(AGENPARL) – gio 26 gennaio 2023 Dear All,
Please find attached press release in respect of Case C-817/21:
Judicial Disciplinary Bodies: according to Advocate General Collins, EU law
precludes national legislation making the Deputy Chief Inspector
responsible for overseeing the investigation of complaints against the Chief Inspector
Kind regards,
Anna Rizzardi
Trainee
Press & Information Unit
Rue du Fort Niedergrünewald
L-2925 Luxembourg
[curia.europa.eu](https://www.curia.europa.eu/)

Testo Allegato:
Communications Directorate

Press and Information Unit

curia.europa.eu

PRESS RELEASE No 17
/23

Luxembourg, 26 January 2023

Advocate Generalâ??s Opinion

in Case

C
–
817/21 | InspecÅ£ia JudiciarÄ?

Judicial Disciplinary Bodies:
according to
Advocate General
Collins,
EU law
precludes national legislation
making

the Deputy Chief Insp
ector
responsible for overseeing the investigation of complaints against the
Chief Inspector

The
Judicial Inspect
orate

of Romania

is the judicial body responsible for the conduct of disciplinary investigations
and the commencement of disciplinary proceedi
ngs against judges and prosecutors in Romania. Under the rules
governing the Judicial Inspect
orate
, the Chief Inspector appoints the Deputy Chief Inspecto
r at his or her sole

the term of office of the Deputy Chief Inspector depends upon and coi
ncides w
ith that of the Chief
Inspector,

and all Judicial Inspectors are subordinate to the Chief Inspector upon whom the progress of their careers
depends.

T
he
Court of Appeal of Bucharest, Romania

Inspect
orate
,
must offer the same guarantees of independence and impartiality as are re
quired of courts under EU law.
In
particular, it asks whether

EU law precludes national legislation or regulations that make the Deputy Chief Inspector
of the Judicial I
nspect
orate
responsible for overseeing the investigation of complaints made against
its

Chief
Inspector
and
any disciplinary investigations and proceedings that might arise therefrom.

In his Opinion delivered today
, Advocate General Collins

confirms
the
C
ourtâ??s case
–
law

1

that w
hi
le the organisation
of justice
The disciplinary regime applicable to judges must
thus
provide the necessary guarantees in order
to prevent any
risk of it being used as a system of political control over their activities
.

In

its

judgment
AsociaÅ£ia 'Forumul JudecÄ?torilor din România
,
2

the Court held that Romanian legislation on interim
appointment
s

to management positions
in

the Jud
icial
Inspectorate
must comply with EU law requirements, in
particular
,
with
the rule of law.
Given the extent of the Judicial Inspect
orate
â??s powers to conduct disciplinary
investigations and to bring disciplinary proceedings against judges and prosecutors
, those requirements equally
apply to the interim appointment of its Chief Inspector and to the organisation and operation of the Judicial
Inspect
orate
. Since

the law confers extensive powers and prerog
atives on the Chief Inspector,
he or she is also
oblig
ed to meet those requirements.

The Advocate General
observes

that the Judicial Inspect
orate
â??s decisions to dismiss a complaint against a judge or
prosecutor may be appealed to the
Court of Appeal of Bucharest

and in turn to

the
High Court

of Cassation and

1

Judgment of 18

May 2021,
AsociaÅ£ia 'Forumul JudecÄ?torilor din România' and

Others
,
C
–
83/19, C
–
127/19, C
–
195/19, C
–
291/19, C
–
355
/19 and C
–
397/19

(see also
Press Release 82/21
).

2

Idem, paragraphs

182 and 184.

Communications Directorate

Press and Information Unit

curia.europa.eu

Justice
.
The availability of
l
egal

proceedings by complainants to challenge the decisions of a disciplinary body
is
essential but
may nevertheless be insufficient to address systemic concerns raised in the context of the operation of
that disciplinary reg
ime.

Given the Chief Inspectorâ??s extensive powers, his or her decisive role within the Judicial Inspect
orate
and the
abse
nce of any internal mechanism
to restrain an inappropriate use of those po
wers, the Judicial Inspect
orate

must
treat disciplinary comp
laints against
that individual
with the utmost professionalism and impartiality in order to
ensure public confidence in that body and in the entire judiciary.
T
he
fact that the Chief Inspector of the Judicial
Inspect
orate

appo
ints the Deputy Chief Inspecto
r
may be of concern since the
latter

is
responsible for
deciding whether to investigate complaints and to bring disciplinary proceedings against the Chief
Inspector.

The Advocate General
observes

that, p
rior to the adoption o
f
national legislation in 2018
3
, the Supreme Council of
the Judiciary appointed both the Chief Inspector and the Deputy Chief Inspector following a similar procedure and
the Deputy Chief Inspectorâ??s term of office was independent of that of the Chief Inspe
ctor.
Since then,

it appears
that
office depends upon, and coincides with,

that of the Chief Inspector.
The laws and the regulations governing

the
Judicial Inspect
orate

do not provide any internal mechanism to review allegations of an inappropriate use of the
Chief Inspectorâ??s extensive powers, other than by way of disciplinary procedures.

The Advocate General concludes

that

th
e

legislation

ado
pted in 2018
may undermine considerably the public
perception that the Deputy Chief Inspector can oversee disciplinary investigations and proceedings on
complaints against the Chief Inspector in an objective and impartial manner
.
Its

adoption thus appears
to
amount to a regression in the protection of the rule of law in Romania
.

Despite the duty on the Deputy Chief Inspector to act in an independent and impartial manner, he or she may be
perceived as having a personal interest in the outcome of any discipli
nary investigations and/or proceedings against
the Chief Inspector. It is, moreover, evident that all Judicial Inspect
ors within the Judicial Inspect
orate

are
subordinate to the Chief Inspector and that their career progression depend
s upon who holds that
office.
This may
also undermine the public perception that Judicial Inspectors investigate complaints against the Chief Inspector in a
professional and impartial manner.

Advocate General Collins

concludes that
in the light of such circumstances,
EU law pr
ecludes national legislation
or regulations
that
, inter alia,

make the Deputy Chief Inspector of the Judicial Inspect
orate

responsible for
overseeing disciplinary investigations and proceedings
against its Chief Inspector
.

NOTE:

The Advocate Generalâ??s Opi
nion is not binding on the Court of Justice. It is the role of the Advocates General
Judges of the Court are now beginning their deliberati
ons in this case. Judgment will be given at a later date.

NOTE:

A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the Member States, in disputes which
have been brought before them, to refer questions to the Court of Justice about the

Union law or the validity of a European Union act. The Court of Justice does not decide the dispute itself. It is for the
national court or tribunal to dispose of the case in accordance with the Courtâ??s decision, which is simila
rly binding on
other national courts or tribunals before which a similar issue is raised.

Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the Court of Justice.

The
full text

of the
Opinion is published on the CURIA website on the day of delivery.

3

Legea nr.

234/2018 (Law No

234/2018) of 4

October 2018
, Monitorul Oficial a
l României, Part

I, No

850 of 8

October 2018.

Communications Directorate

Press and Information Unit

curia.europa.eu

Stay Connected
!

Press contact: Jacques René Zammit
â??
(+352) 4303 3355