Rule of Law Dashboard
The dashboard provides information about rule of law-related judgements and pending cases at the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights.
Currently, cases on Hungary, Malta, Poland, and Romania are included in the dashboard, given the pending Art. 7-procedures and the urgent problems of the rule of law in those States. The selection of further Member States to be included will be based on the Annual Rule of Law Reports of the European Commission, reports by the Council of Europe and reports by NGOs such as Freedom House and Varieties of Democracy.
The selection of cases is based on the definition of the ‘rule of law’ in Art. 2 of Regulation 2020/2092. Cases that concern (one of the elements of) the definition as described in the foregoing provision, are selected from Curia (CJEU case law) and HUDOC (ECtHR case law). Press releases by the registrars of the two courts and secondary sources are used to identify relevant cases.
For the text of the judgments and more information click on the links under ‘Case number’ and ‘ECLI:EU:C:’ for CJEU decisions, and under ‘Case number’ and ‘Name’ for ECtHR decisions. Click on the underlined text in the outer right column to get a short summary of the case. When an ‘ECLI number’ but no ‘date of judgment’ is given, this is likely to indicate that an AG opinion has been rendered.
The dashboard is work in progress, so if you have any suggestions or additions, you are welcome to contact the Meijers Committee via j.vanberckelsmit@commissie-meijers.nl. The dashboard will be updated regularly.
[last updated in June 2024]
- Hungary
- Malta
- Poland
- Romania
- CJEU
- ECtHR
Dashboard Rule of Law Cases – Hungary – CJEU
Case Number | Name | Date of Judgement | ECLI:EU:C: | Summary |
---|---|---|---|---|
C‑286/12 | Commission v Hungary | 06/11/2012 | 2012:687 | retirement age of judgeslowering the retirement age of judges creates difference in treatment on grounds of age which is not proportionate; Directive 2000/78/EC |
C-556/17 | Torubarov | 29/07/2019 | 2019:626 | asylum procedure, effective judicial remedyguarantee of effective judicial remedy for applicant of international protection, national court/tribunal required to vary a decision of the first-instance determining body that does not comply with its previous judgment; Directive 2013/32/EU, Art. 47 CFR |
C-718/17 | Commission v Hungary | – | 2019:917 | relocation of applicants for international protectionJoined Cases C-715/17 (Poland), C-718/17 (Hungary), C-719/17 (Czech Republic); failure to assist Italy and Greece by relocating applicants for international protection to their respective territories |
C-66/18 | Commission v Hungary | 06/10/2020 | 2020:792 | academic freedomviolation of academic freedom concerning amendments in Hungary’s 2011 Higher Education Act that limit the operations of foreign academic institutions in Hungary; Art 14 CFR |
C-78/18 | Commission v Hungary | 18/06/2020 | 2020:476 | Hungarian NGO Transparancy Lawrestrictions imposed by Hungary on the financing of foreign civil society organisations through excessive transparency requirements; Art. 63 TFEU |
C-406/18 | PG v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal | 19/03/2020 | 2020:216 | asylum procedure, effective judicial remedythe right to an effective remedy in asylum procedures; Directive 2013/32/EU, Art. 47 CFR |
C-564/18 | LH v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal | 19/03/2020 | 2020:218 | asylum procedure, effective judicial remedygrounds for issuing an inadmissibility decision of an application for international protection (IP) and the time-limit imposed to make such a decision; Art. 47 CFR, Art. 33 Directive 2013/32/EU |
C-650/18 | Hungary v Parliament | 03/06/2021 | 2021:426 | legality of the adoption of the Art. 7 TEU resolutionHungary challenged the vote on Art. 7 procedure for determining the existence of a clear risk of a serious breach by Hungary of the EU’s fundamental values, Hungary argued that the vote result did not take into account the abstentions |
C-808/18 | Commission v Hungary | 17/12/2020 | 2020:1029 | international protection and return of unlawfully staying TCN’sHungary failed to fulfil its obligations under EU law in the area of procedures for granting international protection and returning illegally staying third-country nationals; Procedures Directive (Directive 2013/32), Reception Directive (Directive 2013/33) & Qualification Directive (Directive 2008/115) |
C-40/19 | EY | – | case withdrawn due to decision in C-406/18 | asylum procedure, effective judicial remedyeffective judicial protection even if courts cannot amend asylum procedure decisions but may only annul them and order a new procedure; Art. 47 CFR, Art. 31 of Directive 2013/32/EU |
C-67/19 | KD v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal | – | case withdrawn due to decision in C-406/18 | asylum procedure, effective judicial remedyeffective judicial protection even if courts cannot amend asylum procedure decisions but may only annul them and order a new procedure; Art. 47 CFR, Art. 31 of Directive 2013/32/EU |
C-210/19 | TN | – | case withdrawn due to decision in C-406/18 | asylum procedure, effective judicial remedyeffective judicial protection even if courts cannot amend asylum procedure decisions but may only annul them and order a new procedure; Art. 47 CFR, Art. 31 of Directive 2013/32/EU |
C-564/19 | IS | 23/11/2021 | 2021:949 | Limitations to refer preliminary questionsUnder Hungarian law it was unlawful to refer irrelevant/unnecessary preliminary questions, and disciplinary measures could be taken if the national judge nonetheless decided to ask preliminary questions. This is in violation with EU law. |
C-821/19 | Commission v Hungary | 16/11/2021 | 2021:930 | inadmissibality for international protection applicationsintroduction of a ground of inadmissibility for applications for international protection in addition to those listed in the Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU and the Hungarian Criminal Code that criminalises any ‘organising activity’ enabling asylum proceedings to be brought by a person who is not entitled to international protection under national law |
C‑924/19 PPU and C‑925/19 PPU | FMS and Others | 14/05/2020 | 2020:367 | international protection, effectiv judicial remedychange of destination country in return decision by an administrative authority should be regarded as a new return decision requiring an effective remedy, transit zone as detention within meaning of Reception Conditions and Returns Directive; Art. 47 CFR |
