In the case of PT (agreement between the Prosecutor and the perpetrator of an offence) (C-432/22, 28.11.2024), the CJEU ruled on the compatibility with EU law of provisions of Bulgarian criminal procedure relating to plea-bargaining, i.e. a mechanism providing for the possibility to impose a more lenient penalty on an accused who pleads guilty.

In the main proceedings, 41 persons were accused of drug related offenses in one set of proceedings. Two of them entered into a plea-bargaining agreement with the Public Prosecutor.

The first question submitted to the CJEU by the referring court, a Specialised Criminal Court, related to a provision according to which it is for an ad hoc court, and not the court responsible for the case, to rule on an agreement for settlement of the case entered into by a defendant and the public prosecutor, where other defendants are also prosecuted in the same proceedings. The second question concerned a provision which, in criminal proceedings brought against several defendants on the basis that they had participated in the same organised criminal group, makes the judicial approval of an agreement for settlement of the case, entered into by one of the defendants and the public prosecutor, subject to the consent of all the other defendants.

The CJEU detected no incompatibilities between these provisions and EU law. In its opinion, the first of these provisions was justified by the need to preserve the impartiality of the trial court which will have to assess the guilt of the other defendants, whereas the second provision sought to preserve their rights of the defence.

What is particularly noteworthy about this case, from a Convention point of view, is the CJEU’s reasoning as regards its own jurisdiction.

In a first step, the CJEU indeed considered that the provisions of the Bulgarian Code of Criminal Procedure at stake in the present case did not come within the scope of the EU-Charter, because they did not constitute “implementation of Union law”, for the purposes of Article 51(1) of the EU-Charter, in respect of the relevant provisions of Framework Decisions 2004/757 (laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking) and 2008/841 (on the fight against organised crime).

In other words, in the absence of an EU law obligation to legislate on the settlement of criminal cases, at issue in the present case, there was no sufficient “degree of connection” between the relevant national and EU law provisions. Consequently, the CJEU did not have jurisdiction to answer the questions submitted by the referring court in so far as they concerned Article 5 of Framework Decision 2004/757, Article 4 of Framework Decision 2008/841, the first and second paragraphs of Article 47 and Article 52 of the Charter (§ 43).

Interestingly, however, the CJEU then decided to consider the case under the 2^nd subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, the provision which “gives concrete expression to the value of the rule of law affirmed in Article 2 TEU” and which to date has been mainly applied as enshrining the requirement of judicial independence, as e.g. in Inspecţia Judiciară. According to this provision, which has direct effect (§ 54), the Member States shall provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal protection “in the fields covered by Union law”.

In this connection, the CJEU recalled that the 2^nd subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU is intended, inter alia, to apply to any court or tribunal which can rule on questions concerning the interpretation or application of EU law and which therefore falls within the fields covered by that law, irrespective of any implementation of Union law (§§ 45-46). As this was the case with the referring court, the CJEU had jurisdiction, under that provision, to deal with the two first questions submitted by that court.

The CJEU then inferred from the 2^nd subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU some new and specific requirements concerning the impartiality of the courts and the rights of the defence in the context of plea-bargaining proceedings, which were considered as fulfilled by the Bulgarian provisions at stake.

Even more interesting, from a Convention perspective, is the link established by the CJEU between the 2^nd subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU and Articles 47, second paragraph, of the EU-Charter and 6 § 1 of the Convention. Considering that the principle of effective judicial protection was a general principle of EU law which was enshrined in the second paragraph of Article 47 of the EU-Charter, and considering that according to the Explanations relating to the EU-Charter, the second paragraph of Article 47 corresponds to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the CJEU indeed concluded that, pursuant to Article 52(3) of the EU-Charter, it had to ensure that its interpretation “in the present case” ensured a level of protection which did not disregard that guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, as interpreted by the ECtHR (§§ 51-52).

This would appear to be the first time the CJEU considers the Convention as a benchmark when applying Article 19(1) TEU (on the benchmark function of the Convention in EU law, see The Recent Luxembourg Case-Law on Procedural Rights in Criminal Proceedings and Benchmark function of the Convention stressed by the CJEU in Mirin and Real Madrid Club de Fútbol).

Not only does this approach serve to ensure consistency of the CJEU case-law with that of the ECtHR. It also allows the national judges applying this rather novel Luxembourg case-law to be satisfied that by doing so, they also comply with the Strasbourg case-law, in respect of which they can be held liable in an application before the ECtHR.

