Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Pitești (Romania) lodged on 6 May 2019 — Asociația ‘Forumul Judecătorilor din România’, Asociația ‘Mișcarea pentru Apărarea Statutului Procurorilor’ and OL v Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Procurorul General al României

(Case C-355/19)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Pitești

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Asociația ‘Forumul Judecătorilor din România’, Asociația ‘Mișcarea pentru Apărarea Statutului Procurorilor’ and OL

Defendant: Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Procurorul General al României

Questions referred

Must the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM) established by Commission Decision 2006/928/EC of 13 December 2006 1 be regarded as an act of an institution of the Union, within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU, which is amenable to interpretation by the Court of Justice of the European Union?

Do the terms, nature and duration of the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM) established by Commission Decision 2006/928/EC of 13 December 2006 fall within the scope of the Treaty concerning the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union, signed by Romania in Luxembourg on 25 April 2005? Are the requirements set out in the reports drawn up in the context of that mechanism binding on the Romanian State?

Must Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union be interpreted as meaning that the Member States are obliged to comply with the criteria of the rule of law, also requested in the reports drawn up in the context of the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM) established by Commission Decision 2006/928/EC of 13 December 2006, in the event of the creation, as a matter of urgency, of a section of the prosecutor’s office charged with the exclusive investigation of offences committed by members of the judiciary, which gives rise to particular concerns as regards the fight against corruption and may be used as an additional means of intimidating members of the judiciary and putting pressure on them?

Must the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union be interpreted as meaning that the Member States are obliged to adopt the necessary measures to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by EU law through the removal of any risk of political influence on criminal proceedings before certain judges, [in] the event of the creation, as a matter of urgency, of a section of the prosecutor’s office charged with the exclusive investigation of offences committed by members of the judiciary, which gives rise to particular concerns as regards the fight against corruption and may be used as an additional means of intimidating members of the judiciary and putting pressure on them?

____________

1 Commission Decision 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).