C-156/21 | Hungary v Parliament and Council | 16/02/2022 | 2022:97 | Conditionality RegulationHungary challenges the legality of Regulation 2020/2092 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget as it lacks a valid legal basis |
Commission v Hungary (Déclaration d’intention préalable à une demande d’asile) | 22/06/23 | 2023:504 | Failure to fulfil EU asylum obligationsBy deciding in line with the Commission, the Court of Justice recognises that by making the possibility of making an application for international protection subject to the prior submission of a declaration of intent to an embassy located in a third country, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under EU asylum law. | |
C-225/24 | European Parliament v. European Commission | Unfreezing EU FundsIn this case, the EP brings an action for annulment against Implementing Decision C(2023)90141 of 13 December 2023. The three pleas by the EP: i. alleging infringement of Articles 9(1) and 15 and Annex III of the Common Provisions Regulation 2021/1060 and manifest errors of assessment; ii. alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons; iii. alleging misuse of powers. |
Dashboard Rule Of Law Cases – Hungary – ECtHR
Case Number | Name | Date of Judgement | Summary |
---|---|---|---|
20261/12 | Baka v. Hungary | 23/06/2016 | judicial independenceArt. 6 ECHR; judicial independence, several constitutional and legislative reforms led to the early termination of Mr. Baka’s mandate, expelling the critical judge from the highest office in the Hungarian judiciary, without providing any possibility for judicial review |
45434/12, 45438/12 and 375/13 | J.B. and Others v. Hungary | 27/11/2018 | retirement age of judgesArt. 6 and 8 ECHR; retirement age of judges, complaints of judges and prosecutors who faced early retirement as a result of Hungary’s recent judicial reforms, found inadmissible as they failed to establish the severity of the impact this legislative measure had on their private lives |
45438/12 (decision in J.B. and others v. Hungary) | Belegi and others v. Hungary | 27/11/2018 | see J.B. and others v. Hungary |
375/13 (decision in J.B. and others v. Hungary) | Horváth and Kulcsár v. Hungary | 27/11/2018 | see J.B. and others v. Hungary |
57774/13 | Miracle Europe Kft v. Hungary | 12/04/2016 | tribunal/court established by lawArticle 6 ECHR; volation of the applicant company’s right to a fair trial on account of its case not being heard by a “tribunal established by law” due to the discretionary reassignment from the initially competent court to another court |
22254/14 | Erményi v. Hungary | 22/02/2017 | premature termination of judge’s mandatepremature termination of the applicant’s mandate as Vice-President of the Hungarian Supreme Court in parallel with the dismissal of the President of that court, examined in the Baka case, due to a change in the Hungarian legislation |
201/17 | Magyar Kétfarkú Kutya Párt v. Hungary | 21/01/2020 | Law penalizing political party for mobile app lacked sufficient precisionThe Court found a violation of Art 10 (freedom of expression) in a case where a provision of Hungarian election law had penalised the applicant party for providing an app which allowed voters to photograph, anonymously upload and comment on invalid votes cast during a referendum on immigration in 2016 – which had been an exercise of its freedom of expression. |
42461/13, 44357/13 | Karácsony and Others v. Hungary | 17/05/2016 | MPs fined for their conduct in ParliamentThe Court found a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) in a case concerning fines imposed on Hungarian MPs from two opposition parties who had disrupted parliamentary proceedings by protesting two bills being debated in Parliament. |
63164/16 | Mándli and Others v. Hungary | 26/05/2020 | Journalists refused access to Parliament buildingThe Court found a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) in a case concerning the suspension of the applicants’ Parliament accreditation as journalists, without a mechanism to appeal against the suspension of their accreditation. |
26005/08, 26160/08 | Tatár and Fáber v. Hungary | 12/06/2012 | Hanging dirty laundry around Parliament qualified as political expressionThe Court found a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) in a case concerning a complaint by applicants, prosecuted and fined for illegal assembly for hanging dirty laundry on the fence around Parliament in Budapest, in protest at what they considered the country’s general political crisis. |
15428/16 | Szurovecz v. Hungary | 8/10/2019 | Refusal of journalist to access a reception centre for asylum-seekersThe Court found a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) in a case concerning the refused media access to reception facilities for asylum-seekers, thus preventing him from reporting on the living conditions there. |
05/10/2023 | Right to freedom of expressionOpposition members of parliament were sanctioned for using posters without permission during an interpellation speech by a colleague. The Court determined that the reasons behind the decisions were relevant to the legitimate aim pursued and were sufficient to demonstrate that the interference was deemed “necessary” in a democratic society. Therefore, the Court concluded that there was no violation of the right to freedom of expression (Art. 10 ECHR). |
- CJEU
- ECtHR
Dashboard Rule of Law Cases – Malta – CJEU
Case Number | Name | Date of Judgement | ECLI:EU:C: | Summary |
---|---|---|---|---|
C-896/19 | Repubblika v Il-Prim Ministru | 20/04/2021 | 2021:311 | independence of judiciaryArt. 19 and TEU, Art. 47 CFR; complaint concerning the conformity with EU law of rules in the Maltese Constitution governing the procedure for the appointment of members of the judiciary due to political interference in the judiciary |
Dashboard Rule Of Law Cases – Malta – ECtHR
Case Number | Name | Date of Judgement | Summary |
---|---|---|---|
17/10/2023 | Unlawful and arbitrary detention of migrants and lack of timely and effective legal remediesThe applicant, a vulnerable individual due to his alleged minority and health situation, was held in various detention centres for different purposes over several months. The Court found a portion of his detention period to be arbitrary and in violation of Art. 5(1) ECHR, basing its findings on the fact that the Maltese courts did not issue any judicial order allowing for the detention as they are empowered to do under the national law. Furthermore, a violation of Art. 13 ECHR was established, highlighting deficiencies in Malta’s asylum system to address the applicant’s grievances, and basing such claim on, inter alia, its previous caselaw against Malta. |
