The Brasov Court of Appeals has notified the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in order to find out of the Cooperation and verification Mechanism (CVM) recommendations and mandatory for Romania and if the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union are against the setting up of the section for investigating magistrates, ziare.com reports.
It is the fourth notification of the CJEU by Romanian magistrates.
Three other Romanian courts – Olt Court, Pitesti Court of Appeals and Bucharest Court of Appeals have already referred to the CJEU about the CVM role and have sent twelve questions to the European court.
They refer to the legal amendments to the laws of justice by the PSD-ALDE ruling coalition. Thus, CJEU should settle the situation regarding the establishment of the section for investigating magistrates and the interim appointment of the heads of Judicial Inspectorate by emergency ordinance.
The first court to address the CJEU was Olt Court on January 29, 2019, as ‘Romania Journal’ informed at the time, which has also sent four questions in order to clarify the situation.
The four questions were:
- Is the CVM, set up by European Commission decision 2006/928/CE dated December 13, 2006, to be considered as a document adopted by an EU institution, in the sense of article 267 of the EU Treaty, which could be interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union?
- The content, the character and the validity in time of the CVM (…) are they included in the Accession Treaty of Bulgaria and Romania to the EU, signed by Romania in Luxembourg on April 25, 2005? Are the requests included in the CVM reports binding for the Romanian state?
- and 4 – Article 19, paragraph (1) of the Treaty on European Union should be understood in the sense of an obligation for the Member States to establish the necessary measures for actual judicial protection in the field regulated by the Union’s law, i.e. guarantees independent disciplinary measures for the judges in Romania, eliminating any risk related to political influence on conducting disciplinary procedures, such as the appointment by the Government of the Judicial Inspectorate leadership, even as interim positions?