art. 254, second para., TFEU)

   (see paragraphs 53, 54, 56-60, 62, 63, 65, 66, operative part)

Résumé

Further to a request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas (Regional Administrative Court, Vilnius, Lithuania), the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice rules on the effect of the provisions of the Treaties governing the appointment of Judges of the General Court of the European Union ( 1 ) on the national procedure for proposing a candidate for the performance of those duties.

In 2016, Mr Valančius was appointed a Judge of the General Court. After his term of office ended in August 2019, he continued to perform his duties. ( 2 ) In 2021, a procedure was adopted for the selection of a candidate for the office of Judge of the General Court. ( 3 ) In accordance with that procedure, a working group composed mainly of independent experts drew up a merit list of candidates, in descending order in accordance with the score obtained. Mr Valančius was the best-ranked candidate on that list.

In 2022, the Lithuanian Government decided to propose, as a candidate for the office of Judge of the General Court, the person ranked in second place on that list. Following an unfavourable opinion on that candidate delivered by the panel provided for in Article 255 TFEU, that government decided to propose as a candidate the person ranked in third place on the same list. In 2023, that person was appointed a Judge of the General Court.

Mr Valančius challenged the legality of the decisions adopted by the Lithuanian Government before the referring court, seeking, inter alia, that that government be ordered to reopen the proposal procedure and to submit the name of the best-ranked candidate on the merit list.

It is in that context that the referring court asked the Court of Justice to rule on the interpretation of the provisions of the Treaties governing the appointment of Judges of the General Court.

Findings of the Court

As regards its jurisdiction to rule on the request for a preliminary ruling, the Court of Justice notes that, under EU law, ( 4 ) the procedure for appointing a Judge of the General Court consists of three stages. At the first stage, the government of the Member State concerned proposes a candidate for the office of Judge of the General Court and sends that proposal to the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union. At the second stage, the panel provided for in Article 255 TFEU gives an opinion on that candidate’s suitability to perform the duties of a Judge of the General Court, having regard to the requirements laid down in the second paragraph of Article 254 TFEU. At the third stage, following consultation with that panel, the governments of the Member States, through their representatives, appoint that candidate as a Judge of the General Court, by a decision taken by common accord on a proposal from the government of the Member State concerned. Thus, the decision of the government of a Member State to propose a candidate for the office of Judge of the General Court constitutes the first stage of the appointment procedure governed by the third subparagraph of Article 19(2) TEU and the second paragraph of Article 254 TFEU and therefore falls, on that basis, within the scope of those provisions. In those circumstances, the interpretation of those provisions clearly falls within the Court of Justice’s jurisdiction to rule on requests for a preliminary ruling.

As regards the substance of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling, the Court points out that the requirement of judicial independence gives concrete expression to one of the fundamental values of the European Union and its Member States enshrined in Article 2 TEU, which define the very identity of the European Union as a common legal order and which must be complied with both by the European Union and by the Member States. Since that requirement, which has two aspects, independence in the strict sense and impartiality, is inherent in the task of adjudication and Article 19 TEU jointly entrusts the Court of Justice of the European Union and the national courts with the task of ensuring judicial review in the EU legal order, that requirement applies both at EU level, in particular as regards the Judges of the General Court, and at the level of the Member States as regards national courts.

Furthermore, the Court of Justice points out that the requirement of a tribunal previously established by law is closely linked, in particular, to the requirement of independence in that both seek to observe the fundamental principles of the rule of law and the separation of powers, principles which are essential to the rule of law, the value of which is affirmed in Article 2 TEU. The requirement of a tribunal previously established by law encompasses, by its very nature, the process of appointing judges, while the independence of a tribunal may be measured, inter alia, by the way in which its members are appointed.

In that regard, the substantive conditions and procedural rules relating to the appointment of Judges of the General Court must make it possible to rule out any reasonable doubt, in the minds of individuals, as to whether they satisfy the requirements laid down in the third subparagraph of Article 19(2) TEU and the second paragraph of Article 254 TFEU, which relate both to ‘independence … beyond doubt’ and to the ‘ability required for appointment to high judicial office’. To that end, it is necessary, in particular, to safeguard the integrity of the entire procedure for the appointment of Judges of the General Court and, consequently, the outcome of that procedure at each stage.

