R.I. v Inspecţia Judiciară and N.L.

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• ECLI: ECLI:EU:C:2023:391
• Date: 11 May 2023
• Docket Number: C-817/21
• Celex Number: 62021CJ0817
• Procedure Type: Reference for a preliminary ruling
• Court: Court of Justice (European Union)

Provisional text

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber)

11 May 2023 (*)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Rule of law – Judicial independence – Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU – Decision 2006/928/EC – Independence of the judiciary – Disciplinary proceedings – Judicial Inspectorate – Chief Inspector with powers of regulation, selection, assessment, appointment and disciplinary investigation)

In Case C‑817/21,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti (Court of Appeal, Bucharest, Romania), made by decision of 10 December 2021, received at the Court on 21 December 2021, in the proceedings

R.I.

v

Inspecţia Judiciară,

N.L.,

THE COURT (First Chamber),

composed of A. Arabadjiev, President of the Chamber, L. Bay Larsen (Rapporteur), Vice-President of the Court, P.G. Xuereb, T. von Danwitz and I. Ziemele, Judges,

Advocate General: A.M. Collins,

Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,

having regard to the written procedure,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

– R.I., by I. Roşca, acting as Agent,

– Inspecţia Judiciară, by L. Netejoru, acting as Agent,

– the European Commission, by K. Herrmann, I. Rogalski and P. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 26 January 2023,

gives the following

Judgment

1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 2 and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU as well as of Commission Decision 2006/928/EC of 13 December 2006 establishing a mechanism for cooperation and verification of progress in Romania to address specific benchmarks in the areas of judicial reform and the fight against corruption (OJ 2006 L 354, p. 56).

2 The request has been made in proceedings between R.I., on the one hand, and the Inspecţia Judiciară (Judicial Inspectorate, Romania) and N.L., on the other, concerning the decisions of the Judicial Inspectorate to take no further action on a complaint lodged by R.I. against N.L. and to reject the objection filed against the decision to take no further action.

Legal context

European Union law

3 Article 1 of Decision 2006/928 provides:

‘Romania shall, by 31 March of each year, and for the first time by 31 March 2007, report to the [European] Commission on the progress made in addressing each of the benchmarks provided for in the Annex.

The Commission may, at any time, provide technical assistance through different activities or gather and exchange information on the benchmarks. In addition, the Commission may, at any time, organise expert missions to Romania for this purpose. The Romanian authorities shall give the necessary support in this context.’

Romanian law

4 Article 44(6) of Legea nr. 317/2004 privind Consiliul Superior al Magistraturii (Law No 317/2004 on the Supreme Council of the Judiciary) of 1 July 2004 (Monitorul Oficial al României, Part I, No 827 of 13 September 2005), as amended and supplemented (‘Law No 317/2004 as amended’), provides:

‘In order for disciplinary proceedings to be initiated, it is mandatory for the Judicial Inspectorate to conduct a disciplinary investigation.’

5 Article 45(4) of that law states:

‘If preliminary enquiries show that there is no evidence of a disciplinary offence, no further action shall be taken as regards the complaint and the outcome shall be communicated directly to the person who lodged the complaint and to the person concerned by the complaint. The decision to discontinue the case shall be subject to confirmation by the Chief Inspector. The decision may be overruled once only by the Chief Inspector, who, by a written and reasoned decision, may order supplementary enquiries.’

6 Article 45¹(1) of Law No 317/2004 as amended is worded as follows:

‘The person who lodged the complaint may file an objection with the Chief Inspector against the decision to discontinue the case referred to in Article 45(4) within 15 days of notification of that decision. The objection shall be dealt with within 20 days of the date of its being registered with the Judicial Inspectorate.’

7 Article 47(7) of that law states:

‘Disciplinary action may be taken within 30 days of the completion of the disciplinary investigation, but no later than two years from the date on which the act was committed.’

8 Under Article 65(2) to (4) of Law No 317/2004 as amended:

‘2. The Judicial Inspectorate shall be led by a Chief Inspector-judge, appointed following a competition organised by the Consiliul Superior al Magistraturii [(Supreme Council of the Judiciary, Romania)]; he or she shall be assisted by a Deputy Chief Inspector-prosecutor, designated by the Chief Inspector.

