Emergency procedure at European Court of Justice for Romania’s question: Are MCV recommendations mandatory?

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has decided that Bihor Court’s request to be discussed under the emergency procedure, which is a first, as in the case of all the other complaints made by other courts in Romania an accelerated procedure has been decided.

The difference between the two is that the emergency procedure takes about three months, instead of six, in case of the accelerated procedure.

Several Romanian courts have asked the CJEU to explain whether Romania is required to comply with the recommendations from the reports regarding the European Commission’s Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (MCV).

Olt County Court, for example, submitted a similar request following the Romanian Judges Forum’s request.

Four questions addressed to the Court of Justice of the European Union:

1. Should the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (MCV), established by the EC Decision 2006/928/EC issued on December 13, 2006, be considered as an act adopted by an institution of the European Union within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU which may be under the interpretation of the Court of Justice of the European Union?
2. Do the content, character and temporal extent of the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (MCV), established by Decision 2006/928/EC on December 13, 2006, fall within the Treaty of EU accession concerning the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania, which Romania signed in Luxembourg on April 25, 2005? Are requirements mentioned in the reports drawn up under this mechanism binding on the Romanian state?
3. Should the second paragraph of Article 19 (1) of the Treaty on European Union be interpreted as requiring member states to establish the necessary measures for an effective legal protection in the areas covered by the European Union law, namely guarantees for an independent disciplinary procedure for Romanian judges, which removes any risk related to the political influence on conducting disciplinary procedures, such as the direct appointment by the Government of the Judicial Inspection, even on a provisional basis?
4. Should article 2 of the Treaty on European Union be interpreted as meaning that member states are required to comply with the rule of law criteria, also required in the reports under the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (MCV) established by the European Commission’s Decision 2006/928/EC issued on December 13, 2006, in the case of procedures for direct appointment by the Government of the Judicial Inspection management, even on a provisional basis?