The “fields covered by Union law” are indeed not outside the “fields covered by the Convention”. As the ECtHR put it, inter alia in Bosphorus v. Ireland, § 153: “A Contracting Party is responsible under Article 1 of the Convention for all acts and omissions of its organs regardless of whether the act or omission in question was a consequence of domestic law or of the necessity to comply with international legal obligations. Article 1 makes no distinction as to the type of rule or measure concerned and does not exclude any part of a Contracting Party’s “jurisdiction” from scrutiny under the Convention”.

In the case of Tudmur (19.12.2024, joined cases C‑185/24 and C‑189/24) the CJEU ruled on the unilateral suspension by the Italian authorities of the transfer to Italy of asylum seekers under the Dublin III Regulation (“the Regulation”).

The referring court, a Higher German Administrative Court dealing with two applications for asylum for which Italy was responsible under the Regulation, was confronted with the decision by the Italian authorities to temporarily suspend all transfers of asylum seekers to Italy under that Regulation, because of the unavailability of reception facilities as a result of the high number of arrivals and the lack of available reception places. In that context, the referring court requested the CJEU to clarify the interpretation of the Regulation, notably as regards the existence of systemic flaws in Italy.

According to the CJEU, the fact that a Member State had unilaterally suspended the taking charge of asylum seekers was not capable, in itself, of justifying the finding of systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions for applicants for international protection, to the effect that the latter could not be transferred to the Member State responsible for the processing of the application for asylum.

However, it nonetheless remained for the referring court to assess whether the conditions for an exception to the transfer to Italy of the two asylum seekers concerned, as laid down in the 2^nd sub-paragraph of the Article 3(2) of the Regulation, were met. This will only be the case if, first, in the asylum procedure and the reception conditions of the Member State designated as responsible there are systemic flaws resulting in a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the EU-Charter and, secondly, if these systemic flaws result in a risk, for the person concerned, of being exposed to such a treatment (§§ 35-38).

Thus, systemic flaws precluding the transfer of an asylum seeker cannot be the result of a unilateral legal act by that Member State but are a factual circumstance the existence of which must be assessed “following a specific analysis based on information that is objective, reliable, specific and properly updated” (§ 40).

To this extent, the present case bears a striking resemblance with M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece which concerned the transfer under the Dublin Regulation (No. 343/2003/EC) of an Afghan asylum seeker by Belgium to Greece, where the asylum system had broken down, which resulted in the applicant living in the streets of Athens in a state of extreme material poverty and being exposed to a risk of refoulement. In that case, the ECtHR found several violations of the Convention, notably of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of ill-treatment), taken alone and in conjunction with Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), on account of the dire living conditions of the applicant in Athens and the serious flaws in the Greek asylum procedure.

With Italy refusing any more transfers because of a lack of reception places as a consequence of a massive influx of migrants, the asylum seekers in the present case, RL and QS, can hardly expect any better conditions than M.S.S. could expect in Greece. Yet the ECtHR’s approach in M.S.S. differs from Tudmur in at least three different respects: the scope of the problem, the test to be applied and the burden of proof.

The scope of the problem

As regards, first, the scope of the problem, it is to be noted that in M.S.S. the relevant risks to the fundamental rights of the applicant were not limited to the risk of finding himself in a state of extreme material poverty incompatible with human dignity, as seems to be the case in Tudmur (§ 37).

By contrast, the ECtHR found in M.S.S. a violation of Article 13 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 3, “because of the deficiencies in the Greek authorities’ examination of the applicant’s asylum request and the risk he faces of being returned directly or indirectly to his country of origin without any serious examination of the merits of his asylum application and without having access to an effective remedy” (§ 321).

A similar risk can hardly be ruled out in respect of RL and QS. It should therefore also be dealt with, at least under the Convention, by the referring court, provided of course that it has been raised by RL and QS. Strangely enough, though, the CJEU does not address that aspect of the situation, despite the wording of the 2^nd sub-paragraph of Article 3(2) of the Regulation and Article 47(1) of the EU-Charter which also protects the right to an effective remedy. Is this another illustration of the categorisation of fundamental rights under the Regulation (see Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Mutual trust in case of transfer)) ?

One can indeed easily imagine a situation whereby the reception conditions in the responsible Member State might not be such as to reach the point of extreme material poverty, while the flaws in the asylum procedure of that same State nonetheless represent a risk which is relevant under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention.

