A few weeks ago we learned of the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to declare the controversial judicial reform carried out by the Polish government contrary to Union law . As you will remember, the reason for the judicial procedure initiated by the European Commission (EC), after the request made to the government to rectify was ineffective, was to challenge the decision of the Polish government, led by the Law and Justice party, to reduce years the retirement age of the judges of the Supreme Court.
The Commission considered in its appeal that this reform violated the effective judicial protection and independence of the Supreme Court , and specifically, art. of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), in relation to art. of the Charter of Funda Latvia WhatsApp Number List mental Rights of the European Union. Along with the demand, the Commission requested provisional measures , requesting the precautionary suspension of the application of the articles of the reform denounced, as well as the adoption of measures so that the affected judges could continue in the exercise of their functions, and abstaining from appointing new judges to the Supreme Court, nor a new president. The requested measures were estimated by the CJEU on -- provisionally, and definitively, on --, as I already mentioned in this article .
Regarding the appeal, which, incidentally, Hungary joined in support of Poland's claims, the Polish government alleged that the appeal had become pointless , since the challenged laws had been repealed and all their effects eliminated, by modifying the rule that was approved on --, curiously after the CJEU estimated the provisional measures requested by the EC. The Commission maintained the appeal, and the CJEU itself reminded Poland that non-compliance must be appreciated at the time of the end of the period granted by the EC in the reasoned opinion sent to the supposedly non-compliant country, urging it to adopt the necessary measures to comply with it, the which, in the present case, occurred on --, not taking into account subsequent changes. For the Court, it is proven that on said date, the challenged regulations were still in force, so the judicial procedure had to continue .