Rule of Law Update – April 2025

CJEU judgements: 

Judgement of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 February 2025, Joined cases T-830/22 and T-156/23 (Poland v Commission), ECLI:EU:T:2025:131 and Case T-1033/23 (Poland v Commission), ECLI:EU:T:2025:129 

Poland’s obligation to pay penalty imposed by the European Commission 

Regarding the reform of the Polish judicial system in 2019, the EU General Court confirms that Poland has to pay an amount in relation to the penalty payment decided by the CJEU during a previous infringement procedure. According to the General Court, the European Commission was right to impose the penalty payment on Poland for the period from 15 July 2022 to 4 June 2023. That is the ruling of the EU General Court in response to the action brought by Poland for annulment of a total of six set-off decisions of the European Commission. 

Judgement of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 February 2025, Joined Cases C-146/23 and C-374/23 (Sąd Rejonowy w Białymstoku), ECLI:EU:C:2025:109 

Clarification of the EU law requirements on the determination of remuneration of national judges 

The Court clarified that the rules for the determination of remuneration of national judges should have a legal basis and should be foreseeable, stable and transparent, in order to prevent the arbitrary intervention of the executive and the legislature. 

The same applies for derogating measures that would freeze or reduce the amount of that remuneration. Furthermore, they should be justified by an objective of general interest, such as a need to eliminate an excessive government deficit. Furthermore, they must be exceptional and temporary and the impact on the judges’ remuneration must not be disproportionate to the objective pursued. 

Both rules determining the remuneration of national judges and measures derogating from them must be subject to effective judicial review. 

Judgement of the Court (Eight Chamber) of 27 February 2025, Case C-16/24 (Sinalov), ECLI:EU:C:2025:116 

Rules on the allocation of cases to judges 

EU law requires judicial review of the allocation of cases to courts, in order to determine whether it represents an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law. When a judge has doubts about the lawfulness of the allocation of a case to them, EU law does not preclude them from having to refer the case back to the head of the court management of that court, so that he or she may verify the lawfulness of the initial allocation.  

Judgement of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 March 2025, Joined Cases C-647/21 and C-648/21 (D. K. and Others v Prokuratura Rejonowa w Bytowie and Prokuratura Okręgowa w Łomży), ECLI:EU:C:2025:143 

Principle of the irremovability of judges and judicial independence 

In this case, the Court ruled that second paragraph of Article 19(1) TEU prevents national laws that allow a court body to withdraw cases from a judge without clearly defined rules or without requiring reasons for doing so. Moreover, the same provision, together with the principle of the primacy of EU law, requires national courts to set aside such decisions if they violate Article 19(1). This includes the resolution removing the cases, as well as any follow-up actions like reassigning them. The bodies responsible for assigning judges must disregard those measures if they breach EU law. 

Opinion of Advocate General Spielmann delivered on 11 March 2025 in Case C-448/23 (Commission v Poland) ECLI:EU:C:2025:165 

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations  

AG Spielmann concluded that Poland failed to ensure effective legal protection under EU law. He pointed to the rulings of the Polish Constitutional Court rejecting the obligation to amend national law and to the dismission of judicial review of judge appointments. Furthermore, he regarded the declaration of the Polish Constitutional Court that parts of EU law were incompatible with the constitution as a manifest infringement of the fundamental principles of EU legal order.  

Opinion of Advocate General Richard de la Tour delivered on 3 April 2025 in case C-641/23 (Dubers), ECLI:EU:C:2025:251 

Judicial cooperation in criminal matters 

AG de la Tour concluded that the competent authority of the executing member state cannot rely on the ground of non-recognition and non-enforcement in the Council Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant if the executing judicial authority does not make use of the ground for non-execution, double criminality is absent, and the person is surrendered  with a guarantee of return. Nevertheless, if circumstances change after the surrender and the return guarantee remains following consultations, the executing member state may rely on the ground for non-recognition and non-enforcement. 

Judgement of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 April 2025 in Case C-181/23 (Commission v Malta), ECLI:EU:C:2025:283 

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations: operation of an investor citizenship scheme 

The case concerns infringement proceedings brought by the European Commission against the Maltese legislation on the acquisition of citizenship. According to the legislation, since 2020, persons may be naturalised in exchange for predetermined payments and investments, without a genuine link between the parties concerned and Malta. The Court held that establishing and operating an institutionalised citizenship investment scheme amounts to the commercialisation of the grant of the nationality of a Member State, and, by extension, that of Union citizenship.  Accordingly, Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 20 TFEU and Article 4(3) TEU. 

