CJC Database

National Follow Up Of (when relevant): The decision of the ECHR is executed by the Romanian state. (Resolution CM/ResDH(2024)102 adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 13 June 2024.

ECtHR jurisprudence: Sanofi Pasteur against France, nr. 25137/16, pct. 69, February 13th, 2020Avotiņš against Latvia (MC), nr. 17502/07, pct. 106, May 23rd, 2016Bosphorus Hava Yolları Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi against Ireland (MC), nr. 45036/98, pct. 92, CEDO 2005 VI

TRIIAL CASE

Portugal, Supreme Court of Justice, process number 30060/15.3T8LSB.L3.S1, Supreme, 26 November 2020

Deciding court: Supreme Court of Justice

Topic: Preliminary ruling procedure; accountability

National Follow Up Of (when relevant): Ferreira da Silva e Brito (ECLI:EU:C:2015:565)

ECtHR jurisprudence: N/A

TRIIAL CASE

Poland, Supreme Court of Poland, II CSKP 556/22, Supreme, October 26, 2022

Deciding court: Supreme Court

Topic: independence, accountability, impartiality

National Follow Up Of (when relevant): The case discusses and references decisions by the ECtHR as well as the jurisprudence of the CJEU. Specifically, the judgment mentions the ECtHR rulings related to the legitimacy of the judicial appointments in Poland and their impact on the independence and impartiality of the judiciary(e.g. Reczkowicz v. Poland, Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v. Poland, Advance Pharma Sp. z o.o. v. Poland). Moreover, it also discusses the CJEU ruling that interprets EU law concerning judicial independence (Case C-487/19). However, while the Polish Supreme Court's decision in this case heavily references and is influenced by these European courts' decisions, it is not a direct follow-up to a specific CJEU or ECtHR decision.

ECtHR jurisprudence: European Convention on Human Rights:Article 6.The Supreme Court referenced several key ECtHR cases to underline the importance of judicial independence and impartiality in ensuring the right to a fair trial:Reczkowicz v. Poland (Application No. 43447/19, Judgment of 22 July 2021):The ECtHR ruled that the composition of Poland's National Council of the Judiciary (KRS), influenced by political powers, compromised judicial independence, violating the applicant's right to a fair trial under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v. Poland (Applications Nos. 49868/19 and 57511/19, Judgment of 8 November 2021):The Court found that the judicial appointment process under the restructured KRS did not adhere to the standards of independence and impartiality required by Article 6(1) of the Convention.Advance Pharma Sp. z o.o. v. Poland (Application No. 1469/20, Judgment of 3 February 2022):The ECtHR determined that irregularities in the judicial appointment process undermined the applicant’s right to a tribunal established by law, as protected by Article 6(1) of the Convention.These judgments, as cited by the Supreme Court, highlight the importance of maintaining judicial independence and impartiality to ensure compliance with the right to a fair trial as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights.

TRIIAL CASE

Judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union (First Chamber), C-58/22, ECLI:EU:C:2024:70

Deciding court: Court of Justice of the European Union

Topic: Independence and accountability of the judiciary

National Follow Up Of (when relevant): The Judgment of the Court in case C- 58/22 represents the response to the request made by a national ordinary court, Court of Appeal, Craiova, as follow-up of a judgment in a criminal matter, issued by the High Court of Cassation and Justice, Romania, within an cassation appeal. By this Decision, the High Court of Cassation and Justice found that the that Court of Appeal Craiova wrongfully applied the principle ne bis in idem. In the context of reconsideration of its decision, the referring court raised a question of the interpretation to be given to the principle ne bis in idem, within the meaning of Article 50 of the Charter, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings.

ECtHR jurisprudence: Mihalache v. Romania, CE:ECHR:2019:0708JUD005401210

TRIIAL CASE

BIO FARMLAND BETRIEBS S.R.L. against Romania, application nr. 43639/17, final on 13 10 2021

Deciding court: European Court of Human Rights

Topic: mutual trust, independence, accountability

National Follow Up Of (when relevant): The decision of the ECHR was executed by the Romanian Government.

ECtHR jurisprudence: Ullens de Schooten and Rezabek against Belgium, nr. 3989/07 and 38353/07, pct. 56, September 20, 2011Sanofi Pasteur against France, nr. 25137/16, pct. 68, February 13, 2020The Pro Social Assistance Union against Romania (dec.), nr. 24456/13, pct. 29-30, March 6, 2014