CJC Database

TRIIAL CASE

European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), CASE OF KÖVESI v. ROMANIA (Application no. 3594/19), Judgement dated 05.05.2020 (final as of 05.08.2020)

Deciding court: European Court of Human Rights/Romanian Constitutional Court

Topic: rule of law, freedom of expression, independence of prosecutors

National Follow Up Of (when relevant): The judgement of the European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), CASE OF KÖVESI v. ROMANIA (Application no. 3594/19) is a follow-up of the Decision no. 358/2018 of the Constitutional Court of Romania that forced the Romanian President to dismiss Laura Codruța Kövesi from the position of chief prosecutor of the Romanian National Anti-Corruption Directorate. By Decision no. 358/2018, the Constitutional Court of Romania assessed that it existed a legal conflict of a constitutional nature between the Minister of Justice and the President of Romania, generated by the refusal of the President of Romania to put into practice the proposal of the Minister of Justice to dismiss Laura Codruța Kövesi from the position of Chief Prosecutor of the National Anticorruption Directorate and ruled that the President of Romania was due to issue the decree on the dismissal of Laura Codruța Kövesi from the position of chief prosecutor of the National Anticorruption Directorate.

ECtHR jurisprudence: Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers, Recommendation Rec(2000)19 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the Role of Public Prosecution in the Criminal Justice System, 6 October 2000, Rec(2000)19;The Consultative Council of European Prosecutors in its Opinion No. 9 (2014) on European norms and principles concerning prosecutors of 17 December 2014.Baka v. Hungary [GC], no. 20261/12, 23 June 2016Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131Brisc v. Romania, no. 26238/10, 11 December 2018Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, 25 September 2018Di Giovanni v. Italy, no. 51160/06, 9 July 2013Efendiyeva v. Azerbaijan, no. 31556/03, 25 October 2007Gîrleanu v. Romania, no. 50376/09, 26 June 2018Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18Guja v. Moldova [GC], no. 14277/04, ECHR 2008Harabin v. Slovakia, no. 58688/11, 20 November 2012Karácsony and Others v. Hungary [GC], nos. 42461/13 and 44357/13, 17 May 2016Kayasu v. Turkey, no. 64119/00, 13 November 2008Khuzhin and Others v. Russia, no. 13470/02, 23 October 2008Kudeshkina v. Russia, no. 29492/05, 26 February 2009Kuznetsov and Others v. Russia, no. 184/02, 11 January 2007Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], no. 76943/11, 29 November 2016Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, ECHR 2015Nazsiz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 22412/05, 26 May 2009Nedeltcho Popov v. Bulgaria, no. 61360/00, 22 November 2007Özpınar v. Turkey, no. 20999/04, 19 October 2010Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal [GC], nos. 55391/13 and 2 others, 6 November 2018Regner v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 35289/11, 19 September 2017Serdal Apay v. Turkey (dec.), no. 3964/05, 11 December 2007Suküt v. Turkey (dec.), no. 59773/00, 11 September 2007Vilho Eskelinen and Others judgment [GC], no. 63235/00, ECHR 2007-IIVogt v. Germany, 26 September 1995, Series A no. 323Wille v. Liechtenstein [GC], no. 28396/95, 28 October 1999

TRIIAL CASE

Romania – Court of Justice of the European Union (First Chamber) Case C-216/21 of 7 September 2023, ECLI:EU:C:2023:628 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Ploieşti - Romania) – Asociația ‘Forumul Judecătorilor din România’ and YN v Consiliul Superior al Magistraturii

Deciding court: Court of Justice of the European Union

Topic: Rule of law, independence of the judiciary

National Follow Up Of (when relevant): The national case is not the direct follow-up of a CJEU or ECtHR decision.

ECtHR jurisprudence: The ECHR jurisprudence was not referred to in this case.

TRIIAL CASE

Romania – Court of Justice of the European Union (First Chamber) Case C-53/23 of 8 May 2024, ECLI:EU:C:2024:388 (request for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Curtea de Apel Piteşti (Court of Appeal Piteşti, Romania), made by decision of 31 January 2023, in the proceedings Asociația ‘Forumul Judecătorilor din România’, Asociația ‘Mișcarea pentru Apărarea Statutului Procurorilor’ v Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie – Procurorul General al României

Deciding court: Court of Justice of the European Union

Topic: Rule of law, independence of the judiciary, Cooperation and Verification Mechanism, Benchmarks subscribed to by Romania, Fight against corruption, Investigations of offences committed within the judicial system, Action challenging the nomination of prosecutors with competence to conduct those investigations, Standing of professional associations of judges to bring proceedings

National Follow Up Of (when relevant): The national case is not the direct follow -up of a CJEU or ECtHR decision.

