(AGENPARL) – gio 16 febbraio 2023 IERI SERA AL MUSEO OLTRE 6.000 PERSONE
IN OCCASIONE DELLA SERATA PER IL 70° ANNIVERSARIO
Museo Nazionale Scienza e Tecnologia
Milano 16 febbraio 2023.Ieri sera, oltre 6.000 persone hanno festeggiato con il Museo,partecipando alla serata gratuita organizzata per il suo 70° anniversario.
Grande successo delle installazioni di arte digitale e musica, della passeggiata spaziale in VR e delle performance artistiche che hanno animato tutti gli spazi museali. Tutte esaurite le attività speciali e i laboratori interattivi, le visite al sottomarino Toti, al ponte di comando del transatlantico Conte Biancamano e alla storica Tenda Rossa, tornata accessibile al pubblico in occasione dei 70 anni del Museo, dopo un lungo e complesso restauro.
“Da sempre siamo “il Museo del divenire del mondo” e con impegno e orgoglio passiamo il traguardo dei 70 anni guardando quotidianamente al futuro. La visione del Museo è quella di essere presenti e protagonisti nello sviluppo della società, dando un forte contributo alla sua comprensione da parte dei cittadini. Nuovi e rinnovati progetti culturali, lo sforzo per ambienti accoglienti e servizi di qualità, l’impiego di strumenti interattivi e tecnologici ma anche di modalità che facciano sentire protagonisti i nostri visitatori, sono le attività giornaliere del nostro divenire. Siamo molto soddisfatti della conferma che ci arriva dai nostri diversi pubblici, in termini quantitativi e di nuove tipologie: molti giovani adulti, molti stranieri, il confermarsi di scuole e famiglie con maggiori necessità a cui offriamo strumenti sempre più adeguati alle loro esigenze che cambiano. Ieri era una serata di festa che abbiamo trascorso con 6.000 amici del nostro Museo ma per noi era anche un momento di studio per identificare modi innovativi di comunicare la cultura rendendola sempre più accessibile”, commenta Fiorenzo Marco Galli – Direttore Generale Museo Nazionale Scienza e Tecnologia.
Inaugurato il 15 febbraio 1953, il Museo Nazionale Scienza e Tecnologia Leonardo da Vinci è oggi il più grande museo scientifico e tecnologico in Italia e uno dei principali in Europa. L’idea del fondatore, l’ingegner Guido Ucelli, era quella di dotare l’Italia, al pari degli altri grandi paesi europei, di un museo che raccontasse il “divenire del mondo”, a partire da uno sguardo di unitarietà della cultura rappresentato da Leonardo da Vinci, a cui sono dedicate le dieci sale che ne costituiscono quindi lo storico valore identitario. Una visione innovativa che ispira ancora oggi il Museo, un’istituzione unica nel panorama italiano per la natura e la consistenza del patrimonio culturale che conserva e che continua a raccogliere, per il ruolo che ricopre per l’educazione alle STEM e per la volontà di contribuire allo sviluppo di una cittadinanza scientifica.
CONTATTI PER LA STAMPA
Museo Nazionale Scienza e Tecnologia
Ufficio Stampa
SOCIAL MEDIA

Testo Allegato:
Communications Directorate

Press and Information Unit

curia.europa.eu

PRESS RELEASE No 34/
23

Luxembourg, 16 February 2023

Advocate Generalâ??s Opinion in Case C
–
216/21 | AsociaÅ£ia â??Forumul JudecÄ?torilor din Româniaâ?

Advocate General
Emiliou
:

a procedure for promotion of judges based on
an assessment of their work and condu
ct by a board composed of the
President and judges
of the relevant higher court
is compatible with

EU
law

However,

even where

the members of t
hat board
are themselves

independent,
the criteria applied should be
sufficiently objective, relevant and verifiab
le

and the body should be obliged to state reasons

In 2019, the Section for Judges of the Consiliul Superior al Magistraturii (the Superior Council of Magistracy,
Romania; â??the SCMâ??) approved a national regulation reforming the promotion procedure applicab
le to judges of
lower courts in Romania
. T
he AsociaÅ£ia â??Forumul JudecÄ?torilor din Româniaâ? and YN, seek the partial annulment of
that decision before the Court

of Appeal of PloieÅ?ti, Romania
.

They claim that the promotion procedure applicable to judges of

lower national courts is conducted by the
Presidents and members of the courts of appeal in which available positions are to be filled and rests on subjective
on their
pe
rformance in a written exam.

The Court of Appeal of PloieÅ?ti
enquires as to the compatibility of such a reform with the princ
iple of judicial
independence
.