The test to be applied

Secondly, under the Convention the existence of “systemic flaws” is not a necessary pre-condition the absence of which precludes any finding as regards the individual risks incurred by a person subject to a transfer, as is the case under the Regulation (§§ 38-39). In other words, under the Convention any general assessment cannot represent an obstacle to the application of an individual test. Rather, widespread shortcomings – not necessarily “systemic flaws” – are only used by the ECtHR as evidence serving as a basis for an individualised finding concerning the risks incurred by the applicant, as illustrated by paragraph 255 of M.S.S.:

“The Court notes in the observations of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights and the UNHCR, as well as in the reports of non-governmental organisations (see paragraph 160 above) that the situation described by the applicant exists on a large scale and is the everyday lot of a large number of asylum-seekers with the same profile as that of the applicant. For this reason, the Court sees no reason to question the truth of the applicant’s allegations.”

Consequently, the absence of widespread shortcomings in the country of destination of a transfer does not dispense the ECtHR from inquiring about individual risks incurred by the person concerned, as recently confirmed in Khasanov and Rakhmanov v. Russia (§§ 95-101). Even where the application of a general test is mandatory under EU law, the ECtHR’s only determination is individualised, focussed on the personal situation of the applicant (see Bivolaru and Moldovan v. France). This is because by virtue of the right to individual petition (Article 34 of the Convention), any individual application requires an individual determination based on an individual assessment, regardless of the general circumstances.

Thus, under the Convention domestic judges are not dispensed from applying an individual test when applying the Dublin Regulation, there being no primacy of EU law over the Convention.

The burden of proof

Finally, on the burden of proof, paragraph 39 of the Tudmur ruling seems to suggest that it is for the asylum seeker to provide the initial evidence establishing the risks which he or she would incur in the event of a transfer to responsible Member State, whereupon the domestic courts “must take into consideration, on their own initiative, relevant information of which they are aware”. In this connection, it might be worth recalling the following well-established principles of the Strasbourg case-law, as reiterated in paragraphs 125-126 of F.G. v. Sweden:

“It is in principle for the person seeking international protection in a Contracting State to submit, as soon as possible, his claim for asylum with the reasons in support of it, and to adduce evidence capable of proving that there are substantial grounds for believing that deportation to his or her home country would entail a real and concrete risk of exposure to a life‑threatening situation covered by Article 2 or to treatment in breach of Article 3.However, in relation to asylum claims based on a well-known general risk, when information regarding such a risk is freely ascertainable from a wide number of sources, the obligations incumbent on the States under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention in expulsion cases entail that the authorities carry out an assessment of that risk of their own motion.” (emphasis added)

In F.G. v. Sweden, the failure by the authorities to inquire of their own motion about such well-known general risks concerning the applicant amounted to a breach of their procedural obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

Conclusion

On all three aspects addressed above, the Convention would appear to guarantee a higher level of protection for Dublin asylum seekers than the Regulation. In view of the obligation on domestic courts to apply EU law in compliance with the Convention (see M.B. v. the Netherlands), these courts should therefore preferably take the above aspects into account when applying Article 3(2), 2^nd sub-paragraph, of the Regulation, of course without prejudice to the application by them of Article 267 TFEU.

In this connection, it is clear that, as repeatedly indicated by the CJEU, the Convention not being part of EU law, the CJEU does not have jurisdiction to assess the compatibility of EU legislation with the Convention (see, among others, Åkerberg Fransson, § 44). One may however wonder whether Article 52(3), 1^st sentence, of the EU-Charter might not have the potential, if explicitly relied on in a referral request, to allow the CJEU to at least indirectly verify to what extent EU law complies with the minimum Convention protection level. Domestic courts might want to test this.

In what is still a rather rare occurrence in the Luxembourg jurisprudence, the benchmark function of the Convention (on this notion, as opposed to the toolbox function of the Convention, see Convention control over the application of Union Law by National Judges, p. 337) has been extensively relied on in the two following Grand Chamber rulings of the CJEU.

These rulings are rather remarkable when considered against the background of a recent internal study showing that over the period 2016–2024, as at 1 November 2024 only 55 references were found during these eight years which explicitly acknowledge the benchmark function of the Convention, as established by Article 52(3) of the EU-Charter. More specifically, 34 such references concern Articles 6 (fair trial) and 13 (effective remedy) of the Convention, while the remaining 21 are divided among the other provisions of the Convention. Such explicit references therefore look like a marginal phenomenon in the Luxembourg case law. By comparison, in 2023 alone, the CJEU, excluding the General Court, delivered 723 judgments. The future will tell whether the two judgments presented below mark a new trend or are simply another swallow not making a summer. It remains the case, though, that such references greatly facilitate the job of national judges by protecting them from breaching the Convention when applying EU law.