ECtHR jurisprudence: The ECHR jurisprudence was not referred to in this case.

TRIIAL CASE

Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber), C-107/23 PPU (Effect of the decisions of a constitutional court), ECLI:EU:C:2023:606, in connection with Romanian Constitutional Court, Decision no. 297/26 April 2018, Decision no. 358/26 May 2022, Decision no. 67/2022 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice of Romania

Deciding court: Court of Justice of the European Union / Romanian Constitutional Court

Topic: Rule of law, independence of the judiciary

National Follow Up Of (when relevant): The Judgment of the Court in the Case C-107/23 PPU represents the response to the request made by a national ordinary court, Curtea de Apel Brasov (Court of Appeal, Brasov, Romania) as follow-up of the Decision no. 297/26.04.2018 and Decision no. 358/26.05.2022 of the Romanian Constitutional Court and Decision no. 67/2022 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice of Romania, which clarify the way it should be judged a national case as regards the criminal limitation period for criminal liability especially in criminal cases of crimes against financial interest of European Union

ECtHR jurisprudence: N/A

TRIIAL CASE

Romania, Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber), C-396/11 Ciprian Vasile Radu (European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States), ECLI:EU:C:2013:39, in connection with Curtea de Apel Constanţa (Court of Appeal, Constanța, Romania), request for a preliminary ruling made by decision of 18 May 2011, received at the Court on 27 July 2011

Deciding court: Court of Justice of the European Union/Court of Appeal Constanta

Topic: Mutual trust

National Follow Up Of (when relevant): The Judgment of the Court in case C-396/11 Ciprian Vasile Radu represents the response to the request made by a national ordinary court, Curtea de Apel Constanța (Court of Appeal, Constanța, Romania). Law no. 300 of November 15, 2013, published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 772 of 11 December 2013 provides multiple changes of the European arrest warrant: issuing authority and procedure, transmission for execution and translation of the European arrest warrant; additional information and guarantees; temporary surrender or hearing of the requested person during the European Arrest Warrant surrender procedure; refusal of surrender; procedure on arrest of the requested person – hearing of the requested person; postponed surrender.Decision of the Constitutional Court no. 712 of December 4, 2014, published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 33 of January 15, 2015 qualified as unconstitutional Articles 211-217 of Romanian Code of Criminal Procedure, articles relevant for the application of Article 104 of the Law no. 302 of 2004 on judicial cooperation in criminal matters: “If the requested person is set at liberty, the court orders against him the measure of judicial control, judicial control on bail or house arrest, the provisions of Art. 211-222 of the Criminal Procedure Code) applying accordingly. In this case, in the situation where, subsequently, the court orders the execution of the European arrest warrant, through the surrender decision, the arrest of the requested person is also ordered to surrender to the issuing judicial authority.”

ECtHR jurisprudence: Articles 5 and 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (indicated in the request for a preliminary ruling)Chahal v. United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, § 112, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V, Ismoilov v. Russia, no. 2947/06, § 135, 24 April 2008, and Lokpo and Toure v. Hungary, no. 10816/10, § 16, 20 September 2011, A. and Others v. United Kingdom [GC], no. 3455/05, § 164, ECHR 2009, Saadi v. Italy [GC], no 37201/06, §§ 128 and 129. Bernard v. France, § 37, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II, joint partly dissenting opinion of Judges Bratza, Bonello and Hedigan in the Court of Human Rights judgment in Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey, nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, § 14; Vinter and Others v. United Kingdom, nos. 66069/09, 130/10 and 3096/10, § 89

TRIIAL CASE

Romania, Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (High Court of Cassation and Justice), 450/07.09.2023, supreme instance, appeal in cassation

Deciding court: High Court of Cassation and Justice

Topic: Rule of law, independence, impartiality

National Follow Up Of (when relevant): N/A

ECtHR jurisprudence: art. 7 of ECtHRDecision Del Rio Prada against Spain, Grand Chamber, Kokkinakis against Greece, Vasiliuskas against Lithuania MC, Jamil against France, M against Germany, Gurguchiani against Spain, Scoppola against Italy, Maktouf and Damjanovic against Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cantoni against France, Kafkaris against Ciprus, Ruban against Ukraine (CE: ECHR:2016:0712JUD000892711), Dragptoniu and Militaru-Prodhorni against Romania

TRIIAL CASE

Court of Justice of the European Union, C-241/15 - Bob-Dogi case, Second Chamber, 1 June 2016

Deciding court: Court of Justice of the European Union

Topic: mutual trust, independence

National Follow Up Of (when relevant): N/A

ECtHR jurisprudence:

TRIIAL CASE

Romania, ECtHR, Application no. 40238/02, Case of Bucur și Toma v. Romania, 8 January 2013

Deciding court: The Military Court The Military Court of Appeal High Court of Justice (High Court of Cassation and Justice)

Topic: Rule of law-prohibition of arbitrariness The guarantees against arbitrary surveillance were absent.

