Council Decision (Euratom) 2021/390 of 20 February 2020 approving the conclusion, by the European Commission, of the Agreement between the European Atomic Energy Community and the Government of the Republic of India for research and development cooperation in the field of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy

Versions

1. 2020-02-20

Cited by

• Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Pitești (Romania) lodged on 24 November 2021 — MK (Case C-709/21) Notice · Grade B

  Does the principle of the independence of the judiciary, enshrined in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 2 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude a provision of national law, such as that contained in Article 148(2) of the Romanian Constitution, as interpreted by the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court, Romania) in Decision No 390/2021, according to which national courts have no jurisdiction to examine the conformity with EU law of a provision of national law that has been found to be constitu

• Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova (Romania) lodged on 14 July 2021 — RS (Case C-430/21) Notice · Grade B

  Does the principle of the independence of the judiciary, enshrined in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 2 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude a provision of national law, such as that contained in Article 148(2) of the Romanian Constitution, as interpreted by the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court, Romania) in Decision No 390/2021, according to which national courts have no jurisdiction to examine the conformity with EU law of a provision of national law that has been found to be constitu

• Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Piteşti (Romania) lodged on 5 January 2022 — EF, GH, IJ v KL (Case C-13/22) Notice · Grade B

  Does the principle of the independence of the judiciary, enshrined in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 2 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude a provision of national law, such as that contained in Article 148(2) of the Romanian Constitution, as interpreted by the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court, Romania) in Decision No 390/2021, according to which national courts no longer have jurisdiction to examine the conformity with EU law of a provision of national law that has been found to be c

• Opinion of Advocate General Collins delivered on 20 January 2022 Case C‑430/21 RS (Effect of the decisions of a constitutional court) (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova (Romania)) Opinion · Grade B

  In Decision No 390/2021, delivered on 8 June 2021, the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court) of Romania dismissed an objection that the provisions of national law on the establishment and functioning of the SIIJ were unconstitutional. The Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court) noted that in previous rulings it had held that the provisions in question were constitutional and stated that it saw no reason to depart from those rulings notwithstanding the judgment of the Court of Justice in Asociaţia Forumul Judecătorilor din România. The Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court)

• Opinion of Advocate General Collins delivered on 20 January 2022 Case C‑430/21 RS (Effect of the decisions of a constitutional court) (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova (Romania)) Opinion · Grade B

  The questions referred by the Curtea de Apel Craiova (Court of Appeal, Craiova) do not directly relate to the issue of the primacy of EU law or the legality pursuant to EU law of the establishment and functioning of the SIIJ. Rather they focus on the role of national courts in ensuring effective legal protection in the fields covered by EU law and the independence of the judiciary against the backdrop of the ruling of the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court) in Decision No 390/2021.

• Opinion of Advocate General Collins delivered on 20 January 2022 Case C‑430/21 RS (Effect of the decisions of a constitutional court) (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova (Romania)) Opinion · Grade B

  The referring court considers that, in order to reach a decision upon the complaint before it, it must analyse (i) the national legislation governing the establishment and functioning of the SIIJ, (ii) the criteria developed by the Court in the judgment in Asociaţia Forumul Judecătorilor din România for deciding whether or not the SIIJ operates in accordance with EU law and (iii) the effect on the establishment and functioning of the SIIJ of Decision No 390/2021, in which the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court) dismissed an objection of non-constitutionality directed at Articles 881

• Opinion of Advocate General Collins delivered on 20 January 2022 Case C‑430/21 RS (Effect of the decisions of a constitutional court) (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova (Romania)) Opinion · Grade B

  It appears from the extracts of Decision No 390/2021 reproduced by the referring court in its request for a preliminary ruling that the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court) acknowledged that, under Article 148 of the Romanian Constitution, which governs the relationship between national law and EU law, it must ensure the primacy of EU law. However, that primacy, or precedence, is not to be understood as excluding or negating the national constitutional identity, enshrined in Article 11(3) of the Constitution, read in conjunction with Article 152 thereof, which is a guarantee of the co

• Opinion of Advocate General Collins delivered on 20 January 2022 Case C‑430/21 RS (Effect of the decisions of a constitutional court) (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova (Romania)) Opinion · Grade B

  The referring court considers that it is required to choose between applying EU law as interpreted by the Court in the judgment in Asociaţia Forumul Judecătorilor din România and applying Decision No 390/2021. If the judge chooses to apply the judgment of the Court of Justice and to disapply Decision No 390/2021, he may be subject to disciplinary proceedings, in accordance with Article 99(ș) of Law No 303/2004, because failure to comply with a decision of the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court) constitutes a disciplinary offence. Such disciplinary proceedings could lead to the judge

• Opinion of Advocate General Collins delivered on 20 January 2022 Case C‑430/21 RS (Effect of the decisions of a constitutional court) (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova (Romania)) Opinion · Grade B

  Does the principle of the independence of the judiciary, enshrined in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 2 TEU and Article 47 of [the Charter], preclude a provision of national law, such as that contained in Article 148(2) of the Romanian Constitution, as interpreted by the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court) in Decision No 390/2021, according to which national courts have no jurisdiction to examine the conformity with EU law of a provision of national law that has been found to be constitutional by a decision of the Constitutional Court?