Mirin

In Mirin (C-4/23, 4.10.2024), the CJEU ruled on the recognition by a Member State of a change of first name and gender identity which had been lawfully acquired in another Member State.

The claimant in the main proceedings was a Romanian citizen who was registered in Romania as female and, during a stay in the United Kingdom, where that person acquired British nationality, changed his first name from female to male and obtained legal recognition of his male gender identity. Back in Romania, he asked for these changes of name and sex to be recorded in his birth certificate so as to reflect his male sex. However, the Romanian administrative authorities rejected his request, considering that he should start new proceedings for a change of gender identity before the Romanian courts. The CJEU considered this regime to go against Articles 20 and 21(1) TFEU, read in the light of Articles 7 and 45 of the EU-Charter.

In so doing, the CJEU amply relied on Strasbourg case-law, notably X and Y v. Romania, considered to set a minimum protection standard applicable also under EU law, by virtue of Article 52(3) of the EU-Charter. The CJEU indeed stated in paragraph 63 of its judgment:

In that regard, as is apparent from the Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights (OJ 2007 C 303, p. 17), in accordance with Article 52(3) of the Charter, the rights guaranteed in Article 7 thereof have the same meaning and the same scope as those guaranteed in Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, … the latter provision constituting a minimum threshold of protection (see, by analogy, judgment of 29 July 2024, Alchaster, C‑202/24, EU:C:2024:649, paragraph 92 and the case-law cited).

Noteworthy in this connection is also the fact that contrary to previous habits (as in W.Ż. or in Orde van Vlaamse Balies and Others), the CJEU here did not refer to the autonomy of EU law as limiting the effect of Article 52(3) of the EU-Charter. This would indeed appear to be the correct approach, since after acknowledging the importance of EU law autonomy, the EU legislature in the Explanations to that provision stated: “In any event, the level of protection afforded by the Charter may never be lower than that guaranteed by the ECHR”. To this extent, Article 52(3) of the Charter thus amounts to a self-imposed restriction to the autonomy of EU law.

As a result, the CJEU rightly read the relevant Strasbourg case-law as imposing, under Article 8 of the Convention (right to respect for private and family life), an obligation on States to provide for a clear and foreseeable procedure for legal recognition of gender identity which allows for a change of sex and thus of name and digital code, on official documents, in a quick, transparent and accessible manner (§ 66).

Against this background, the CJEU saw the absence in Romania of a procedure allowing for the legal recognition of a change of name and gender identity which had already been lawfully acquired in another Member State to stand in the way of an effective enjoyment of the right to free movement, as guaranteed by Articles 21 TFEU and 45 of the EU-Charter, read in the light of Article 7 of the EU-Charter (§ 68).

This approach, based on the requirements of the right to free movement, is very similar to the one adopted by the CJEU in cases which concerned the recognition in a Member State of a homosexual partnership lawfully established in another Member State, as in Coman and Others where the CJEU also relied on the Strasbourg case-law (see Different ways to the same goal: Strasbourg and Luxembourg on same-sex couples).

Consequently, the present ruling by the CJEU is subject to the same limitations as those which apply to its case-law on homosexual partnerships: as it is based on the right to free movement, it can only apply to persons who made use of that right and assert in one Member State a status lawfully acquired in another one. This is an essential difference ratione personae with the Strasbourg case-law.

In conclusion, there being an overlap between the Convention and EU law standards on this score, the application by national judges of EU law, as interpreted by the CJEU, entails no risks of a breach of the Convention. However, where the person concerned has not made use of his/her right to free movement, only the Convention will apply.

Real Madrid Club de Fútbol

In Real Madrid Club de Fútbol (C-633/22, 4.10.2024), the CJEU ruled on the use of the public policy clause to refuse the enforcement of a judgment, delivered by a court of another Member State, which gives rise to an infringement of the freedom of the press.

The case in the main proceedings concerned a considerable amount of damages (300 000 and 30 000 euros) imposed by a Spanish court on a French newspaper and one journalist for the harm done to the reputation of Real Madrid and Fútbol Club Barcelona by publishing an article suggesting that the latter had had recourse to doping.

Faced with a request to enforce that judgment based on the Brussels I Regulation (Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters), the French Court of cassation had doubts about the proportionality of these damages and turned to the CJEU for an answer on whether the public-policy exception provided for by Article 34(1) of that Regulation could be applied for this reason in the case at hand.

