This article delves into the critical legal questions addressed by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Case C-430/21, concerning the relationship between national constitutional courts and ordinary courts within the EU legal framework, with a particular focus on judicial independence and the principle of EU law primacy. The case, initiated by RS, a Romanian citizen, challenges national legislation that could undermine the authority of EU law and the independence of national judges when applying it. This analysis is crucial for understanding the balance of power within EU member states’ legal systems and the overarching reach of EU law, especially in countries like Romania navigating their integration with European norms.
Background to the Case: RS’s Challenge and the Romanian Legal Context
The request for a preliminary ruling originated from the Curtea de Apel Craiova (Court of Appeal, Craiova, Romania) in the context of an action brought by RS. RS was contesting the duration of criminal proceedings against him. However, the core of the issue escalated to the broader question of judicial authority and the application of EU law within Romania, particularly concerning the Secția pentru Investigarea Infracțiunilor din Justiție (Section for the investigation of offences committed within the judicial system – SIIJ). This specialized section, and its governing legislation, became the focal point of the legal debate, especially in light of previous CJEU rulings on its compatibility with EU law.
The Romanian Constitution, specifically Article 148, acknowledges the primacy of EU law. However, the Romanian Constitutional Court (Curtea Constituțională) issued Judgment No 390/2021, asserting the supremacy of the Romanian Constitution and limiting the jurisdiction of ordinary courts to examine the constitutionality of national provisions already deemed constitutional by the Constitutional Court. This created a conflict with established EU law principles, particularly after the CJEU’s judgment in Asociaţia Forumul Judecătorilor din România and Others (C-83/19 and others), which raised concerns about the SIIJ’s potential to undermine judicial independence.
Key Questions Referred to the CJEU: Independence vs. Constitutional Court Authority
The Curtea de Apel Craiova sought clarification from the CJEU on three key questions, fundamentally asking whether EU law principles of judicial independence preclude national rules that:
- Prevent ordinary courts from examining the compatibility of national law with EU law if the Constitutional Court has already declared the national law constitutional. This question directly challenges the extent to which a national Constitutional Court can restrict the application of EU law by ordinary courts.
- Allow disciplinary proceedings against judges for failing to comply with Constitutional Court decisions, even when those decisions conflict with EU law primacy. This question addresses the chilling effect of disciplinary measures on judicial independence and the willingness of judges to apply EU law.
- Establish a national judicial practice that deters judges from applying CJEU case law due to fear of disciplinary action. This question probes the practical implications of the national legal framework on the ground and its impact on the uniform application of EU law.
These questions are not merely academic. They touch upon the heart of the EU legal order, where uniform application and the primacy of EU law are paramount. The involvement of RS in this case, though initially about procedural duration, became a vehicle to address these fundamental systemic issues within the Romanian judiciary and its relationship with EU law.
CJEU’s Grand Chamber Judgment: Affirming EU Law Primacy and Judicial Independence
The CJEU, in its Grand Chamber judgment, unequivocally affirmed the primacy of EU law and the necessity of judicial independence for the effective functioning of the EU legal system. It addressed each question with a clear stance:
Question 1: Jurisdiction to Examine EU Law Compatibility
The Court ruled that EU law precludes national rules or practices that prevent ordinary courts from examining the compatibility of national legislation with EU law, even if the Constitutional Court has deemed the legislation constitutional under national law. The CJEU reiterated the foundational principle of EU law primacy, stemming from landmark cases like van Gend & Loos and Costa v ENEL. It emphasized that Member States have limited their sovereign rights in areas governed by EU law and cannot allow national law, even constitutional provisions, to undermine the unity and effectiveness of EU law. The Court stressed that national courts must have the power to disapply national rules conflicting with directly effective EU law, a power integral to judicial independence under Article 19(1) TEU.
Question 2 & 3: Disciplinary Liability and Judicial Practice
Addressing the second and third questions together, the CJEU held that EU law precludes national rules or practices allowing disciplinary action against judges for applying EU law as interpreted by the CJEU, even if it means departing from Constitutional Court case law incompatible with EU law primacy. While acknowledging that disciplinary measures can be legitimate in cases of deliberate misconduct or gross negligence, the Court underscored that judicial independence would be severely compromised if judges faced disciplinary action for simply applying EU law or seeking preliminary rulings from the CJEU under Article 267 TFEU. Such a system would create undue pressure and undermine the uniform application of EU law across Member States. The CJEU emphasized that the preliminary ruling mechanism is a cornerstone of the EU judicial system, designed to ensure uniform interpretation and application of EU law, and national practices must not deter national judges from utilizing it.
Implications of the Judgment: Reinforcing EU Legal Order
The CJEU’s judgment in Case C-430/21 reinforces the fundamental principles of the EU legal order: the primacy of EU law and the necessity of independent national courts to ensure its effective application. It clarifies that national constitutional courts cannot override the authority of EU law or restrict the power of ordinary national courts to apply EU law, including disapplying conflicting national provisions. Furthermore, it protects judicial independence by prohibiting disciplinary measures against judges for upholding EU law, even when it diverges from national constitutional interpretations.
For Romania, and potentially other Member States facing similar tensions between national constitutional identity and EU legal integration, this judgment serves as a strong reminder of the binding nature of EU law and the obligations of all national bodies, including constitutional courts, to uphold it. The case initiated by RS, therefore, has far-reaching consequences, affirming the EU’s commitment to a unified legal space where EU law prevails and judicial independence is safeguarded. This is crucial for maintaining the rule of law within the EU and ensuring consistent application of European standards across all member states, impacting areas from fundamental rights to economic regulations.