- CJEU
- ECtHR
Dashboard Rule of Law Cases – Poland – CJEU
Case Number | Name | Date of Judgement | ECLI:EU:C: | Summary |
---|---|---|---|---|
C-192/18 | Commission v Poland | 05/11/2019 | 2019:924 | independence of ordinary courtsretirement age of judges & public prosecutors; Art. 157 TFEU, Art. 5(a) & 9(1)(f) of Directive 2006/54/EC, Art. 19 TEU, Art. 47 CFR |
C-216/18 PPU | Minister for Justice and Equality v LM (Celmer-ruling) | 25/07/2018 | 2018:586 | execution of European Arrest Warrantexecution of European Arrest Warrant by Polish court in Ireland, the meaning of the independence of the judiciary to be assessed in judicial test (general and invdividual; reiterating the Aranyosi and Căldăraru test; Art. 47 CFR, Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA) |
C-522/18 | DŚ v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Jaśle | 29/01/2020 | 2020:42 | retroactive lowering of Supreme Court retirement ageArt. 2, 4(3) and 19 TEU, Art. 47 CFR |
C-537/18 | YV v Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa | 03/02/2020 | 2020:136 | retirement age of judges, Disciplinary Chamberlack of independence of Supreme Court’s Disciplinary Chamber, case closed on 3/2/2020 due to ruling in C-585/18; Art. 47 CFR, Art 9(1) Directive 2000/78/EC |
C-563/18 & C-558/18 | Miasto Łowicz and Prokurator Generalny | 26/03/2020 | 2020:234 | disciplinary regime for judgespreliminary reference questioning the new Polish legislation relating to the disciplinary regime for judges, request for a preliminary reference inadmissible but inadmissible requests cannot lead to disciplinary sanctions for judges; Art. 19 TEU |
C-585/18, C-624/18 & C-625/18 | A. K. and Others v Sąd Najwyższy | 19/11/2019 | 2019:982 | independence of Disciplinary Chamberappointment procedure of judges of the Supreme Court involving the NCJ, referring court must assess whether the new Disciplinary Chamber is independent; Art. 47 CFR, Art. 9(1) Directive 2000/78 |
C-619/18 | Commission v Poland | 24/06/2019 | 2019:531 | legislation concerning retirement age of Supreme Court judgeslegislation concerning the lowering of retirement age of Supreme Court judges is incompatible with principles of irremovability of judges and judicial independence; Art. 19 TEU, Art. 47 CFR |
C-619/18 R | Commission v Poland | 17/12/2018 | 2019:575 | lowering of retirement age of Supreme Court judgesPoland ordered to suspend the application of national legislation concerning the lowering of the retirement age for Supreme Court judges |
C-623/18 | Prokuratura Rejonowa w Słubicach v BQ | 06/10/2020 | 2020:800 | new disciplinary regime for judgesnew disciplinary regime for judges; Art. 19 TEU, Art. 47 CFR |
C-668/18 | BP v UNIPARTS sàrl | 03/12/2019 | 2019:1093 | retroactive lowering of Supreme Court retirement agesame key issue as in C-522/18, reference withdrawn by Polish Supreme Court on 23/10/2019 |
C-824/18 | A.B. and Others | 02/03/2021 | 2021:153 | National Council of the Judiciary (KRS)reference for preliminary ruling by the Polish Supreme Administrative Court in the context of legal proceedings against the appointment procedure of the National Council of the Judiciary (KRS), effective remedy aginst KRS decisions; Art. 15 and 20 TFEU, Art. 47 CFR |
C-487/19 | W.Ż. | 06/10/2021 | 2021:798 | status of Supreme Court chamberscomposition of the “Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs” which includes individuals appointed on basis of prima facie unlawful procedure; Art. 2, 6 and 19 TEU, Art. 47 CFR |
C-508/19 | Prokurator Generalny | 22/03/2022 | 2022:201 | judicial independence of Supreme CourtRequest for preliminary ruling inadmissible. Lack of jurisdiction of the referring court to review the validity of the appointment of a Supreme Court judge and inadmissibility of such an action under national law. |
C-748/19 to C-754/19 | Prokuratura Rejonowa w Mińsku Mazowieckim and Others | 16/11/2021 | 2021:931 | composition and appointment process of criminal courtcomposition of criminal court and appointment process (involvement of the Polish Council for the Judiciary in the appointment of judges to the Polish Supreme Court); Art. 19 TEU, Art. 47 CFR |
C-763/19 to C-765/19 | D.S. and Others | 07/05/2020 | 2020:414 | composition and appointment process of courtcomposition of court and appointment process, withdrawn on 20/2/2020; Art. 19 TEU, Art. 47 CFR |
C-791/19 | Commission v Poland | 15/07/2021 | 2021:596 | impartiality and independence of Disciplinary Chamberlack of independence and impartiality of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court; Art. 19 TEU |
C-791/19 R | Commission v Poland | 08/04/2020 | 2020:277 | order to suspend the activities of the Disciplinary ChamberCJEU ordered the immediate suspension of the activities of the Disciplinary Chamber regarding disciplinary cases concerning judges, the Polish government disregarded the ruling and allowed the Disciplinary Chamber to make further decisions, such as lifting the immunity of judges with a view to prosecuting them if necessary |
C-55/20 | Ministerstwo Sprawiedliwości | 13/01/2022 | 2022:6 | Disciplinary Court of the Barunderstanding of the notion of a court under EU law regarding the Disciplinary Court of the Bar; Directive 2006/123; notion of court under Art. 267 TFEU |
C-354/20 PPU & C-412/20 PPU | L and P/Openbaar Ministerie | 17/12/2020 | 2020:1033 | European Arrest Warrant and independence of Polish judiciarysurrender to Poland on the basis of a European arrest warrant (EAW) questioned in view of existing evidence of systemic or generalised deficiencies concerning the independence of the judiciary; Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, Art. 47 CFR |
Sąd Najwyższy and Others | 22/12/2022 | 2022:1046 | No need for interpretation EU lawNo need for interpretation of EU law to enable the referring court to give judgment, hence manifest inadmissibility. | |
