12 May 2025
CJEU judgements:
Poland’s obligation to pay penalty imposed by the European Commission
Regarding the reform of the Polish judicial system in 2019, the EU General Court confirms that Poland has to pay an amount in relation to the penalty payment decided by the CJEU during a previous infringement procedure. According to the General Court, the European Commission was right to impose the penalty payment on Poland for the period from 15 July 2022 to 4 June 2023. That is the ruling of the EU General Court in response to the action brought by Poland for annulment of a total of six set-off decisions of the European Commission.
Clarification of the EU law requirements on the determination of remuneration of national judges
The Court clarified that the rules for the determination of remuneration of national judges should have a legal basis and should be foreseeable, stable and transparent, in order to prevent the arbitrary intervention of the executive and the legislature.
The same applies for derogating measures that would freeze or reduce the amount of that remuneration. Furthermore, they should be justified by an objective of general interest, such as a need to eliminate an excessive government deficit. Furthermore, they must be exceptional and temporary and the impact on the judges’ remuneration must not be disproportionate to the objective pursued.
Both rules determining the remuneration of national judges and measures derogating from them must be subject to effective judicial review.
Rules on the allocation of cases to judges
EU law requires judicial review of the allocation of cases to courts, in order to determine whether it represents an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law. When a judge has doubts about the lawfulness of the allocation of a case to them, EU law does not preclude them from having to refer the case back to the head of the court management of that court, so that he or she may verify the lawfulness of the initial allocation.
Principle of the irremovability of judges and judicial independence
In this case, the Court ruled that second paragraph of Article 19(1) TEU prevents national laws that allow a court body to withdraw cases from a judge without clearly defined rules or without requiring reasons for doing so. Moreover, the same provision, together with the principle of the primacy of EU law, requires national courts to set aside such decisions if they violate Article 19(1). This includes the resolution removing the cases, as well as any follow-up actions like reassigning them. The bodies responsible for assigning judges must disregard those measures if they breach EU law.
Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations
AG Spielmann concluded that Poland failed to ensure effective legal protection under EU law. He pointed to the rulings of the Polish Constitutional Court rejecting the obligation to amend national law and to the dismission of judicial review of judge appointments. Furthermore, he regarded the declaration of the Polish Constitutional Court that parts of EU law were incompatible with the constitution as a manifest infringement of the fundamental principles of EU legal order.
Judicial cooperation in criminal matters
AG de la Tour concluded that the competent authority of the executing member state cannot rely on the ground of non-recognition and non-enforcement in the Council Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant if the executing judicial authority does not make use of the ground for non-execution, double criminality is absent, and the person is surrendered with a guarantee of return. Nevertheless, if circumstances change after the surrender and the return guarantee remains following consultations, the executing member state may rely on the ground for non-recognition and non-enforcement.
Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations: operation of an investor citizenship scheme
The case concerns infringement proceedings brought by the European Commission against the Maltese legislation on the acquisition of citizenship. According to the legislation, since 2020, persons may be naturalised in exchange for predetermined payments and investments, without a genuine link between the parties concerned and Malta. The Court held that establishing and operating an institutionalised citizenship investment scheme amounts to the commercialisation of the grant of the nationality of a Member State, and, by extension, that of Union citizenship. Accordingly, Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 20 TFEU and Article 4(3) TEU.
ECtHR judgements:
Lack of sufficient procedural safeguards
This case concerns the access and inspection of applicants’ business premises, registered offices or premises used for professional activities, involving the examination, copying and seizure (in some cases) of accounting records, company books, invoices and other accounting documents as well as documents relevant for tax assessment purposes. The Court found a violation of Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life). In this sense, it considered that the domestic legal framework offered a wide range of discretion to the domestic authorities with regard to the scope and conditions of the measures. Furthermore, it concluded that the measures not subject to an effective ex post judicial review of their legality, necessity and proportionality and that the ‘quality of law’ requirement was not met.