The CJEU first considered that in light of the principle of mutual trust, the refusal to enforce a judgment from another Member State should remain exceptional (§ 34). The public policy clause, laid down in Article 34(1) of the Regulation, could therefore be relied on to refuse such an enforcement “only where the recognition or enforcement of the judgment concerned in the Member State in which enforcement is sought would result in the manifest breach of a rule of law regarded as essential in the EU legal order or of a right recognised as being fundamental within that legal order and therefore in the legal order of that Member State” (§ 39).

The CJEU found this to be particularly the case when the enforcement of a judgment in the Member State concerned would give rise to a manifest breach of a fundamental right as enshrined in the EU-Charter. It therefore turned to Article 11 of the EU-Charter which protects freedom of expression and the freedom of the press, and examined the limitations to which these freedoms could be subjected.

In this context, the CJEU extensively referred, in paragraphs 52 to 65 of its judgment, with a rarely seen amount of details, to the ample and well-established Strasbourg case-law on the freedom of the press, particularly the case-law on the enhanced protection of political speech and speech on matters of public interest, thereby also illustrating the striking parallels with its own case-law. Here too, the CJEU did so after recalling that by virtue of Article 52(3) of the EU-Charter, the case-law of the ECtHR was to be considered the minimum threshold of protection under EU law (§ 52).

Interestingly, prior to relying on Article 52(3) of the EU-Charter, the CJEU also referred to the limitations which Article 52(1) of the EU-Charter allowed to be applied to Article 11. This shows that these two provisions are not mutually exclusive but complementary when Convention rights are involved.

On this basis, the CJUE concluded that the public policy clause should be applied, and the enforcement of the foreign judgment refused where it would give rise to a manifest breach of the freedom of the press. It was for the French domestic courts to assess whether, in the circumstances, this would be the case.

KUBERA (C-144/23, 15.10.2024) would appear to be the first case in which the CJEU imposed an obligation on a national court against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy (Art. 267(3) TFEU) to give reasons when rejecting the request by a party to the proceedings to make a reference for a preliminary ruling by the CJEU.

Admittedly, the procedural situation was a particular one, as it concerned proceedings before the Slovenian Supreme Court on an appeal on a point of law. Under the Slovenian Code of civil procedure, the Supreme Court is not required in this particular context to make a determination on whether it should grant a request by a party that a reference for a preliminary ruling by the CJEU be made. It can thus lawfully ignore that request. It is this approach with which the CJEU takes issue in the present ruling. It remains to be seen whether this case-law will be extended to other types of procedures in the future.

What is interesting about this novel move by the CJEU is its proximity with the well-established Strasbourg jurisprudence, according to which Article 6 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) requires any last instance court, within the meaning of Article 267(3) TFEU, which dismisses a request by a party to the proceedings that a reference for a preliminary ruling be made, to give reasons for its dismissal.

While the ECtHR, for lack of competence, does not itself assess the merits under Union law of the reasons thus given, it nonetheless must be satisfied that these reasons are built upon the relevant criteria as first set out in the Cilfit jurisprudence of the CJEU (for an overview of that Strasbourg case-law, see The obligation to give reasons for a refusal to make a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union; see also Georgiou v. Greece)

It is significant to note, in this respect, that in establishing this new rule, the CJEU refers to Article 267 TFEU, read in the light of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the EU-Charter, which is the “counterpart” in EU law of Article 6 of the Convention, protecting the right to a fair trial. This is another indication of the new similarity between the two approaches. What they ultimately have in common is an upgrading of the role of the parties to proceedings in the system of preliminary rulings by the CJEU. This is in contrast with the traditional Luxembourg view according to which no reasons are required in this context, as preliminary rulings are part of the system of cooperation between national courts and the CJEU, with no involvement of the parties to the main proceedings.

Both Courts also concur in requiring that the said reasons be given by reference to the Cilfit jurisprudence.

Some differences are to be noted, though. The first one concerns the justification of the respective approaches. While the Strasbourg approach is primarily dictated by the right to a fair trial, which requires courts to give reasons for their decisions, as an expression of the rule of law and a guarantee against arbitrariness, the Luxembourg approach is more system-oriented, i.e. intended to preserve the effectiveness of the system of preliminary rulings, as explained by the CJEU in the following terms:

“Such legislation or national practices can thus lead to a situation in which a question concerning the interpretation or validity of a provision of EU law, despite being raised by a party before the Vrhovno sodišče (Supreme Court) or having to be raised by that court in the light of the legal issue highlighted by that party and not being a question that is covered by the exceptions referred to in paragraph 36 above, would not be submitted to the Court of Justice, contrary to the obligation imposed on that national court by the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU.