Staatsanwaltschaft Aachen | 9/11/23 | 2023:841 | Systemic or generalised rule of law deficiencies as an obstacle to mutual recognitionThe CJEU addressed the concerns of a German Regional Court regarding the enforcement of a custodial sentence imposed by a Polish District Court, given that the Polish judicial system itself is no longer in conformity with the principle of the rule of law enshrined in Article 2 TEU. The Court ruled that a Member State may refuse to recognise and enforce a judgment imposing a criminal sentence delivered by a court of another Member State where it has evidence of systemic or generalised deficiencies in that Member State regarding the right to a fair trial, in particular so far as concerns the independence of the courts (in abstracto test), and where there are substantial grounds for believing that those deficiencies may have had a tangible influence on the criminal proceedings brought against the person concerned (in concreto test). | |
YP and Others | 13/07/2023 | 2023:562 | Disciplinary ChamberInterpretation of 2nd subparagraph of Art 19(1) TEU: Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court of Poland lacks independence and impartiality. It could hence not lift a judge’s immunity from prosecution and his or her suspension from duties. | |
M.M. | – | – | Disciplinary Chamber
Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court, can the President of a court change the composition of that court because the originally designated judge has been suspended by a body that does not satisfy the requirements of effective judicial protection; Art. 2 and 19(1) TEU. On 28 June 2022, a hearing took place before the Grand Chamber. The AG’s opinion will be delivered on 15 December 2022. | |
C-157/21 | Poland v Parliament and Council | 16/02/2022 | 2022:98 | Conditionality RegulationPoland challenged the legality of Regulation 2020/2092 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget as it lacks a valid legal basis |
G. | 09/01/2024 | 2022:990 | Disciplinary ChamberThe referring court’s questions pertain to the judicial panel tasked with handling the case, including a judge appointed in violation of procedures requiring judicial self-governing bodies’ involvement. They inquire if panels with such judges qualify as independent “judicial bodies” under Union law (Articles 2 and 19(1) TEU and Article 47 of the EU Charter). Moreover, the referring courts inquire whether, due to lack of Polish legal remedies against irregular judicial appointments, they should, to ensure effectiveness of Union law, apply national rules on automatic disqualification of judges appointed unlawfully from handling cases. The Court declared both requests inadmissible for being hypothetical (C-181/21) and irrelevant to the pending case (C-269/21). | |
Commission v Poland | 05/06/2023 | 2023:442 (judgment); 2021:878 (interim relief); 2022:991 | Disciplinary ChamberCommission’s action against Poland regarding the “Muzzle Law” and the (suspended) Disciplinary Chamber. On 28 June 2022, a hearing took place before the Grand Chamber. The AG’s opinion will be delivered on 15 December 2022. The Court ordered a periodic penalty payment as interim relief on 27 October 2021. | |
C‑562/21 | Openbaar Ministerie (Tribunal établi par la loi dans l’État membre d’émission) | 22/02/2022 | European arrest warrant and independence of the judiciaryright to a fair trial before an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law art 47 CFR | |
C-657/21 | Parliament v Commission | – | – | EP action against the EC for failure to apply the Conditionality RegulationInfringement of the treaties by the Commission for failing to give full and immediate application to Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 |
C-269/21 | BC. & DC. | – | – | Disciplinary ChamberThe referring court is concerned that the panel (of judges which is to hear the case on the merits) would include a person appointed to a judicial post in breach of the rules which require the participation of judicial self-government bodies in the appointment process. Central in this case is the concept of a tribunal established by law pursuant to Article 2, Article 19(1) and Article 6(1) to (3) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the CFREU. On 29 June 2022, a hearing took place before the Grand Chamber. The AG’s opinion will be delivered on 15 December 2022. |
C‑132/20 | Getin Noble Bank | 29/03/2022 | 2022:235 | Appointment of judges and their independenceArticle 2 and 19(1) TEU; Article 47 CFR |
C-603/22 | M.S. e.a. | – | – | Separation of PowersJudge in present case was removed from her office by order of the Minister of Justice. The referring court doubts whether an executing authority such as the Minister of Justice may, at the pre-trial phase and during the judicial proceedings, intervene in the process of direct application of EU law by linking powers of supervision of the courts with the powers arising from the exercise of the office of Attorney General. |
C-711/22 | Advance Pharma | – | – | Effective Judicial ProtectionThe ECtHR found a violation of Article 6(1) ECHR, stating that the judicial formation involved in the case is not a “court established by law”. Subsequently, the applicant requested the reopening of the national procedure. The preliminary question is about whether the refusal to reopen as a result of the ECtHR judgment led to the deprivation of the guarantee of effective judicial protection. |
C-658/22 | Sąd Najwyższy | – | – | Regularity of Composition of JudiciaryGiven doubts by the majority of judges of the Civil Chamber about the regularity of the appointments of judges in the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court), the latter asked a preliminary question about the regularity of the composition of the judicial formation. |
C-114/23, C-115/23, C-132/23, C-160/23 | Sapira | 11/04/2024 | ECLI:EU:C:2024:290 | Independence and impartialityPreliminary questions in a case where the referring Polish court must rule on the enforcement of four final judgments by Polish courts that cannot be considered independent and impartial. Questions relate to whether referring Polish court can under EU law (arts 19 TEU and 47 Charter) verify ex officio whether the requirements of independence and impartiality have been met and render the final judicial decisions without legal effect. The preliminary request is however decided inadmissible by the CJEU ex art 267 TFEU, as the questions don’t respond to a need inherent in the resolution of the main proceedings but are intended to obtain from the Court a general assessment. |
C-448/23 | Commission v Poland | – | – | – |
C-442/23 | Poland v Parliament and Council | – | – | – |
C-444/23 | Poland v Parliament and Council | – | – | – |
C-451/23 | Poland v Parliament and Council | – | – | – |
C-459/23 | E. | – | – | – |