3. The Judicial Inspectorate shall act in accordance with the principle of operational independence as regards the Supreme Council of the Judiciary, the courts, the public prosecutors’ offices attached thereto and the other public authorities, exercising its powers of analysis, enquiry and oversight in specific areas of activity, pursuant to the law and in order to ensure compliance with it.

4. The rules for carrying out the work of inspection shall be approved by the Chief Inspector by way of regulation.’

9 Article 66(3) of that law provides:

‘The organisation and operation of the Judicial Inspectorate and the organisational structure and functions of its departments shall be laid down by a regulation approved by an order of the Chief Inspector …’

10 Under Article 69(1) and (4) of that law:

‘1. The Chief Inspector shall have the following main duties:

(a) he or she shall designate, from among the Judicial Inspectors, the management team – the Deputy Chief Inspector, the heads of the directorates – on the basis of a procedure which shall include the assessment of management plans specific to each post, in such a way as to ensure managerial cohesion, professional competence and effective communication. Their term of office shall end at the same time as that of the Chief Inspector;

(a¹) he or she shall perform the duties of managing and organising the activity of the Judicial Inspectorate;

(a²) he or she shall take measures in order to coordinate the work of the other members of staff of the Judicial Inspectorate who are not Judicial Inspectors;

…

(g) he or she shall appoint, in accordance with the law, the Judicial Inspectors and the other categories of the staff of the Judicial Inspectorate, and order the modification, suspension and termination of their employment or service relations;

(h) he or she shall determine the individual duties and tasks of the staff placed under his or her authority by approving their job descriptions;

(i) he or she shall, in accordance with the law, conduct appraisals of the staff placed under his or her authority;

…

4. The Deputy Chief Inspector shall act as the replacement ex officio of the Chief Inspector; he or she shall assist that person in reviewing and issuing opinions on the acts and decisions adopted by the Judicial Inspectors and shall perform all the other duties determined by the Chief Inspector.’

11 Article 71(2) of that law states:

‘The provisions on penalties, disciplinary offences and disciplinary proceedings shall apply mutatis mutandis to the Judicial Inspectors.’

The main proceedings and the question referred

12 R.I. is a party in several criminal proceedings before the courts of Romania. She filed a number of disciplinary complaints with the Judicial Inspectorate against judges and prosecutors assigned to those courts.

13 Those complaints were the subject of various decisions of the Judicial Inspectorate to take no further action. One of those decisions, dated 2 July 2018, which had been confirmed by N.L. in his capacity as Chief Inspector, was challenged by R.I. before the Curtea de Apel București (Court of Appeal, Bucharest, Romania).

14 In a judgment of 27 September 2019, that court rejected the decision in question. By judgment of 29 September 2020, the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (High Court of Cassation and Justice, Romania) declared inadmissible the Judicial Inspectorate’s appeal against that judgment.

15 Following those judicial proceedings, on 11 March 2021 the Judicial Inspectorate adopted a new decision to take no further action in respect of the disciplinary complaint in question. On 31 May 2021, N.L. rejected R.I.’s objection against that decision. The latter brought an action for annulment of the decision thus adopted by N.L.

16 By a statement sent to the Ministerului Justiţiei (Ministry of Justice, Romania) on 29 November 2019, R.I. complained that her constitutional rights had been infringed and reported the action of a ‘group’ of persons, including N.L., who allegedly contributed to that infringement and to the criminal investigations concerning her. In that statement, R.I. maintained, inter alia, that N.L. had sought to conceal the abuses and unlawful acts committed by certain members of the judiciary.

17 The Ministry of Justice did not consider itself competent to examine that complaint and, as a consequence, referred it to the Judicial Inspectorate. R.I. also formulated an additional grievance against N.L. by a complaint submitted to the Judicial Inspectorate on 16 February 2021.

18 In the proceedings before that body, R.I. clarified her grievances, submitting, inter alia, that there had been no proper disciplinary investigation, that the judgment of 27 September 2019 had not been executed and that the examination of her objections had been intentionally delayed in order to allow a limitation period to expire.

19 On 17 March 2021 it was decided to take no further action as regards the complaint against N.L., by decision of a judicial inspector appointed pursuant to general rules adopted by the Chief Inspector. R.I.’s objection against that decision was rejected on 11 May 2021 by decision of the Deputy Chief Inspector.

20 On 31 May 2021, R.I. brought an action before the referring court seeking, inter alia...