Summaries of judgments: L.G. (Continued holding of a judicial workplace) – Fin Serve

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

 

Judgment of the Courtroom (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 Courtroom, Poland) – Reference for a preliminary ruling from a panel of judges with out the standing of an unbiased 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 choose throughout the Sąd Okręgowy w Ok. (Regional Courtroom, Ok., Poland), notified the KRS of his want to proceed to carry out his duties past the date of his 65th 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 Evaluate and Public Affairs of the Supreme Courtroom, 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’ throughout the which means of Article 267 TFEU. These doubts had 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 current judgments of the CJEU .

Findings of the CJEU

The CJEU recollects that the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Courtroom), as such, meets the necessities which have to be met by a referring physique to ensure that it to be a ‘courtroom or tribunal’, throughout the which 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 closing judicial choice handed down by a courtroom or tribunal of a Member State or a global courtroom or tribunal results in the conclusion that the choose constituting the referring courtroom will not be an unbiased and neutral tribunal beforehand established by legislation for the needs of the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, learn within the mild of the second paragraph of Article 47 CFREU.

On this context, the CJEU takes under consideration that, in its judgment of 8 November 2021, Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v. Poland (CE:ECHR:2021:1108JUD004986819), the European Courtroom 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 Evaluate and Public Affairs in query had been made in manifest breach of elementary nationwide guidelines governing the process for the appointment of judges, particularly on the premise of the above talked about decision of the KRS, regardless that the enforceability of this decision had been suspended by the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Supreme Administrative Courtroom, 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 Courtroom – 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 situation within the instances which gave rise to the judgment in Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v. Poland, one in all whom sits within the panel which made the request for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU.

Within the mild of its personal case-law on the interpretation of the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, learn within the mild of the second paragraph of Article 47 CFREU, the findings and assessments made by the European Courtroom 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 style by which its constituent judges had been appointed, the panel of judges which made the request for a preliminary ruling doesn’t have the standing of an unbiased and neutral tribunal beforehand established by legislation, for the needs of these provisions of EU legislation, with the end result that that panel of judges doesn’t represent a ‘courtroom or tribunal’ throughout the which means of Article 267 TFEU.

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

Judgment of the Courtroom (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2023, GN (Floor for refusal primarily based on the perfect pursuits of the kid), Case C‑261/22, EU:C:2023:1017

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in legal issues – European arrest warrant – Framework Determination 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) – Taking into account the perfect pursuits of the kid – Proper of each youngster to keep up frequently a private relationship and direct contact with each dad and mom – Mom of younger kids dwelling 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 (Courtroom of Attraction, Bologna, Italy) refused to give up GN to the Belgian judicial authorities and ordered her quick 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 offers for custodial preparations corresponding to these of the executing Member State, which defend 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 make sure that kids obtain the required help, as assured by the Italian Structure and by Article 24 CFREU.

The Procuratore generale presso la Corte d’appello di Bologna (Prosecutor Normal on the Courtroom of Attraction, Bologna, Italy) and GN every introduced an attraction earlier than the Corte suprema di cassazione (Supreme Courtroom of Cassation, Italy). The Corte suprema di cassazione requested the CJEU whether or not Framework Determination 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 perfect 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 Determination 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 Determination 2002/584 “doesn’t present that the executing judicial authority might refuse to execute a European arrest warrant on the only real floor that the one who is the topic of that arrest warrant is the mom of younger kids dwelling 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 applicable 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 exterior the jail lodging”.

Nonetheless, it follows from Article 1(3) of Framework Determination 2002/584 that that framework choice is to not have the impact of modifying the duty to respect the basic rights assured by the CFREU. Subsequently, “the existence of an actual danger that the particular person in respect of whom a European arrest warrant has been issued and/or his or her kids would, if that particular person is surrendered to the issuing judicial authority, endure a breach of these elementary rights is nonetheless 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 Determination 2002/584”. The CJEU emphasizes that the evaluation of such a danger “have to be carried out by the executing judicial authority having regard to the usual of safety of elementary rights assured by EU legislation” and that “a scarcity of certainty on the a part of that authority as regards the existence, within the issuing Member State, of circumstances corresponding to these present 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 danger 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 danger of breach of the basic 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 end result 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 display that there’s a actual danger of breach, within the issuing Member State, of these elementary 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, similar to kids with disabilities. Then, that authority should verify, particularly and exactly, whether or not there are substantial grounds for believing that the individuals involved will run that danger on account of these circumstances.

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

It is just the place the executing judicial authority considers, having regard to all the knowledge out there, together with the doable absence of assurances offered by the issuing judicial authority, that there are deficiencies similar to these referred above within the issuing Member State and substantial grounds for believing that the particular person involved and/or his or her kids will run an actual danger of breach of the basic rights enshrined in Articles 7 and 24 CFRE, that the executing judicial authority should chorus, on the premise of Article 1(3) of Framework Determination 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.

Leave a Comment

x