Background
Several individuals sued Romania’s Ministry of Finance in the Regional Court, Bucharest, seeking compensation equal to the difference between the salary entitlements they had received and the maximum entitlements paid to employees of other public authorities performing similar duties.
While the case was pending, Romania adopted Government Emergency Order No 62/2024. For specified disputes involving public-sector remuneration and social-security benefits, the order requires a court that identifies a necessary point of law not previously decided by the High Court of Cassation and Justice to stay the case and refer that point to the High Court. Courts hearing similar cases must await the High Court’s decision. The Regional Court asked whether that arrangement impaired judicial independence contrary to the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in light of Article 47 of the Charter.
The Court’s Holding
The Court held that Article 19(1) TEU, read in light of Article 47 of the Charter, does not preclude the Romanian procedure. The referring court itself must identify and explain the novel point of law and its necessity to the dispute. The High Court decides only the abstract question of legal interpretation, while the referring court retains exclusive responsibility for applying the law and resolving the case. The procedure also uses criteria fixed in advance and permits the parties to present their views.
The Court found that requiring referral and suspension may legitimately promote legal certainty and prevent conflicting judgments. Its conclusion is subject to Article 267 TFEU: the procedure may not prevent national courts from referring EU-law questions to the CJEU before or after the High Court’s decision, and a lower court cannot be bound by the High Court’s interpretation if the lower court considers it inconsistent with EU law as interpreted by the CJEU. The High Court’s procedure must likewise be interpreted, so far as national law permits, to allow it to seek a CJEU preliminary ruling. The Court lacked jurisdiction to decide whether the emergency order complied with Romania’s Constitution.
Key Takeaways
- EU judicial-independence guarantees do not generally bar a mandatory procedure under which lower courts refer unresolved legal questions to a national supreme court.
- The procedure was permissible because the referring court identifies the relevant question and retains authority to apply the resulting interpretation and decide the dispute.
- Any national harmonisation mechanism must preserve every court’s powers and obligations under Article 267 TFEU, including the ability to seek a CJEU ruling.
Why It Matters
The judgment confirms that Member States have substantial latitude to centralise the resolution of novel legal questions in order to secure consistent case law, even for selected categories of disputes, without necessarily compromising judicial independence or access to a tribunal established by law.
That latitude has a firm EU-law boundary: national supreme-court guidance cannot displace the preliminary-ruling relationship between national courts and the CJEU or require a lower court to follow an interpretation that conflicts with controlling EU law.