C-390/23 | Rzecznik Finansowy | 27/06/2023 | Independence of the judiciary and the right to an effective judicial protectionThe referring court questions the compatibility with EU law of a national mechanism for reviewing final judgments performed by a court composed by members (i) who are not professional judges (or even lawyers), (ii) whose method of appointment differs from that of judges, and (iii) who do not benefit from all the guarantees of independence provided for in respect of judges. | |
C-748/23 | Gekus | – | – | Execution of Polish judgment in IrelandThe defendant contests a judgment to be enforced in Ireland, alleging a violation of their right to access to court due to involvement of a judge delegated by the Polish Minister of Justice. They question the impartiality of Judge ‘JG’ at the highest Polish court. The referring judge seeks clarity on the standards of judicial impartiality and independence, particularly regarding JG’s appointment process. Prejudicial questions inquire if appointment circumstances can impact judicial impartiality and if judges implicated in such appointments can participate in assessing judicial independence. |
C-273/24 | Naski | Independence Chamber Extraordinary ControlThis case involves the Supreme Court of Poland questioning whether judges appointed under disputed circumstances, particularly those in the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs, should be excluded from hearing a specific case (I NO 47/18). The core issue pertains to ensuring that judicial panels adhere to EU law requirements of independence and impartiality, especially considering the legality of their appointments under Polish national law. The Supreme Court seeks guidance on whether EU law precludes these judges from participating in decisions or holding executive positions within the court if their appointments were flawed. | ||
C-718/21 | Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa | 21/12/2023 | 2023:1015 | Independence Chamber Extraordinary ControlThe main question is whether the referring court, the “Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs” of the Supreme Court in Poland (the Sąd Najwyższy), can be classified as a “court” within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU. Contrary to the A-G, the Court answers that question in the negative. Although the Court had previously ruled (in Getin Noble Bank, C-132/20) that the Sąd Najwyższy, as such, meets the requirements of independence, that presumption may be rebutted if a final judicial decision of a national or international court would lead to the conclusion that the referring court is not an independent, impartial tribunal established by law ex Art 19(1) TEU, Art 47 Charter. With extensive reference to and analogous application of ECHR case-law (Dolinska-Ficek and Ozimek v. Poland), the Court concludes that in this case the presumption is deemed to be rebutted. The Court therefore declares the preliminary question inadmissible. |
T-530/22, T-531/22, T-533/22 | Medel v. Council | 04/06/2024 | 2024:363 | Locus Standi OrganizationsSeveral associations of judges sought to annul the Council implementing decision, containing the so-called milestones, attached to the recovery and resilience plan for Poland. The associations claimed the adoption of these milestones violated EU law. The General Court however decided that the action for annulment ex art 263 TFEU was inadmissible due to lack of direct concern. |
C-647/21, C-648/21 | D.K., M.C., M.F. | Internal judicial independencePreliminary reference about the safeguarding of judges against undue influence or pressure from within the judicial system (internal judicial independence). The AG considers that art 19(1) TEU and the principles of independence of the judiciary and supremacy of EU law preclude national law that allows the transfer or dismissal of judges without consent and possibility of appeal. | ||
Sąd Rejonowy w Białymstoku | 13/06/2024 | 2024:507 | Remuneration judgesPreliminary question asked whether the criteria to guide the process of determining the remuneration of judges, and evaluating a possible reduction thereof, be derived from the second subparagraph of art 19(1) TEU. The AG considers that while the latter provision does not prevent legislators from adopting laws that determine/reduce remuneration, it requires the establishment of a legal framework within which the remuneration of judges can be properly determined and that protects the independence of the judiciary. | |
S. | 20/06/2024 | 2024:533 | (Re)assignment of cases to judgesPreliminary question relates to whether the irregular (re)assignment of a specific case to a Judge-Rapporteur in national proceedings falls within the scope of the second subparagraph of art 19(1) TEU, and whether such an irregularity amounts to a violation of the requirements of effective judicial protection before an independent, impartial and pre-established tribunal. The AG considers that art 19(1), second subparagraph, TEU, interpreted in the light of art 2 TEU and taking due account of art 47 of the EU Charter, precludes a national provision which contains an absolute prohibition of a legal remedy in the event of a breach of national rules regarding the (re)assignment of cases to judges. | |
Rzecznik Dyscyplinarny Sądu Najwyższego e.a. | Defective appointment procedureThe referring court questions about whether judges who have been appointed to their positions following a defective appointment procedure are not excluded from participating in a formation for review. The question also arises whether this judicial formation is ‘a court established in advance by law’. The referring court also asks how a judge of a Member State should behave when he has been appointed to a judicial formation that is poorly composed and has exhausted all national options for arranging a correct composition. | |||
Rojcki | Independent and impartial courtThe referring court questions whether a decision of the President of the Court has legal effects where the judicial formation is not an independent and impartial court within the meaning of EU law. The answer to that question is important for assessing whether a judicial body with such a composition can actually assess whether it meets the standard aimed at guaranteeing independent and impartial courts that have been established in advance by law, also in the light of Article 47 Charter. |
Dashboard Rule Of Law Cases – Poland – ECtHR
Case Number | Name | Date of Judgement | Summary |
---|---|---|---|