ECtHR judgements: 

ECtHR judgement of 6 February 2025, Case of Italgomme Pneumatici S.R.L. And Others v. Italy (Applications nos. 36617/18 and 12 others)   

Lack of sufficient procedural safeguards 

This case concerns the access and inspection of applicants’ business premises, registered offices or premises used for professional activities, involving the examination, copying and seizure (in some cases) of accounting records, company books, invoices and other accounting documents as well as documents relevant for tax assessment purposes. The Court found a violation of Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life). In this sense, it considered that the domestic legal framework offered a wide range of discretion to the domestic authorities with regard to the scope and conditions of the measures. Furthermore, it concluded that the measures not subject to an effective ex post judicial review of their legality, necessity and proportionality and that the ‘quality of law’ requirement was not met. 

ECtHR decision of 11 February 2025, Calin Georgescu against Romania (Application no. 37327/24) 

Annulment of presidential elections 

The applicant challenged the annulment of Romania’s 2024 presidential elections, claiming that the Constitutional Court’s decision was based on unsubstantiated accusations, was unlawful and violated his rights under Article 3 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention, as well as Articles 6,13,10 and 11 of the Convention. He alleged lack of transparency, absence of remedies and political interference. The Court declared the application inadmissable, concluding that Article 3 of Protocol No.1 only applies to the ‘choice of legislature’, Articles 6 and 13 do not apply as the dispute does not concern either the ‘civil rights and obligations’ of the applicant or the determination of a ‘criminal charge’, and the applicant does not have an arguable claim. Furthermore, the Court held that the Claims under Articles 10 and 11 were unsupported and manifestly ill-founded. 

ECtHR judgment of 13 February 2025 Case of L.D. v. Poland (Application no. 12119/14) 

Lack of diligence and repeated delays in proceedings  

The case concerns the State’s positive obligations under Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life) regarding the applicant’s custody and contact with her child. The Court found that the domestic authorities failed to ensure effective enforcement of the applicant’s custody and contact with her son after the father refused to return him. As such, the proceedings were characterized by lack of diligence and long and repeated delays.  Furthermore, the shortcomings in the decision-making process and the enforcement of the court orders represented significant factors in the complete breakdown of the applicant’s relationship with her son. Therefore, the Court found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. 

ECtHR judgement of 27 February 2025, Case of Salay v. Slovakia (Application no. 29359/22) 

Lack of justification for the placement of a Roma pupil in a special class 

 The case concerned the discrimination against a Roma pupil placed in a special class for children with mild intellectual disabilities (Article 14 taken in conjunction with with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1). The placement was based on culturally biased tests, with no adequate safeguards or regular reassessment, leading to inferior education and reinforced segregation. The Court ruled that the State failed to justify this treatment and that it had a disproportionate impact on the Roma community. 

ECtHR judgement of 4 March 2025, Case of Girginova v. Bulgaria (Application no. 4326/18) 

Refusal of access to court documents  

The Court found a violation of Article 10 (Freedom of Expression) as the request of a journalist to access court documents explaining the acquittal of a former Minister of Internal Affairs was denied. The refusal limited the applicant’s ability to fulfil her journalistic duties on a matter of public interest. The Court held that the refusal was not necessary in a democratic society and that the state failed to provide effective remedies or consider less restrictive measures. 

ECtHR judgement of 6 March 2025, Case of Gorše v. Slovenia (Application no. 47186/21) 

Impartiality and presumption of innocence 

The case concerns a judge’s prior involvement in guilty pleas agreements. The presiding judge had accepted guilty plea agreements from two co-defendants before the applicant’s trial. The applicant argued that in doing so, the judge formed an opinion on his culpability before the start of the trial, thus violating the principle of judicial neutrality. Emphasizing the importance of principles related to impartiality and presumption of innocence, the Court ruled in the applicant’s favour, finding a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention. 