Annulment of presidential elections
The applicant challenged the annulment of Romania’s 2024 presidential elections, claiming that the Constitutional Court’s decision was based on unsubstantiated accusations, was unlawful and violated his rights under Article 3 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention, as well as Articles 6,13,10 and 11 of the Convention. He alleged lack of transparency, absence of remedies and political interference. The Court declared the application inadmissable, concluding that Article 3 of Protocol No.1 only applies to the ‘choice of legislature’, Articles 6 and 13 do not apply as the dispute does not concern either the ‘civil rights and obligations’ of the applicant or the determination of a ‘criminal charge’, and the applicant does not have an arguable claim. Furthermore, the Court held that the Claims under Articles 10 and 11 were unsupported and manifestly ill-founded.
Lack of diligence and repeated delays in proceedings
The case concerns the State’s positive obligations under Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life) regarding the applicant’s custody and contact with her child. The Court found that the domestic authorities failed to ensure effective enforcement of the applicant’s custody and contact with her son after the father refused to return him. As such, the proceedings were characterized by lack of diligence and long and repeated delays. Furthermore, the shortcomings in the decision-making process and the enforcement of the court orders represented significant factors in the complete breakdown of the applicant’s relationship with her son. Therefore, the Court found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
Lack of justification for the placement of a Roma pupil in a special class
The case concerned the discrimination against a Roma pupil placed in a special class for children with mild intellectual disabilities (Article 14 taken in conjunction with with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1). The placement was based on culturally biased tests, with no adequate safeguards or regular reassessment, leading to inferior education and reinforced segregation. The Court ruled that the State failed to justify this treatment and that it had a disproportionate impact on the Roma community.
Refusal of access to court documents
The Court found a violation of Article 10 (Freedom of Expression) as the request of a journalist to access court documents explaining the acquittal of a former Minister of Internal Affairs was denied. The refusal limited the applicant’s ability to fulfil her journalistic duties on a matter of public interest. The Court held that the refusal was not necessary in a democratic society and that the state failed to provide effective remedies or consider less restrictive measures.
Impartiality and presumption of innocence
The case concerns a judge’s prior involvement in guilty pleas agreements. The presiding judge had accepted guilty plea agreements from two co-defendants before the applicant’s trial. The applicant argued that in doing so, the judge formed an opinion on his culpability before the start of the trial, thus violating the principle of judicial neutrality. Emphasizing the importance of principles related to impartiality and presumption of innocence, the Court ruled in the applicant’s favour, finding a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention.
Insufficient guarantees for Article 8 rights
In this case, the Court found a violation Article 8 (Right to Private Life). The application concerned a search of the applicant’s law firm and the seizure of his computer, carried out without a written search warrant and only on the basis of the prosecutor’s telephone consent. The computer, likely containing data subject to lawyer-client privilege, was returned to the applicant fifteen months after its seizure. The Court concluded that the applicant was not offered sufficient guarantees for his right to respect of his private life and home before or after the search-and-seizure operation. In this sense, the Court emphasized, inter alia, the lack of an immediate ex post factum judicial review of the lawfulness of searches, as well as the lack of domestic procedure ensuring the preservation of material unrelated to criminal proceedings and subject to legal professional privilege.
Excessive length of civil proceedings
In this case, the Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings. The Court emphasized that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute. The Court did not find any argument capable of justifying the length of the proceedings. As such, the Court held that in the present case the length of the proceedings was excessive and did not meet the ‘reasonable time’ requirement.
Legal recognition for same-sex marriage
In this case, the Court has found a violation of Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life). The case concerned a complaint over the non-registration in Poland of a same-sex marriage contracted abroad, despite the lack of another form of legal recognition and protection for the relationship. The Court held that Poland has overstepped its margin of appreciation and has failed to comply with its positive obligations to ensure a legal framework that recognizes and protects the same-sex union of the applicant. Furthermore, it emphasized that the public interests invoked by the Polish government do not prevail over the interest of the applicant to have his relationship recognized and protected by law.