Such a situation is capable of undermining the effectiveness of the system of cooperation between the national courts and tribunals and the Court of Justice established in Article 267 TFEU, and the achievement of the objectives which that article is intended to achieve, particularly that of preventing a body of national case-law that is not in accordance with the rules of EU law from being established in any of the Member States.” (§§ 45-46)

A second difference is perhaps the fact that the ECtHR does not require the same level of reasoning in all circumstances. The ECtHR indeed considers that where a request to obtain a preliminary ruling was insufficiently pleaded or where such a request was only formulated in broad or general terms, it is acceptable for national superior courts to dismiss the complaint by mere reference to the relevant legal provisions governing such complaints, if the matter raises no fundamentally important legal issue, or for lack of prospects of success, without dealing explicitly with the request (see, among others, Baydar v. the Netherlands, § 42).

What is now the bottom line of this for national judges? First of all, the case-law discussed above only applies to courts against whose decisions there is no domestic remedy, within the meaning of Article 267(3) TFEU. As far as these courts are concerned, they should, when rejecting a request for a preliminary ruling, always give reasons based on the Cilfit jurisprudence, so as to at least meet the Strasbourg standards which, however, are flexible as regards the level of reasoning required. As regards any Luxembourg standards, the future will tell if and how the CJEU case-law will develop in terms of its scope and its concrete requirements.

In the case of Stachev (C-15/24 PPU, 14.5.2024), the CJEU answered several questions raised by the Sofia District Court on the consequences to be drawn, under Directive 2013/48 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, from the waiver by an accused person of his right to legal assistance.

The case in the main proceedings concerned an illiterate person, CH, who was accused of robbery with violence. He signed a written statement to the effect that he did not wish to be defended by a lawyer of his choice or by a court-appointed lawyer. However, the consequences of that waiver had not been explained to him. After his arrest, during an interview by the police, he admitted participating in the commission of a robbery with violence. On this occasion, CH had been informed about his right not to incriminate himself and to refuse to give evidence, but the interview had taken place in the absence of a lawyer.

In the case at hand, the referring court, which also had jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the case (§ 29), was to decide only on the pre-trial detention of CH. The questions it submitted to the CJEU in this connection concerned the validity of the waiver by CH of his right to a lawyer and, in case the waiver would be invalid, the consequences to be drawn from his incriminating statements made without the assistance of a lawyer, i.e. in breach of Directive 2013/48.

Depending on the subject matter, the answers given by the CJEU would appear to both raise and lower the protection level ensured by the Convention in this area.

*              *              *

Strasbourg standard raised

The CJEU raised the Strasbourg protection level by applying Directive 2013/48 to proceedings for the judicial review of the lawfulness of a detention on remand, which under the Convention is governed by its Article 5. While Directive 2013/48 does not specify whether its scope, described in Article 2(1) as being criminal proceedings on the merits, also covers the judicial review of detentions on remand, the CJEU answers that question in the affirmative, relying notably on the Preamble to the Directive. Accordingly, the full range of requirements flowing from the right to a fair trial and the rights of the defence apply to the judicial review of detentions on remand (§§ 77, 88-91).

As a consequence, the rules concerning the waiver of the right to legal assistance, laid down in Art. 9 of Directive 2013/48, also apply to the proceedings on the lawfulness of the detention on remand in the case at hand, it being understood that regard is thereby to be had to the vulnerability of CH, in accordance with Art. 13 (§ 78).

This acknowledgment of a general right to legal assistance in proceedings for the judicial review of detentions on remand would appear to raise the Strasbourg protection level. It is indeed the case that the procedural guarantees under Article 5 of the Convention (right to liberty and security) are not necessarily the same as those provided for by Article 6 (right to a fair trial). As the ECtHR put it:

The requirement of procedural fairness under Article 5 § 4 does not impose a uniform, unvarying standard to be applied irrespective of the context, facts and circumstances. Although it is not always necessary that an Article 5 § 4 procedure be attended by the same guarantees as those required under Article 6 for criminal or civil litigation, it must have a judicial character and provide guarantees appropriate to the type of deprivation of liberty in question (A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], 2009, § 203; Idalov v. Russia [GC], 2012, § 161).