In his Opinion delivered today
, Advocate General

Emiliou

concludes that
a procedure for promotion of judges
based on an assessmen
t of their work and conduct by a board composed of the President and judges of t
he
relevant higher court that
are also in charge
of reviewing the judgments delivered by those judges on
appeal and of carrying out periodic assessments of their work

is compat
ible with

EU law

1
. However
,

even
where
the members of that board
are

independent,
the criteria applied by them
should be

sufficiently
objec
tive, relevant and verifiable

and the body should be obliged to state reasons
.

T
he Advocate General notes that the
promotion procedure for judges serving in lower courts in Romania
is
structured in two steps. The first step
designed

knowledge and the practical skills of the candidates. Successful candidates

are then promoted to a higher
professional grade but continue, in effect, to hold the same office. The second step,
called

â??effective promotionâ??
,

enables candidates who have already been promoted â??on
–
the
–
spotâ?? and who possess the required professional
gra
de to be effectively assigned to a regi
onal court or court of appeal.

The AsociaÅ£ia â??Forumul JudecÄ?torilor din Româniaâ? and YN seek to challenge the modalities of the second step of

1
The principle of judicial independence, which is enshrined in

Article

47 of the Charter

and the seco
nd subparagraph of Article

19(1)

TEU, read in
conjunction with Article

2

TEU

Communications Directorate

Press and Information Unit

curia.europa.eu

that procedure, during which the selection board must evaluate the candid
atesâ?? work and conduct over the last
three years preceding their parti
cipation in that second step.
Two aspects of that procedure appear to be
particularly problematic to them: how the members of the selection board who participate in the â??effective
promot
ionâ?? procedure are designated and the composition of that board, and the criteria applied by the members
of the selection board in order to decide which

candidates shall be promoted.

Concerning

the designation of the members of the selection board and its

composition
, the Advocate General
considers that the elements put forward in the main proceedings cannot, in and of themselves, give rise to
reasonable doubt in the minds of individuals as to the imperviousness of candidates to the â??effective promotionâ??
p
rocedure to external factors.

Issues of judicial independence are not confined to situations implicating other branches of power or third parties,
but may arise within the judicial system itself, wherever there is a risk that judges could be improperly in
fluenced by
their colleagues. However,
there must be an indication that such a concentration of power could actually cause
external intervention or pressure liable to impair the independent judgment of judges of lower courts and to
influence their decision
s.

B
ecause members of the courts of appeal of the Member States are themselves required, under EU law, to comply
with the principle of judicial independence and be free from external influence or pressure, they are, in principle, in
a good position to eva
luate the candidatesâ?? work and determine who amo
ng them deserve a promotion
.

However,
w
hat is decisive from the perspective of judicial independence is not so much the question of who conducts
a promotion procedure, but rather whether the criteria applied
by the body in charge of conducting such a
procedure are sufficiently clear, objective and verifiable,

and whether the body is obliged to state reasons.

It

the criteria applied
are

likely to
giv
e

rise

to reason
able doubt in the
minds of individuals

as to the independence of the judges of lower courts concerned by that procedure.
This
happens
, in particular, when the modalities surrounding a particular procedure or the criteria applied when
conducting that proced
ure are not prescribed by law (and, thus, are not verifiable), are vague or irrelevant or allow
speculation about the influence of political or other forces (for example, when the criteria applied ar
e not
sufficiently objective).

In the present case, it a
ppears that the
criteria for the evaluation of the candidatesâ?? work are
openly

listed and are,
thus, verifiable. Furthermore, they are all relevant for the purposes of forming a view as to the candidates
â?? judicial
activity and merit.

The Advocate General
also notes that
the sources of information and evidence upon which the members of the
selection board must base their decision in relation to each candidate are rather numerous and diverse. That
contributes to making the overall â??effective promotionâ?? proce
dure appear to be based a priori on an objective, rather

Those elements, along with the fact that the board in charge of conducting the promotion procedure must draft a
reasoned report
indicating the marks awarded for
the c
riteria
applied
, as well as the overall mark obtained by the
candidate

at the close of the procedure,
â??

which the candidate is entitled to challenge
–
,
confirm the absence of a
real risk of â??undue discretionâ?? giving rise to a reasonable doubt in the minds
of individuals as to the independence of
the judges concerned
.

NOTE:

The Advocate Generalâ??s Opinion is not binding on the Court of Justice. It is the role of the Advocates General
Judges of the Court are now

beginning their deliberations 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
Communications Directorate

Press and Information Unit

curia.europa.eu

Stay Connected
!

have been brought before them, to refer questions to 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 similarly 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.

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