Order of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Ninth Chamber), C-95/22, ECLI:EU:C:2022:697

Member State
Romania
Topic
Independence and accountability of the judiciary
Sector
Use of the Preliminary Reference Procedure; Predictive Justice.
Deciding Court Original Language
Curtea de Justiție a Uniunii Europene
Deciding Court English translation
Court of Justice of the European Union
Registration N
C-95/22
Date Decision
6 September 2022
ECLI (if available)
ECLI:EU:C:2022:697
National Follow Up Of (when relevant)
N/A
EU legal sources and CJEU jurisprudence

Article 1, 2 (1), 4 and 6 (1) of Directive 2012/13/EU
Article 82 TFEU
Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

A.K. and Others (Independence of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court), C 585/18, C 624/18 and C 625/18, EU:C:2019:982; Vinkov, C 27/11, EU:C:2012:32; AB and Others (Revocation of an amnesty), C 203/20, EU:C:2021:1016;

ECtHR Jurisprudence
N/A
Subject Matter
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Effective judicial protection;
Clear lack of jurisdiction - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court
Legal issue(s)
The case deals with the Romanian ordinary court quest for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Article 6(1) of Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings, Article 82 TFEU and Article 47 of the Charter.
Request for expedited/PPU procedures
YES. The referring court has requested, on the basis of Article 105(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, that an expedited procedure to be applied to the case.
CJEU decided that there is no need to rule on the referring court’s request that the case be determined pursuant to the expedited procedure, based on the considerations related to clear lack of the CJEU jurisdiction - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court.
Interim Relief
N/A
National Law Sources
Article 4881 of Law No 135/2010 on the Code of Criminal Procedure
Facts of the case

District Police Inspectorate – Economic Crime Unit, Alba, Romania opened an investigation into Delgaz Grid employees. That investigation resulted in the opening, of criminal proceedings for, inter alia, abuse of office and misappropriation of public funds, which were extended, to fraud, the making of intentionally false statements and the use of false documents. In the light of those proceedings, a criminal investigation file was opened by the Public Prosecutor’s Office.
In this context, Delgaz Grid brought an action before the Court of First Instance, Târgu-Mureș, by which it sought to challenge the length of the criminal proceedings, which it considers to be unjustifiably prolonged.
The Public Prosecutor’s Office requested that that action be dismissed as inadmissible, in so far as Delgaz Grid did not, in the criminal proceedings at issue in the main proceedings, have the status of suspect or accused person, which was, however, required by the Code of Criminal Procedure in order to bring such an action.
In that regard, Delgaz Grid submits, in essence, that national legislation which authorizes a person to challenge the length of criminal proceedings only if he or she has been formally notified that he or she is the subject of criminal charges as a suspect or an accused person is contrary to EU law. It takes the view, in particular, that, in the light of the fact that Directive 2012/13 does not define the concepts of ‘suspects’ or ‘accused persons’, it is necessary to determine whether those concepts cover persons who, de facto, have such status. The referring court considered that, in order to rule on that action, it had to examine the compatibility of  EU law on the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial with the national legislation which fails to provide that persons who are the subject of criminal charges, but who have not been formally notified of the existence of the charges against them, have the right to contest the excessive length of the criminal proceedings in which they have been under investigation.

Reasoning (role of the Charter or other EU, ECHR related legal basis)

According to the Ninth Chamber, where a legal situation does not come within the scope of EU law, the Court does not have jurisdiction to rule on it and any provisions of the Charter relied upon cannot, of themselves, form a basis for such jurisdiction.

Relation of the case to the EU Charter
Although Article 47 of the Charter was relied on by the referring court, the CJEU considered that it was not applicable to the case in the main proceedings.

The Court, also, pointed out that:
- the Charter’s field of application, so far as concerns action of the Member States, is defined in its Article 51(1), pursuant to which the provisions of the Charter are addressed to the Member States only when they are implementing EU law. 
-article 51(1) of the Charter confirms the Court’s settled case-law, which states that the fundamental rights guaranteed in the legal order of the European Union are applicable in all situations governed by EU law, but not outside such situations;
-, where a legal situation does not come within the scope of EU law, the Court does not have jurisdiction to rule on it and any provisions of the Charter relied upon cannot, of themselves, form a basis for such jurisdiction.
Relation between the EU Charter and ECHR
N/A
Use of Judicial Interaction technique(s)
preliminary reference, consistent interpretation, disapplication of national law in favour of EU law;
Horizontal Judicial Interaction patterns (Internal – with other national courts, and external – with foreign courts)
The national court pointed out that the provisions of Article 4881 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are consistent with the Romanian Constitution and cited the following  Decisions of   Constitutional Court, Romania:  - Decision no.26/19.01.2021 published in the Official Monitor of Romania no. 328  of 31.03.2021; Decision no. 640/ 17.10.2017  published in the Official Monitor of Romania no. 161 din 21.02.2018 and Decision no. 131 /20.03.2018, published in the Official Monitor of Romania no. 569/ 6 .07.2018;
Vertical Judicial Interaction patterns (Internal – with other superior national courts, and external – with European supranational courts)

N/A

Strategic use of judicial interaction technique (purpose aimed by the national court)
The referring court used the preliminary ruling mechanism in order to   clarify the compatibility of the national legislation which fails to provide that persons who are the subject of criminal charges, but who have not been formally notified of the existence of the charges against them, have the right to contest the excessive length of the criminal proceedings in which they have been under investigation with the  EU law on the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial.
Impact on Legislation / Policy
N/A
Notes on the national implementation of the preliminary ruling by the referring court
N/A
Did the national court quote case law of the CJEU/ECtHR (in particular cases not already referred to by the CJEU in its decision) or the Explanations?
The national referring court did not quote other judgements of the CJEU than those mentioned at point 4.3 and that were also referred to in the CJEU order in the C 95/22 case.
Did the national court quote soft law instruments, such as GRECO Reports, Venice Commission, CEPEJ Reports, or CCEJ Reports?
The standards and recommendations of GRECO and the Venice Commission are not mentioned by the referring court in its judgement following the Ninth Chamber order in the C 95/22 case.
Did the national court take into account national case law on fundamental rights?
The national case law on fundamental rights was not considered an important element in this case.
If the court that issued the preliminary reference is not a last instance court, and the “follow up” was appealed before a higher court, include the information
Pursuant to national procedural law, the judgment of the national court subsequent to the Ninth Chamber order was final.
Was there a consensus among national courts on how to implement the CJEU's preliminary ruling; and were there divergences between the judiciary and other state powers regarding the implementation of the preliminary ruling?
Pursuant to national procedural law, the judgment of the national court subsequent to the Ninth Chamber order was final.
Impact on national case law from the same Member State or other Member States
N/A
Connected national caselaw / templates
N/A
Author
Carmen Zăbrăuțanu, UNBR
 
Project implemented with financial support of the Fundamental Rights & Citizenship Programme of the European Union
© European University Institute 2019
Villa Schifanoia - Via Boccaccio 121, I-50133 Firenze - Italy