The ECtHR does not go any further than the consideration that in proceedings concerning the lawfulness of detention “it may also be essential that the individual concerned … should also have the effective assistance of his lawyer” (Cernák v. Slovakia, § 78).

Strasbourg standard lowered

By contrast, on the question how to handle incriminating statements which were made, after an invalid waiver, without the assistance or presence of a lawyer, the CJEU seems to be lowering the Strasbourg protection level, which is much more problematic.

The CJEU does so by relying on the test of the criminal proceedings considered as a whole when addressing the question of the inferences which a domestic court assessing the lawfulness of a detention on remand must draw from the fact that evidence has been gathered in disregard of the requirements of Directive 2013/48, i.e. in the absence of legal assistance. The CJEU indeed stated:

In accordance with the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, which, as stated in recitals 50 and 53 of Directive 2013/48, must be taken into account where a procedural defect has been identified, it is for the national courts to assess whether that procedural shortcoming has been remedied in the course of the ensuing proceedings. …   

Thus, in the event that evidence has been collected in disregard of the requirements of that directive, it must be determined whether, despite that lacuna, at the time of the decision to be taken by the court hearing the case, the criminal proceedings as a whole may be regarded as fair, taking into account a number of factors, including whether the statements taken in the absence of a lawyer are an integral or significant part of the probative evidence, as well as the strength of the other evidence in the file (see, by analogy, ECtHR, 13 September 2016, Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom, CE:ECHR:2016:0913JUD005054108, § 273 and 274). (§§ 96-97)

What is noteworthy here is the fact that while the CJEU refers to Strasbourg case-law in support of its approach, it would appear to misrepresent that case-law in a twofold way.

First, there is misrepresentation of the said case-law in the sense that it is being transposed by the CJEU to an area, the deprivation of liberty, where it is not applied by the ECtHR. The test of the proceedings as a whole is being applied by the ECtHR in the field of Article 6 of the Convention, to assess the fairness of proceedings on the merits. It is not applied when it comes to assessing under Article 5 § 4 the lawfulness of deprivations of liberty.

Under the latter provision, proceedings for the judicial review of the lawfulness of detentions, by reason of the intensity of the interference which detentions represent, are considered under a separate provision, i.e. autonomously, not as just another element of the proceedings on the merits to be assessed under Article 6 of the Convention.

Moreover, because exceptions to the general principle, laid down in Article 5, that everyone has the right to liberty must be interpreted strictly (Buzadji v. Moldova, § 84), they do not lend themselves to the application of the test of proceedings as a whole.

Thus, to nonetheless apply this test to the judicial review of a person’s detention amounts to a reduction of the level of protection afforded under Article 5 of the Convention.

But what the CJEU has in mind here when referring to that test is, as quoted above, the possibility for incriminating statements made by an accused in breach of his right to a lawyer to nonetheless be taken into account (“not disregarded”) by the judge deciding on the accused’s detention, because of other corroborating available evidence. Only evidence on which a party is not in a position to comment effectively should be excluded from the criminal proceedings (§ 98). This brings us to the second misrepresentation of the Strasbourg case-law in this ruling.

For even in the event that this evidentiary rule could be applied under Article 5 of the Convention, which is doubtful for the reasons explained above, it is also being stripped of an essential element to which the ECtHR attaches great importance.

According to the ECtHR’s well-established case-law relied on by the CJEU, notably Ibrahim and Others v. United Kingdom, the absence of a lawyer during the interrogations of a suspect or an accused person is acceptable only if there are compelling reasons justifying that absence. Failing such reasons, “the onus will be on the Government to demonstrate convincingly why, exceptionally and in the specific circumstances of the case, the overall fairness of the trial was not irretrievably prejudiced by the restriction on access to legal advice” (§ 265). In practical terms, there will be a rebuttable presumption that the proceedings as a whole were unfair.

Against the background of this case-law, to simply drop the assessment of whether there are compelling reasons for the absence of a lawyer (as also provided for by Article 3(6) of Directive 2013/48), and the procedural consequences to be drawn from this assessment, is a misrepresentation lowering the protection level of the Strasbourg case-law on criminal proceedings on the merits which, it is erroneously suggested, can be transposed to proceedings for the judicial review of detentions. This is not just the application of Strasbourg case-law “by analogy”. This is a selective reading of that case-law.

On the contrary, this approach is raising a problem in terms of compliance with Art. 14 of the Directive and its Recitals 50 and 53, in addition to Articles 6 and 52(3) of the EU-Charter, which all require the EU protection level not to fall below the Strasbourg protection level.