35778/07 (discontinued) | Żemek and others v. Poland | impartiality of judgeArticle 6 § 1 ECHR; complaint that assigned judge in breach of the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that thejudge had not been impartial, alleged links of the judge with the Law and Justice party and close ties to the (current) Justice Minister Ziobro which later appointed the judge Secretary of State | |
65313/13 | Maciszewski and Others v. Poland | 23/06/2020 | definition of a court/tribunalArt. 6 ECHR; complaint under Article 6 § 1 that the Poznań District Court was not a “tribunal established by law” on account of the alleged irregularities concerning the secondment of the Regional Court’s Judge |
62765/14, 62769/14, 62772/14 and 11708/18 | Sobczyńska and Others v. Poland | refusal to appoint judges to vacant postsArt. 6 and 8 ECHR; refusals by Polish presidents Kaczynski and Duda to appoint the judges in 2008 and 2016 respectively to vacant posts in various courts without any reasoning and despite positive recommendations of the National Council of the Judiciary | |
26691/18 | Broda v. Poland | 29/06/2021 | premature termination of judge’s mandateArt. 6 ECHR; premature termination of terms of judges without any reasoning who had been appointed as court vice-presidents and absence of any possibility to seek judicial review |
27367/18 | Bojara v. Poland | 29/06/2021 | premature termination of judge’s mandateArt. 6 ECHR; same issues as in Broda v. Poland – removal of judges from their positions as court vice-presidents during their terms of office without providing reasons |
39650/18 | Żurek v. Poland | 16/06/2022 | premature termination of judge’s mandateArt. 6 ECHR violated, as very essence of right of access to court impaired; Art 10 ECHR also violated, since measures, as part of intimidation strategy, had chilling effect on judges’ participation in public debate on legislative reforms affecting the judiciary and on its independence; interference not “necessary in a democratic society”. |
43572/18 | Grzęda v. Poland | 15/03/2022 | premature termination of judge’s mandateViolation of Art. 6 ECHR; interruption of the mandate of a supreme administrative court judge elected to the National Council of Judiciary before the end of its four-year term. In partucular lack of judicial review |
4907/18 | Xero Flor v. Poland | 07/05/2021 | unlawful appointmentof Constitutional Court judgeArt. 6 ECHR, unlawful appointment of one individual to the captured and unlawfully composed Constitutional Court; partly concurring, partly dissenting opinion of judge Wojtyczek |
21181/19, 51751/20 | Tuleya v. Poland | 06/07/2023 | Disciplinary proceedings against Polish judge TuleyaPolish judge Tuleya, critic of judiciary reform, was suspended by the Disciplinary Chamber of the Polish Supreme Court and his immunity was lifted. The Court found a violation of arts. 6, 8 and 10 ECHR: (i) the Disciplinary Chamber cannot be regarded as an independent and impartial tribunal established by law; (ii) the measures are a deliberate strategy to intimidate and silence the complainant and other judges. |
25226/18, 25805/18, 38378/19 | Pająk and others v Poland | retirement age of judgesArt. 6 ECHR; retirement age of judges, contrary to the irremovability of judges, alleged violation of Art. 6 ECHR as there was no remedy available to applicant for the refusal of the NJC to grant her permission to continue to work | |
Wałęsa v. Poland | 23/11/2023 | Systemic violations of the Polish judicial reformThe Court found a breach of the rights of the Polish former president Lech Wałęsa, namely the right to an independent and impartial tribunal established by law, the principle of legality and the right to respect for private and family life, because of the Polish reform of the judiciary. Most importantly, the Court seized the opportunity to apply the pilot-judgment procedure in this case, calling on Poland to implement measures to address “systematic violations” caused by the latest judicial reforms. | |
43447/19, 49868/19 and 57511/19 | Reczkowicz and two Others v. Poland | 22/07/2021 | chambers of Supreme CourtArt. 6 ECHR; complaints brought by barrister and two judges in relation to the two new chambers of the Supreme Court (Disciplinary Chamber and thee Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs), which they claim were constituted in breach of the law following changes to the judiciary introduced in 2017 |
49868/19 and 57511/19 | Dolińska – Ficek and Ozimek v. Poland | 08/11/2021 | lack of independence of NCJArt. 6 ECHR; the case concerned complaints brought by two judges that the Chamber of Extraordinary Review and Public Affairs (one of the two new chambers of the Supreme Court), which had decided on cases concerning them, had not been a “tribunal established by law” and had lacked impartiality and independence, the ECtHR ruled that Poland must take rapid action to resolve the lack of independence of the National Council of the Judiciary |
1469/20 | Advance Pharma Sp. z o.o v. Poland | 03/02/2022 | National Council of the JudiciaryArt. 6 ECHR; complaint brought by a pharmaceutical company that the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, which decided on a case concerning it, was constituted on the recommendations of the National Council of the Judiciary and thus in breach of the law following changes to the judiciary introduced in 2017 |
13278/20 | Biliński v. Poland | National Council of the JudiciaryArt. 6 ECHR; the applicant was judge at a District court and ruled on many freedom-of-expression cases. Some of these cases were perceived as unfavourable by the government and therefore criticized by politicians of the ruling party. The applicant claims that his transfer to another court was handled in breach of Article 6 ECHR and that the National Council of Judiciary lacked impartiality. | |
26004/20 | Pionka v. Poland | disciplinary proceedings against judgesArt. 6 and 8 ECHR; the case concerns proceedings before the domestic courts following the applicant’s declaration of means lodged in accordance with his role as a prosecutor. He was prosecuted for alleged incorrect declaration of means, which eventually came before the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court. That body overturned the previous decision of the Disciplinary Court at the General Prosecutor and allowed the prosecution to go forward and suspended the applicant from his official duties | |
28122/20 and 48599/20 | Brodowiak and Dżus v. Poland | judicial independenceArt. 6 ECHR; the applicants complain that their cases were not heard by an “independent and impartial tribunal established by law” | |