Thus, as regards, first of all, the national stage of proposal of a candidate for the office of Judge of the General Court, the Court of Justice notes, on the one hand, that, in the absence of specific provisions to that effect in EU law, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to lay down the detailed procedural rules governing the proposal of such a candidate, provided that those rules cannot give rise, in the minds of individuals, to reasonable doubts as to whether the proposed candidate meets the requirements laid down in the third subparagraph of Article 19(2) TEU and the second paragraph of Article 254 TFEU. In that regard, the fact that representatives of the legislature or executive are involved in the judicial appointment process is not in itself such as to give rise to such reasonable doubts in the minds of individuals. That said, the involvement of independent advisory bodies and the existence, in national law, of an obligation to state reasons may be such as to contribute to rendering the appointment process more objective, by circumscribing the leeway available to the appointing institution.

On the other hand, as regards the substantive conditions laid down for the selection and proposal of candidates for the office of Judge of the General Court, the Court of Justice points out that the Member States, while having a wide discretion in defining those conditions, must nevertheless ensure, irrespective of the procedural rules adopted for that purpose, that the proposed candidates meet the requirements of independence and professional ability laid down in the third subparagraph of Article 19(2) TEU and the second paragraph of Article 254 TFEU.

Next, the Court of Justice emphasises that the verification of the suitability of candidates proposed by the Member States for the performance of the duties of a Judge of the General Court, in the light of those requirements, is also the responsibility of the panel provided for in Article 255 TFEU. For the purposes of the adoption of its opinion on that suitability, that panel must check that the proposed candidate meets the requirements of independence and professional ability which are required by the Treaties in order to perform the duties of a Judge of the General Court.

In that context, the Court of Justice states that, although the existence of an open, transparent and rigorous selection procedure is a relevant factor in checking compliance with those requirements by the proposed candidate, the absence of such a procedure does not, by contrast, constitute, in itself, a ground for casting doubt on such compliance. For the purposes of such verification, the panel provided for in Article 255 TFEU may ask the government making the proposal to send additional information or other material which it considers necessary for its deliberations.

Finally, the Court notes that the task of ensuring observance of the requirements laid down in the third subparagraph of Article 19(2) TEU and the second paragraph of Article 254 TFEU is also incumbent on the governments of the Member States, through their representatives, if they decide, having regard to the opinion delivered by the panel provided for in Article 255 TFEU, to appoint as a Judge of the General Court the candidate proposed by one of those governments. Once appointed, that candidate becomes a Judge of the European Union and does not represent the Member State which proposed him or her.

In the light of those considerations, the Court of Justice concludes that, where a Member State has established a procedure for the selection of candidates for the office of Judge of the General Court in the context of which a group composed mainly of independent experts is responsible for evaluating those candidates and drawing up a merit list of those who satisfy the requirements laid down in the third subparagraph of Article 19(2) TEU and the second paragraph of Article 254 TFEU, and indicating, by way of recommendation, the best-ranked candidate on that list, the mere fact that the government of that Member State decided to propose a candidate on that merit list other than the best-ranked candidate is not, in itself, sufficient to support the conclusion that that proposal is such as to give rise to reasonable doubts as to whether the candidate proposed meets those requirements. Moreover, the fact that the panel provided for in Article 255 TFEU gave a favourable opinion on the candidate proposed by the national government who was placed third on that merit list is such as to confirm that the decision of the governments of the Member States to appoint that candidate meets the abovementioned requirements.

( 1 ) Third subparagraph of Article 19(2) TEU and second paragraph of Article 254 TFEU.

( 2 ) Under the third paragraph of Article 5 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

( 3 ) Pretendento į Europos Sąjungos Bendrojo Teismo teisėjus atrankos tvarkos aprašas (Description of the selection procedure for candidates for the office of Judge of the General Court of the European Union), in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings, adopted by Decree No 1R-65 of the Minister for Justice of the Republic of Lithuania of 9 March 2021.

( 4 ) Inter alia, in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 19(2) TEU, the second paragraph of Article 254 TFEU and Article 255 TFEU.