• Opinion of Advocate General Collins delivered on 20 January 2022 Case C‑430/21 RS (Effect of the decisions of a constitutional court) (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova (Romania)) Opinion · Grade B

  The referring court indicated that the need to make the present request for a preliminary ruling arose out of the conflict between Decision No 390/2021 of the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court) and the judgment in Asociaţia Forumul Judecătorilor din România and, in particular, from the need to ascertain whether when examining the complaint before it, the referring court may, in accordance with that judgment of the Court of Justice, examine the provisions relating to the establishment and functioning of the SIIJ in order to determine whether they are contrary to Article 2 and the sec

• Opinion of Advocate General Collins delivered on 20 January 2022 Case C‑430/21 RS (Effect of the decisions of a constitutional court) (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova (Romania)) Opinion · Grade B

  The Commission considered that the circumstances in the main proceedings can be distinguished from those giving rise to judgment of 26 March 2020, Miasto Łowicz and Prokurator Generalny (C‑558/18 and C‑563/18, EU:C:2020:234). First, in that case, the main proceedings were not connected to EU law and the national judges were not called on to apply EU law. By contrast, in the main proceedings under consideration here the national judge is being called on to apply the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, Decision 2006/928 and the judgment in Asociaţia Forumul Judecătorilor din România. Secon

• Opinion of Advocate General Collins delivered on 20 January 2022 Case C‑430/21 RS (Effect of the decisions of a constitutional court) (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova (Romania)) Opinion · Grade B

  By its first question, the referring court seeks in essence to ascertain whether the principle of the independence of the judiciary, enshrined in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 2 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter precludes a provision of national law, such as that contained in Article 148(2) of the Romanian Constitution as interpreted by the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court) in Decision No 390/2021, in accordance with which national courts have no jurisdiction to examine the conformity with EU law of a provision of national law that h

• Opinion of Advocate General Collins delivered on 20 January 2022 Case C‑430/21 RS (Effect of the decisions of a constitutional court) (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova (Romania)) Opinion · Grade B

  Without prejudging the examination of the substance of the first question of the referring court, it is evident that the ruling of the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court) in Decision No 390/2021 could lead the referring court to give a judgment contrary to EU law and, in particular, to the provisions referred to in that question, namely Article 2 and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter. I therefore consider that the first question is admissible.

• Opinion of Advocate General Collins delivered on 20 January 2022 Case C‑430/21 RS (Effect of the decisions of a constitutional court) (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova (Romania)) Opinion · Grade B

  Together with the Commission, I consider that the three questions referred for a preliminary ruling are intertwined and overlap with each other. All three questions concern the principle of the independence of the judiciary and the compatibility with EU law of national provisions, as interpreted by the national constitutional court, which prevent or hinder the application of EU law by the referring court, notably Article 2 and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter, as interpreted by the Court of Justice. Moreover, the connecting factor between the provision

• Opinion of Advocate General Collins delivered on 20 January 2022 Case C‑430/21 RS (Effect of the decisions of a constitutional court) (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova (Romania)) Opinion · Grade B

  I further consider that the admissibility of the more specific issue raised in the second and third questions of whether the judge(s) making the present preliminary reference may potentially be exposed to disciplinary proceedings pursuant to Article 99(ș) of Law No 303/2004 for applying the ruling in the judgment in Asociaţia Forumul Judecătorilor din România, or indeed the ruling which may ultimately be handed down by the Court in the present preliminary reference proceedings, rather than abiding by Decision No 390/2021 of the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court), is deeply intertwin

• Opinion of Advocate General Collins delivered on 20 January 2022 Case C‑430/21 RS (Effect of the decisions of a constitutional court) (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova (Romania)) Opinion · Grade B

  The Romanian Government indicated in its written observations that the two conditions laid down by the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court) in Decision No 390/2021 in order for EU law to have primacy over the Romanian Constitution are met in relation to the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU. Thus, according to that government, the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU is sufficiently clear, accurate and unequivocal and is of a certain level of constitutional relevance so that its regulatory content may substantiate any potential breach of the Constitution by national law. Wh

• Opinion of Advocate General Collins delivered on 20 January 2022 Case C‑430/21 RS (Effect of the decisions of a constitutional court) (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova (Romania)) Opinion · Grade B

  Prior to so doing, I would observe that the tenor of the ruling of the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court) in Decision No 390/2021 is such as to raise serious doubts about that court’s adherence to the essential principles of EU law as interpreted by the Court in the judgment in Asociaţia Forumul Judecătorilor din România. Moreover, the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court) did not request a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice under the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU in order to avert the risk of an incorrect interpretation of EU law.

• Opinion of Advocate General Collins delivered on 20 January 2022 Case C‑430/21 RS (Effect of the decisions of a constitutional court) (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova (Romania)) Opinion · Grade B

  Although the questions asked refer to the principle of the independence of the judiciary, there is no indication in the file before the Court that the independence of the referring court has in any way been compromised beyond the fetter placed by the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court) in Decision No 390/2021 and by Article 99(ș) of Law No 303/2004 on the application of EU law by the referring court. While the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU does not specifically refer to judicial independence, it is settled case-law that to ensure that bodies which may be called upon to rul

• Opinion of Advocate General Collins delivered on 20 January 2022 Case C‑430/21 RS (Effect of the decisions of a constitutional court) (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova (Romania)) Opinion · Grade B

  It also appears that, in accordance with Article 148(2) of the Romanian Constitution, as interpreted by the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court) in Decision No 390/2021, national courts may not examine the conformity with EU law of a provision of national law that has been found to be constitutional by a decision of the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court). Thus national law effectively bars the referring court from assessing whether the establishment and functioning of the SIIJ comply with EU law and, where necessary and appropriate, in accordance inter alia with the indicat

• Opinion of Advocate General Collins delivered on 20 January 2022 Case C‑430/21 RS (Effect of the decisions of a constitutional court) (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova (Romania)) Opinion · Grade B

  Amongst those prohibited external interventions or pressure are rulings of a national constitutional court, such as that of the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court) in Decision No 390/2021, which purports to prevent other national courts – acting within the jurisdiction granted to them under national law – to ensure the full application of EU law and the judicial protection of the rights of individuals thereunder.