35599/20 | Juszczyszyn v. Poland | 06/10/2022 | Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court, judicial independenceViolation of Art 6 ECHR, given grave irregularities in appointment of judges. Essence of right to “tribunal established by law” undermined and independence and impartiality of Disciplinary Chamber compromised; Violation of Art 8 ECHR, as unlawful suspension of judge; Violation of Art 18 ECHR (in conjunction with Art 8 ECHR), as restriction for unauthorised purposes. |
43949/19 | Jezierska v. Poland | retirement age of judgeArt. 6, 8 and 14 ECHR; complaint by judge that was forced to retire based on legislation that has been deemed unlawful by CJEU (C-192/18), concerns issues such as judicial independence, discrimination by age/gender, access to court | |
1819/21 | KB and others v. Poland | unlawful composition of Constitutional Court, abortion ruling by Constitutional CourtArt. 3, 6, and 8 ECHR; unlawful composition of Constitutional Court, impartiality of judges, violation of Art. 3/8 by abortion ruling of Polish Constitutional Court | |
18380/22 | Maciej Rutkiewcz v Poland | suspension of a judge by the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme CourtArt. 3, 8, and 18 ECHR; impartiality of judges | |
3639/21 | K.C. and Others v. Poland | unlawful composition of Constitutional Court, abortion ruling by Constitutional CourtArt. 3, 6, and 8 ECHR; unlawful composition of Constitutional Court, impartiality of judges, violation of Art. 3/8 by abortion ruling of Polish Constitutional Court | |
3801/21 (discontinued) | A.L. – B. and Others v. Poland | unlawful composition of Constitutional Court, abortion ruling by Constitutional CourtArt. 3, 6, and 8 ECHR; unlawful composition of Constitutional Court, impartiality of judges, violation of Art. 3/8 by abortion ruling of Polish Constitutional Court | |
40119/21 | M.L. v. Poland | 14/12/23 | composition of Constitutional Court, restrictive abortion lawsThe ECtHR ruled that the Poland’s ban on abortion in cases of foetal abnormality, following a 2020 Constitutional Court judgment, violated the applicant’s right to respect for private life under Article 8 ECHR. The ECtHR emphasized the importance of the rule of law, stating that any interference with Article 8 rights must come from a “lawful” body. However, it found that the Constitutional Court’s composition involved judges appointed through a procedure previously deemed in breach of the Convention, undermining the legitimacy of the ruling. |
14/12/2023 | fair trial rightsThe ECtHR found Poland in violation of Articles 6(1) and 13 ECHR due to excessive length of criminal proceedings and lack of effective remedies in domestic law. |
- CJEU
- ECtHR
Dashboard Rule of Law Cases – Romania – CJEU
Case Number | Name | Date of Judgement | ECLI:EU:C: | Summary |
---|---|---|---|---|
Joined Cases C‑83/19, C‑127/19; C‑195/19, Case C-291/19 & Case C-355/19 | Asociaţia Forumul Judecătorilor Din România | 08/05/2021 | 2021:393 | judicial reform, Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM)Romanian reforms in the areas of judicial organisation, the disciplinary regime applicable to judges, financial State liability and the personal liability of judges as a result of judicial error, Interim appointment of Romanian Chief Judicial Inspector and establishment of specific prosecution section for members of the judiciary, the cases concern the legal effect of decisions and reports based on the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (MCV) established by Commission Decision 2006/928 which assesses the progress of Bulgaria and Romania with regard to the rule of law situation |
C-357/19 | Euro Box Promotion and Others | 21/12/2021 | 2021:1034 | Mechanism for Cooperation and Verification (CVM)Mechanism for Cooperation and Verification (CVM), Art. 19 TEU, Art. 47 CFR |
C-379/19 | DNA- Serviciul Teritorial Oradea | – | 2021:174 | Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM)Art. 2 and 19 TEU, Art. 47 CFR, Commission Decision 2006/928/EC (Cooperation and Verification Mechanism); the intervention of the Constitutional Court (a political/judicial body which is not part of the judiciary or the legislature) might restrict the constitutional jurisdiction of the courts – which prevents national courts from exercising its jurisdictional role, the referring court asks the CJEU if this is a breach of the obligations of Romania following its accessioin to the EU as regulated in the CVM |
C-397/19 | Statul Român – Ministerul Finanţelor Publice | 08/05/2021 | 2021:393 | see judgement in Asociaţia Forumul Judecătorilor Din România |
C-547/19 | Asociaţia “Forumul Judecătorilor din România” | – | – | Constitutional Court, judicial independenceArt. 2 & 29 TEU, Art. 47 CFR; intervention of a constitutional court (a body which is not, under national law, a judicial institution), concerns about interpretation and application of infra-constitutional legislation in the activity of establishing panels hearing cases by constitutional court as it might compromise judicial independence and the rule of law |
C-811/19 | FQ and Others | – | 2021:175 | Constitutional Court, judicial independenceArt. 19 TEU, Art. 47 CFR; similar to Joined Cases C‑357/19 and C‑547/19, Euro Box Promotion and Others and aspects of Asociaţia Forumul Judecătorilor din România and Others, position and competences of Constitutional Court of Romania, should Art. 47 CFR interpreted as encompassing the requirement of the specialisation of judicial panels. |
C-840/19 | NC | – | – | Constitutional Court, judicial independenceArt. 2 and 19 TEU, Art. 47 CFR; similar to other cases concerning position and competences of Constitutional Court as it is a body outside of the judiciary but rules on composition of judge panels seized of the case of a chamber of the supreme court |
Joined Cases C-859/19, C-926/19, C-929/19 | FX and Others | – | 2022:878 | Constitutional Court, Judicial independenceNot precluded is national law that prescribes that the decisions of the national constitutional court are binding on ordinary courts, provided the independence of that constitutional court is guaranteed by national law. Yet, precluded is national law that can trigger disciplinary liability of national judges of ordinary courts when they fail to comply with the decisions of the national constitutional court. |
C-926/19 | BR and Others | – | – | Constitutional Court, judicial independenceArt. 2 TEU, Art. 47 CFR, primacy of EU law; competences of Constitutional Court of Romania (body outside judicial system) |