ECtHR judgement of 3 April 2025, Case of Kulak v. Slovakia (Application no. 57748/21)  

Insufficient guarantees for Article 8 rights 

In this case, the Court found a violation Article 8 (Right to Private Life). The application concerned a search of the applicant’s law firm and the seizure of his computer, carried out without a written search warrant and only on the basis of the prosecutor’s telephone consent. The computer, likely containing data subject to lawyer-client privilege, was returned to the applicant fifteen months after its seizure. The Court concluded that the applicant was not offered sufficient guarantees for his right to respect of his private life and home before or after the search-and-seizure operation. In this sense, the Court emphasized, inter alia, the lack of an immediate ex post factum judicial review of the lawfulness of searches, as well as the lack of domestic procedure ensuring the preservation of material unrelated to criminal proceedings and subject to legal professional privilege. 

ECtHR judgement of 3 April 2025, Case of Heinz and Haiderer v. Austria ( Applications nos. 33010/22 and 31668/23)  

Excessive length of civil proceedings 

In this case, the Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings. The Court emphasized that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute. The Court did not find any argument capable of justifying the length of the proceedings. As such, the Court held that in the present case the length of the proceedings was excessive and did not meet the ‘reasonable time’ requirement. 

ECtHR judgement of 24 April 2025, Case of Andersen v. Poland (Application no. 53662/20) 

Legal recognition for same-sex marriage 

In this case, the Court has found a violation of Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life). The case concerned a complaint over the non-registration in Poland of a same-sex marriage contracted abroad, despite the lack of another form of legal recognition and protection for the relationship. The Court held that Poland has overstepped its margin of appreciation and has failed to comply with its positive obligations to ensure a legal framework that recognizes and protects the same-sex union of the applicant. Furthermore, it emphasized that the public interests invoked by the Polish government do not prevail over the interest of the applicant to have his relationship recognized and protected by law. 

Rule of Law Update – January 2025 

NEWS FROM THE COURTS   

CJEU judgments   

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 October 2024, Case C-633/22 (Real Madrid Club de Fútbol and AE v EE and Société Éditrice du Monde SA), ECLI:EU:C:2024:843 

Balance between mutual recognition of judgments and freedom of expression  

Real Madrid sought enforcement in France of a Spanish judgment ordering Le Monde and its journalist to pay damages for defamation. The French Court of Appeal refused, citing public policy concerns and arguing that excessive damages could chill press freedom. The case was appealed to the French Court of Cassation, which asked the CJEU to clarify the balance between enforcing foreign judgments and protecting freedom of expression under Article 11 of the Charter.  

The CJEU ruled that enforcement of a judgment must be refused if it would result in a manifest breach of press freedom, constituting a violation of public policy. Courts assessing enforcement must consider whether the damages awarded are disproportionate and risk deterring journalistic activity. However, they may not reassess the merits of the original judgment. This decision reinforces the importance of protecting press freedom while ensuring mutual recognition of judgments within the EU. 

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 October 2024, Case C-144/23 (Kubera), ECLI:EU:C:2024:881 

Clarifications on national courts’ referral obligations 

Kubera, a Slovenian company, challenged a decision by the Slovenian Supreme Court refusing leave to appeal on a point of law regarding the detention of imported goods under EU customs regulations. Kubera argued that the court failed to consider its request for a preliminary ruling from the CJEU on the interpretation of Regulation No 608/2013 and that the decision lacked proper reasoning, violating Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The case raised questions about the obligation of national courts to refer matters to the CJEU under Article 267 TFEU.  

The CJEU ruled that a national supreme court, against whose decisions there is no further judicial remedy, cannot reject an application for leave to appeal without first assessing whether a preliminary ruling is necessary. If the court decides not to refer, it must provide adequate reasoning, demonstrating that the question is irrelevant, already settled, or so clear that no doubt exists. The judgment reinforces the obligation of national courts to ensure the uniform interpretation of EU law and upholds procedural fairness. Consequently, the Slovenian Supreme Court must comply with these requirements when handling similar cases. 

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 November 2024, Case C-326/23 (C.W. S.A. and Others v Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów), ECLI:EU:C:2024:940 

Judicial appointments affecting the rule of law  

A Polish company challenged a competition law ruling before the Supreme Court of Poland, arguing that a judge lacked independence due to flaws in the appointment process. A single judge, whose own appointment was contested, referred the case to the CJEU, asking whether EU law allows challenges based solely on appointment irregularities without proof of bias or external influence. 

