- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-817/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 21 December 2021 — R.I. v Inspecția Judiciară, N.L.
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021CN0817
62021CN0817
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
19.4.2022
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 165/25
(Case C-817/21)
(2022/C 165/32)
Language of the case: Romanian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellant: R.I.
Respondents: Inspecția Judiciară, N.L.
Question referred
Must Article 2 and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, Decision 2006/928 (establishing a mechanism for cooperation and verification of progress in Romania to address specific benchmarks in the areas of judicial reform and the fight against corruption), (1) and the guarantees of independence and impartiality imposed under EU law, be interpreted as precluding national legislation which allows the chief inspector of the Judicial Inspectorate to issue administrative acts of a normative nature (subordinate to the law) and/or an individual nature by which he or she decides autonomously on the organisation of the institutional framework of the Judicial Inspectorate for the selection of judicial inspectors and the assessment of their activity, the conduct of the inspection activities, and the appointment of the deputy chief inspector, where, under organic law, those persons alone may carry out, approve or reject acts of disciplinary investigation in respect of the chief inspector?
Commission Decision 2006/928 of 13 December 2006 establishing a mechanism for cooperation and verification of progress in Romania to address specific benchmarks in the areas of judicial reform and the fight against corruption (OJ 2006 L 354, p. 56).