C-929/19 | CD | – | – | Constitutional Court, judicial independenceArt. 19 TEU, ARt. 47 CFR, Directive 2017/1371 and Directive 2015/849; requirements arising from EU law in respect of the organisational and procedural arrangements within national judiciaries and their relations with national constitutional courts when it comes to the examination of corruption cases |
C-216/21 | Asociaţia “Forumul Judecătorilor din România” | – | 2023:116 | Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM)Art. 2 and 19 TEU, Art. 47 CFR, Commission Decision 2006/928/EC; can the CVM be considered an act by an EU institution and thus subject of interpretation by CJEU; can the principle of judicial independence be interpreted as also applying to procedures for the promotion of judges in office, requirement for infringement of judicial independence concerning promotion to a higher court by a body that carries out both assessments of judges for promotion purposes and the judicial review of judgments delivered by those judges;promotion of judges to executive positions, contrary to CVM recommendations |
C-430/21 | RS | 22/02/2022 | 2022:99 | Constitutional Court, judicial independenceArt. 2 and 19 TEU, Art. 47 CFR; disciplinary procedure and disciplinary penalty of the judge for failing to comply with a decision of the Constitutional Court, primacy of the EU law |
C-83/19 | Asociaţia “Forumul Judecătorilor din România” | 18/5/2021 | 2021:393 | Coordination and verification mechanismcoordination and verification mechanism |
C-40/21 | Agenția Națională de Integritate | 04/05/2023 | 2022:873 | Proportionality principleThe Court ruled that the principle of proportionality must be understood to mean that it does not preclude national legislation that establishes a measure prohibiting the holding of any elective public office for a predetermined period of three years against a person who has been discovered to have a conflict in holding such an office provided that, in light of all relevant circumstances, the application of that legislation results in the imposition of a penalty. |
C-709/21 (discontinued) | MK | – | 2022:338 | Constitutional CourtArticle 2 and 19(1) TEU; Article 47 CFR |
C-718/21 | Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa | – | 2023:150 | Retirement age of judgesArticle 2 and 19(1) TEU; Article 47 CFR. |
RI | 11/05/2023 | 2023:55 | Judicial independence and impartialityPreliminary reference procedure on independence and impartiality of courts under EU law. According to AG Collins, EU law precludes national legislation making the Deputy Chief Inspector responsible for overseeing the investigation of complaints against the Chief Inspector. | |
C-107/23 | PPU (Lin) | 24/07/23 | 2023:606 | Primacy of EU lawPrimacy of EU law precludes ordinary national courts from being bound by case law of higher national courts which is contrary to EU law. It also precludes discplinary liability of the judges concerned when they don’t follow the precedents. |
C-216/21 | Asociaţia “Forumul Judecătorilor din România” | 07/09/2023 | 2023:628 | Procedure for the promotion of judgesEU law does not preclude the promotion of judges to a higher court being based on an assessment, by a board composed of (i) the president and (ii) members of that higher court, of their work and conduct. However, the relevant substantive conditions and procedural rules must be such that they cannot give rise to reasonable doubts as to the independence and the impartiality of the judges concerned, once promoted. |
C-53/23 | Asociaţia Forumul Judecătorilor din România | 08-05-2024 | 2024:104 | Locus standi associationsQuestion raised was whether associations of judges and prosecutors, established to promote an independent, impartial and effective judiciary, can rely on arts 2 and 19(1)TEU, read in the light of arts 12 and 47 Charter, to show that they have locus standi to bring actions before a national court in furtherance of those objectives? Court: above mentioned arts do not preclude national legislation which makes the admissibility of an action for annulment of the appointment of prosecutors responsible for criminal prosecutions against magistrates conditional on the existence of a legitimate private interest, thereby precluding in practice the possibility of a professional association of magistrates bringing such an action appeal in defense of the principle of judicial independence. |
Dashboard Rule Of Law Cases – Romania – ECtHR
Case Number | Name | Date of Judgement | Summary |
---|---|---|---|
30745/18 | Cotora v. Romania | 07/01/2023 | disciplinary proceedings against judgeThe term “court” within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the ECHR covers not only courts but also bodies with the competence and task to resolve matters and disputes based on law. The Court concludes that there is no violation of Article 6(1) ECHR. |
36889/18 | Camelia Bogdan v. Romania | 20/10/2020 | disciplinary proceedings against judgeViolation of Art. 6 ECHR, given impossibility of challenging the automatic suspension of a judge’s duties and salary while her appeal against exclusion from the judiciary is being examined |
3594/19 | Kövesi v. Romania | 05/05/2020 | premature termination chief prosecutor Kövesipremature termination of mandate as chief prosecutor of the National Anticorruption Directorate, violation of Art. 6 (right to a fair trial) and Art. 10 (right to freedom of expression) ECHR |
16915/21 | Danilet v. Romania | Freedom of expression of judgesRuling concerns a Romanian judge who was imposed disciplinary sanctions and salary reduction for posting social media messages about the influence of politics on the judiciary. The Court ruled that there is a violation of Article 10 of the ECHR (freedom of expression), because the restriction on the right was not necessary in a democratic society. The Court reached to this conclusion, among other things, in view of the limited necessity analysis by the national court, the insufficiently substantiated claim that there would be an infringement of the dignity of the judge’s office, and the availability of lighter sanctions. The case is now referred to the Grand Chamber. | |
34088/17 | Onofraş v. Romania | Impartiality of judgesArt. 6 ECHR meaning of ‘impartial tribunal’ | |
45229/18 | Majeczki v. Romania | Impartiality of judgesArt. 6 ECHR, former prosecutor accused of bribe | |
46/15, 744/15 | Nastase v. Romania | 06/09/2022 | Impartial judiciary and fair trialApplicants’ complaints about the lack of impartiality of the bench were declared inadmissible by the Court. |