The CJEU ruled the request inadmissible, holding that the referring judge did not constitute a “court or tribunal” under Article 267 TFEU due to systemic flaws in their appointment. It reaffirmed that judicial independence requires a lawful appointment process and that doubts about a judge’s legitimacy can undermine public confidence in the judiciary. This decision strengthens EU oversight of judicial appointments affecting the rule of law. 

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 November 2024, Case C-197/23 (S. S.A. v C. sp. z o.o), ECLI:EU:C:2024:956.  

Judicial independence in Poland 

A Polish company challenged a first-instance judgment, arguing that the judge who decided the case had been improperly assigned in violation of national rules on case allocation. However, Polish law prevented the appellate court from reviewing such irregularities, raising concerns about judicial independence and effective legal protection under EU law. The Polish Court of Appeal referred the matter to the CJEU, questioning whether this restriction was compatible with the EU’s fundamental principles.  

The CJEU ruled that national laws preventing appellate courts from reviewing irregular case assignments violate the requirement for an independent and impartial tribunal under Article 19(1) TEU, read in light of Article 2 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter. It emphasized that courts must be able to assess whether case allocations comply with the law to ensure judicial independence and the rule of law. Consequently, Poland must allow judicial review of such procedural irregularities. 

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 December 2024, Case C-369/23 (Vivacom Bulgaria), ECLI:EU:C:2024:1043 

Judicial impartiality safeguards 

Vivacom Bulgaria sought compensation for damages from a Supreme Administrative Court ruling that misapplied EU VAT law. As the court was both defendant and final adjudicator, concerns arose over judicial impartiality. The Bulgarian Supreme Administrative Court asked the CJEU whether this complied with EU rules on independent and impartial tribunals under Article 19(1) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter.  

The CJEU ruled that a national court can adjudicate a case where it is a defendant, provided sufficient safeguards exist to ensure impartiality. The ruling emphasized that judges deciding the case must not have participated in the earlier proceedings, and budgetary rules must prevent financial dependence on case outcomes. The judgment affirms that judicial independence must be protected to maintain public trust in the legal system. 

Advocate General Opinions  

AG Medina opinion of 30 January 2025 in Case C‑529/23 P (European Parliament v TC), ECLI:EU:C:2025:48 

Limits on the right to information in MEP expenses cases.  

The European Parliament appealed a ruling annulling its decision to recover unduly paid parliamentary assistance expenses from an MEP. The General Court found that the Parliament wrongly withheld key documents, affecting the MEP’s defense. The Parliament argued the ruling misinterpreted the burden of proof and expanded the right to be heard under Article 41(2) of the Charter. 

Advocate General Medina recommended setting aside the General Court’s ruling, concluding that the Parliament was not obliged to disclose broad categories of documents without a specific justification from the MEP. The opinion emphasized that MEPs bear the burden of proving the legitimacy of expenses and that the Parliament’s refusal to disclose certain documents was justified under EU data protection rules. This reinforces the limits of procedural rights in financial recovery cases. 

ECtHR judgments  

ECtHR judgement of 24 October 2024, Case of Eckert v. France (Application no. 56270/21) 

Proportionality of fine for participation in ‘Yellow Vests’ Protest” 

The Court, in this case, ruled that a fine imposed on the applicant for participating in a banned demonstration during the “yellow vests” protests did not violate Article 11 (freedom of assembly). The court found the ban was justified due to prior incidents of violence and the lack of prior notification from organizers. Additionally, the police response was measured, involving only an identity check rather than arrests. The legal framework was deemed accessible and foreseeable, with sufficient safeguards against arbitrariness. The enforcement measures against the applicant were considered proportionate, leading to a unanimous conclusion of no violation of rights. 

ECtHR judgment of 14 November 2024, Case of Zakrzewski v. Poland (Application no. 63277/19) 

Reopening of case and fair trial rights  

The Court here found a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial). Despite serving half of his two-year sentence and being released on parole, the applicant’s prison term was increased after a cassation appeal by the Prosecutor General. According to the ECtHR, the Polish Supreme Court failed to address significant flaws in the original proceedings and neglected the applicant’s circumstances, leading to an unfair re-examination of his case. This case highlights the conflict between individual legal certainty and state prosecutorial power, with the arbitrary reopening of proceedings undermining fairness and public trust in the judicial system. 

