Summaries of judgments: L.G. (Continued holding of a judicial workplace) – Cyber Tech

Summaries of judgments made in collaboration with the Portuguese decide and référendaire of the CJEU (Nuno Piçarra and Sophie Perez)

 ▪

Judgment of the Court docket (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2023, L.G. (Continued holding of a judicial workplace), Case C‑718/21 ,EU:C:2023:1015

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 267 TFEU – Idea of ‘courtroom or tribunal’ – Standards – Izba Kontroli Nadzwyczajnej i Spraw Publicznych (Chamber of Extraordinary Management and Public Affairs) of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court docket, Poland) – Reference for a preliminary ruling from a panel of judges with out the standing of an impartial and neutral tribunal beforehand established by legislation – Inadmissibility

Info

In Poland, judges who want to proceed to carry out their duties after reaching the age of retirement are required to declare their want to take action to the Krajowej Radzie Sądownictwa (Nationwide Council of the Judiciary, the ‘KRS’).

In 2020, L.G., a decide inside the Sąd Okręgowy w Okay. (Regional Court docket, Okay., Poland), notified the KRS of his want to proceed to carry out his duties past the date of his 65^th birthday. The KRS declared that there was no must rule on the applying, after discovering that it had been lodged after the expiry of the time restrict imposed by legislation. Listening to an attraction introduced by L.G., the Sąd Najwyższy (Izba Kontroli Nadzwyczajnej i Spraw Publicznych) (Chamber of Extraordinary Evaluation and Public Affairs of the Supreme Court docket, Poland), turned to the CJEU to request clarification relating to the ideas of the irremovability of judges and judicial independence as enshrined in EU legislation.

The Fee raised doubts as as to whether the referring physique meets the necessities which have to be met by a referring physique to ensure that it to be a ‘courtroom or tribunal’ inside the that means of Article 267 TFEU. These doubts have been associated to the truth that the appointment, by the President of the Republic of Poland, of the three members involved of the referring physique was made on the premise of proposals set out in a decision adopted by the KRS, a physique whose independence has been known as into query on quite a few events, together with in a number of latest judgments of the CJEU .

Findings of the CJEU

The CJEU recollects that the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court docket), as such, meets the necessities which have to be met by a referring physique to ensure that it to be a ‘courtroom or tribunal’, inside the that means of Article 267 TFEU. Subsequently, it have to be presumed that it satisfies these necessities, regardless of its precise composition.

The CJEU additionally recollects, nonetheless, that this presumption could also be rebutted the place a ultimate judicial choice handed down by a courtroom or tribunal of a Member State or a world courtroom or tribunal results in the conclusion that the decide constituting the referring courtroom shouldn’t be an impartial and neutral tribunal beforehand established by legislation for the needs of the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, learn within the gentle of the second paragraph of Article 47 CFREU.

On this context, the CJEU takes into consideration that, in its judgment of 8 November 2021, Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v. Poland (CE:ECHR:2021:1108JUD004986819), the European Court docket of Human Rights held that there was a violation of Article 6(1) ECHR, because the appointments of the members of the Chamber of Extraordinary Evaluation and Public Affairs in query have been made in manifest breach of basic nationwide guidelines governing the process for the appointment of judges, specifically on the premise of the above talked about decision of the KRS, despite the fact that the enforceability of this decision had been suspended by the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Supreme Administrative Court docket, Poland) in 2018.

Moreover, the CJEU notes that, in a judgment of 21 September 2021, delivered following the judgment of two March 2021, A.B. and Others (Appointment of judges to the Supreme Court docket – Actions) (C‑824/18, EU:C:2021:153), the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny annulled that very same decision of the KRS, together with the half thereof which proposed the appointment of the six judges making up the judicial formations at subject within the instances which gave rise to the judgment in Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v. Poland, one among whom sits within the panel which made the request for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU.

Within the gentle of its personal case-law on the interpretation of the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, learn within the gentle of the second paragraph of Article 47 CFREU, the findings and assessments made by the European Court docket of Human Rights within the judgment in Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v. Poland and by the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny in its judgment of 21 September 2021, the CJEU concludes that, due to the way during which its constituent judges have been appointed, the panel of judges which made the request for a preliminary ruling doesn’t have the standing of an impartial and neutral tribunal beforehand established by legislation, for the needs of these provisions of EU legislation, with the consequence that that panel of judges doesn’t represent a ‘courtroom or tribunal’ inside the that means of Article 267 TFEU.

Subsequently, the CJEU guidelines that the request for a preliminary ruling is inadmissible.

Judgment of the Court docket (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2023, GN (Floor for refusal based mostly on the most effective pursuits of the kid), Case C‑261/22, EU:C:2023:1017

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in felony issues – European arrest warrant – Framework Resolution 2002/584/JHA – Article 1(3) – Article 15(2) – Give up process between Member States – Grounds for non-execution – Constitution of Basic Rights of the European Union – Article 7 – Respect for personal and household life – Article 24(2) and (3) – Bearing in mind the most effective pursuits of the kid – Proper of each youngster to take care of frequently a private relationship and direct contact with each dad and mom – Mom of younger kids residing together with her

Info

In 2020, the Belgian judicial authorities issued a European arrest warrant (EAW) in respect of GN for the aim of imposing a custodial sentence of 5 years, handed down in absentia in Belgium, for the offences of trafficking in human beings and facilitating unlawful immigration. On the time of her arrest, in Bologna (Italy) in 2021, G.N. was together with her three years outdated son and pregnant with a second youngster. 