National Follow Up Of (when relevant):

ECtHR jurisprudence: Amann v. Switzerland [GC], no 27798/95, 16 February 2000 Artico v. Italy, no. 6694/74, 13 May 1980 Barfod v. Denmark, 22 February 1989, § 29, Series A no 149 Begu v. Romania, no 20448/02, 15 March 2011 Boldea v. Romania, no 19997/02, 15 February 2007 Buscemi v. Italy, no 29569/95, 16 September 1999 Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, nos. 7819/77 and 7878/77, 28 June 1984 Cooper v. the United Kingdom [GC], no 48843/99, 16 December 2003 Dumitru Popescu v. Romania (no 2), no 71525/01, 26 April 2007 Eckle v. Germany, no 8130/78, 15 July 1982 (Merits) Ergin v. Turkey (no 6), no 47533/99, 4 May 2006 Frydlender v. France [GC], no 30979/96, 27 June 2000 Gadi v. France (dec.), no 45533/05, 13 January 2009 Guja v. Moldova [GC], no 14277/04, 12 February 2008 Hadjianastassiou v. Greece, no 12945/87, 16 December 1992 Heinisch v. Germany, no 28274/08, 21 July 2011 Incal v. Turkey [GC], no 22678/93, 9 June 1998 Karademirci and Others v. Turkey, nos. 37096/97 and 37101/97, 25 January 2005 Klass and Others v. Germany, no 5029/71, 6 September 1978 Lavents v. Latvia, no 58442/00, 28 November 2002 Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, nos. 6878/75 and 7238/75, 23 June 1981 (Merits) Marchenko v. Ukraine, no 4063/04, 19 February 2009 Maszni v. Romania, no 59892/00, 21 September 2006 Morris v. the United Kingdom, no 38784/97, 26 February 2002 Nolan and K. v. Russia, no 2512/04, 12 February 2009 Palic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no 4704/04, 15 February 2011 Perez v. France [GC], no 47287/99, 12 February 2004 Rekvényi v. Hungary [GC], no 25390/94, 20 May 1999 Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no 28341/95, 4 May 2000 Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no 68416/01, 15 February 2005 Stoll v. Switzerland [GC], no 69698/01, 10 December 2007 Tanrikulu v. Turkey [GC], no 23763/94, 8 July 1999 Timurtas v. Turkey, no 23531/94, 13 June 2000 Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, no 16034/90, 19 April 1994 Van Mechelen and Others v. the Netherlands, nos. 21363/93, 21364/93, 21427/93 and 22056/93, 23 April 1997 (Merits) Wojtas-Kaleta v. Poland, no 20436/02, 16 July 2009 Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no 29870/96, 25 May 2000

TRIIAL CASE

Romania, CJEU, C‑397/19, AX v Statul Român – Ministerul Finanțelor Publice, ordinary – Grand Chamber, preliminary ruling, 18 May 2021

Deciding court: Bucharest Tribunal and CJEU

Topic: Accountability – Judicial independence - civil liability of magistrates (judges and prosecutors) - Rule of law

National Follow Up Of (when relevant): No.

ECtHR jurisprudence:

TRIIAL CASE

Court of Justice of the European Union (First Chamber), C-491/21, ECLI:EU:C:2024:143, following a Request for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie (High Court of Cassation and Justice, Romania), made by decision of 11 May 2021, received at the Court on 10 August 2021

Deciding court: Court of Justice of European Union / High Court of Cassation and Justice, Romania

Topic: rule of law, judicial cooperation

National Follow Up Of (when relevant): The judgement of the Court in the Case -491/21 represents a response to the request of a preliminary ruling made by the High Court of Cassation and Justice, Romania in a national case. Following the CJEU decision, the High Court of Cassation and Justice admitted on April 2, 2024 the appeal in the national case declared by the appellant-plaintiff WA against the Civil Sentence no. 1502 of March 28, 2018 pronounced by the Bucharest Court of Appeal – Section VIII of Administrative and Fiscal Litigation, overturned the appealed sentence and, rejudging: admitted the action filed by the plaintiff WA in opposition to the defendant, the Directorate for the Records of Persons and the Administration of Databases from the Ministry of Internal Affairs and it compelled the defendant to issue an identity card or electronic identity card to the plaintiff.

ECtHR jurisprudence: N/A