ECtHR judgment of 19 November 2024, Case of Tsiolis v. Greece (Application no. 51774/17) 

Access to case-law inherent in the right to fair trial  

The case concerns the applicant’s claim for compensation due to property deprivation and its subsequent dismissal by the Greek Supreme Administrative Court. The ECtHR found a violation of Article 6 § 1 (Right to Fair Trial) due to the excessively formalistic approach of the Greek court, which dismissed the applicant’s appeal for failing to cite relevant case-law or prove its absence. The ECtHR noted that this requirement placed an unreasonable burden on the applicant, especially given the lack of an accessible case-law database. The court emphasized that procedural rules must not be applied so rigidly that they prevent meaningful access to justice, concluding that the Greek court’s approach impaired the very essence of the applicant’s right to a fair trial. 

ECtHR judgment of 21 November 2024, Case of Justine v France (Application no. 78664/17)  

Proportionality in procedural sanctions  

In this case, the court found that the rejection of the applicant’s appeal due to the late submission of a judgment violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Court found that the applicant’s lawyer’s error in document transmission did not cause any delay in the appeal process, and the strict application of procedural rules was unnecessary. The ruling emphasized the need for proportionality in procedural sanctions, advocating for a balance between legal security and avoiding excessive formalism. It also highlighted the importance of access to justice, suggesting that procedural errors should not prevent the resolution of disputes on their merits, and called for more flexible interpretations of procedural requirements, especially when the errors are minimal and do not affect the proceedings. 

ECtHR judgment of 28 November 2024, Case of Klaudia Csikós v. Hungary (Application no. 31091/16)  

Procedural safeguards for  journalist challenging alleged secret surveillance  

In this case, the ECtHR ruled in favor of journalist Klaudia Csikós, finding that Hungary violated her rights under Article 8 (Right to Private Life) and Article 10 (Freedom of Expression). Csikós alleged that her phone was tapped to identify her sources while reporting on a high-profile murder case. The Court found that Hungarian law lacked adequate safeguards against secret surveillance and failed to provide effective remedies for challenging such measures. The surveillance violated press freedom, exposed confidential sources, and had a chilling effect on journalism. The authorities did not justify the necessity or proportionality of the surveillance.  

ECtHR judgment of 5 December 2024, Case of Giesbert and Others v. France (No 2) (Application no. 835/20) 

Balancing free speech and protection against defamation  

In this case, the ECtHR addressed the defamation conviction of the director and journalists of “Le Point” for an article implicating Jean-François Copé in financial misconduct related to the 2012 presidential campaign. The Court upheld the conviction, emphasizing the gravity of the accusations and the lack of sufficient factual basis to justify the claims made. It noted that while the article addressed a matter of public interest, the applicants failed to demonstrate good faith or prudence in their reporting. Ultimately, the Court found no violation of Article 10 of the Convention, as such upholding defamation convictions while ensuring the penalties remained proportionate and not excessively restrictive of expression rights. 

ECtHR judgment of 19 December 2024, Case of Episcopo and Bassani v. Italy (Applications nos. 47284/16 and 84604/17)  

Presumption of innocence and legal certainty  

This case concerned the confiscation of the applicants’ assets, deemed to be the proceeds of crime, despite the criminal proceedings being discontinued due to the statute of limitations. The European Court of Human Rights examined whether this violated legal certainty, the presumption of innocence, and property rights. The Court ruled that there was no violation of the principle of legal certainty under Article 6 § 1, as the mechanism to resolve diverging case law in Italy had ultimately been effective. However, it found a violation of the presumption of innocence under Article 6 § 2, as the domestic courts had explicitly stated that the first applicant was criminally liable despite the discontinuance of the proceedings. 

ECtHR judgment of 21 January 2025, Case of Panayotopoulos and Others v. Greece (Application no. 44758/20) 

Ineffective investigation into ill-treatment allegations  

In this instance, the case concerned alleged police brutality against three Roma applicants and the authorities’ failure to investigate. The applicants also claimed racial motivation. The Court found a procedural violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) due to the ineffective investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment. It also found a substantive violation of Article 3 for excessive use of force against two of the applicants. However, regarding the second applicant, the Court ruled that his minor abrasions did not meet the Article 3 threshold. Additionally, while the authorities failed to investigate possible racial discrimination (Article 14 in conjunction with Article 3), the Court did not find sufficient evidence to establish that racism played a role in the applicants’ ill-treatment.