The Corte d’appello di Bologna (Court docket of Enchantment, Bologna, Italy) refused to give up GN to the Belgian judicial authorities and ordered her rapid launch. In line with that courtroom, within the absence of any response from the Belgian judicial authorities to its questions, it was unsure that the authorized order of the issuing Member State supplies for custodial preparations corresponding to these of the executing Member State, which shield the mom’s proper to not be disadvantaged of her relationship together with her kids and her proper to take care of them, and which be certain that kids obtain the mandatory help, as assured by the Italian Structure and by Article 24 CFREU.

The Procuratore generale presso la Corte d’appello di Bologna (Prosecutor Common on the Court docket of Enchantment, Bologna, Italy) and GN every introduced an attraction earlier than the Corte suprema di cassazione (Supreme Court docket of Cassation, Italy). The Corte suprema di cassazione requested the CJEU whether or not Framework Resolution 2002/584 prohibits the executing judicial authority from refusing to execute the EAW in respect of a mom of younger kids the place her give up is incompatible together with her proper to respect for personal and household life in addition to with the most effective pursuits of her kids, as enshrined in Articles 7 and 24 CFREU.

Findings of the CJEU

The CJEU recollects that the executing judicial authorities might refuse to execute a EAW solely on grounds stemming from Framework Resolution 2002/584, as interpreted by the CJEU, and that, whereas execution of the EAW constitutes the rule, refusal to execute is meant to be an exception which have to be interpreted strictly. On this regard, the CJEU clarifies that Framework Resolution 2002/584 “doesn’t present that the executing judicial authority might refuse to execute a European arrest warrant on the only floor that the one that is the topic of that arrest warrant is the mom of younger kids residing together with her. Having regard to the precept of mutual belief which underlies the realm of freedom, safety and justice, there’s a presumption that the circumstances of detention of the mom of younger kids and of the care of these kids within the issuing Member State are acceptable to such a state of affairs, whether or not in jail lodging or within the context of different preparations making certain that that mom stays out there to that Member State’s judicial authorities or that these kids are positioned outdoors the jail lodging”.

Nonetheless, it follows from Article 1(3) of Framework Resolution 2002/584 that that framework choice is to not have the impact of modifying the duty to respect the elemental rights assured by the CFREU. Subsequently, “the existence of an actual threat that the individual in respect of whom a European arrest warrant has been issued and/or his or her kids would, if that individual is surrendered to the issuing judicial authority, undergo a breach of these basic rights is however able to allowing the executing judicial authority to chorus, exceptionally, from giving impact to that European arrest warrant on the premise of Article 1(3) of Framework Resolution 2002/584”. The CJEU emphasizes that the evaluation of such a threat “have to be carried out by the executing judicial authority having regard to the usual of safety of basic rights assured by EU legislation” and that “an absence of certainty on the a part of that authority as regards the existence, within the issuing Member State, of circumstances corresponding to these current within the executing Member State in regards to the detention of moms of younger kids and the care of these kids can not allow the inference that that threat has been established”.

Thus, the executing judicial authority known as upon to resolve on the give up of an individual in respect of whom a EAW has been issued should assess whether or not there’s a actual threat of breach of the elemental rights enshrined in Articles 7 and 24 CFREU within the context of a “two-step examination involving an evaluation on the premise of various standards, with the consequence that these steps can not overlap with each other and have to be carried out successively.” The executing judicial authority should, first, decide whether or not there’s goal, dependable, particular and correctly up to date info to show that there’s a actual threat of breach, within the issuing Member State, of these basic rights on account of both systemic or generalised deficiencies within the circumstances of detention of moms of younger kids or of the care of these kids within the issuing Member State, or deficiencies in these circumstances affecting extra particularly an objectively identifiable group of individuals, akin to kids with disabilities. Then, that authority should confirm, particularly and exactly, whether or not there are substantial grounds for believing that the individuals involved will run that threat on account of these circumstances.

To that finish, if the executing judicial authority considers that each one the knowledge vital for the adoption of a choice on the give up of the individual involved shouldn’t be out there, it should, pursuant to Article 15(2) of Framework Resolution 2002/584, request the issuing judicial authority to furnish, as a matter of urgency, all of the supplementary info it considers vital on the circumstances underneath which it’s meant, in that Member State, that that individual will likely be detained and the care of that individual’s kids will likely be organised. The issuing judicial authority is, pursuant the precept of honest cooperation, required to supply such info.

It is just the place the executing judicial authority considers, having regard to all the knowledge out there, together with the potential absence of assurances supplied by the issuing judicial authority, that there are deficiencies akin to these referred above within the issuing Member State and substantial grounds for believing that the individual involved and/or his or her kids will run an actual threat of breach of the elemental rights enshrined in Articles 7 and 24 CFRE, that the executing judicial authority should chorus, on the premise of Article 1(3) of Framework Resolution 2002/584, from giving impact to a EAW. In any other case, it should execute that warrant, in accordance with the duty laid down in Article 1(2) of that framework choice.