For a recent Strasbourg case on an unvalid waiver of the right to legal assistance and its consequences under the Convention, see Bogdan v. Ukraine.

*              *              *

In light of the above, the question arises what lawyers should plead and what national judges should decide in proceedings for the judicial review of detentions on remand, where the Convention and EU law go different ways.

Given the obligation to apply EU law in compliance with the Convention (Bivolaru and Moldovan v. France, § 103; M.B. v. the Netherlands) and the legal possibility for the Strasbourg protection standard to be raised by EU law (Art. 52(3) of the EU-Charter and Art. 53 of the Convention), lawyers and judges should go for the higher of the two standards, thereby differentiating between the issues.

This means, in concrete terms, that they should go for Directive 2013/48 whenever it sets a higher standard, but that they should go for the Strasbourg standard when the issue is about incriminating statements made without the assistance of a lawyer. This is of course without prejudice to any obligations on domestic courts under Article 267 TFEU.

In the case of Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Mutual trust in case of transfer) (C-392/22, 29.2.2024), the CJEU ruled on whether a practice of pushbacks and detention at the border of a Member State which, under the Dublin III Regulation (No 604/2013), is responsible for the examination of an application for international protection, precludes the transfer of the applicant to that Member State.

In the case at hand pending before the Dutch courts, a Syrian national who had made an application for international protection in Poland, followed by another one in the Netherlands, challenged the request by the Dutch authorities for the Polish authorities to take back the applicant, pursuant to Article 18(1)(b) of the Dublin III Regulation.

The referring court interrogated the CJEU on whether such a take back could at all be requested, despite “objective, reliable, specific and properly updated information [showing] that the Republic of Poland has, for a number of years, systematically infringed a number of fundamental rights of third-country nationals by subjecting them to pushbacks [to Belarus], regularly accompanied by the use of violence, and by systematically detaining, in what are described as ‘appalling’ conditions, third-country nationals who enter its territory illegally.” (§ 20)

*              *              *

In substance, the CJEU answered that the transfer of a third-country national to the Member State responsible for examining his or her application for international protection is precluded only if there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would, during his or her transfer or thereafter, face a real risk of being subjected to pushbacks and detentions, and that those practices are capable of placing that third-country national in so grave a situation of extreme material poverty that it may be equated with the inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article 4 of the EU-Charter.

In its reasoning, the CJEU first recalled the requirements of mutual trust between the Member States and explained why pushbacks as well as detention for the sole reason that a person is seeking international protection are contrary to EU law, notably Directives 2013/32 and 2013/33.

It then stated that while such practices constitute “serious flaws” in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions for applicants, only “systemic flaws resulting in a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter make [the transfer of the person concerned] impossible”, those two conditions being cumulative (§§ 57-58). Article 3(2), second sub-paragraph, of the Dublin III Regulation, indeed reads:

“Where it is impossible to transfer an applicant to the Member State primarily designated as responsible because there are substantial grounds for believing that there are systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions for applicants in that Member State, resulting in a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the [Charter], the determining Member State shall continue to examine the criteria set out in Chapter III in order to establish whether another Member State can be designated as responsible.“

Thus, the CJEU seems to interpret this provision not as an illustration of the kind of scenarios which could render such a transfer “impossible” but as limiting them to those which would entail a risk that Article 4 of the EU-Charter be breached because of “systemic flaws” in the Member State primarily designated as responsible for the examination of an application .

As to what constitutes inhuman or degrading treatment in this context, the CJEU referred to practices of pushback and detention which would be such as to expose the person concerned “to a situation of extreme material poverty that would not allow him to meet his most basic needs, such as, inter alia, food, personal hygiene and a place to live, and that would undermine his physical or mental health or put him in a state of degradation incompatible with human dignity, placing him in a situation of such gravity that it may be equated with inhuman or degrading treatment”. (§ 63) This definition seems to draw on M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, §§ 253-264, which concerned the take back of a homeless applicant for international protection who, however, was never made the subject of any detention.

*              *              *

This approach would appear to significantly restrict the effect of fundamental rights of migrants at the border with third countries, when compared with the Convention case-law. For at least two reasons.

1. First, because Article 3(2), second sub-paragraph, of the Dublin III Regulation, as interpreted by the CJEU, seems to limit the categories of risks precluding the take back of an applicant for international protection to risks of a breach of Article 4 of the EU-Charter. Risks of a breach of any other of an applicant’s fundamental rights seem to be irrelevant in this context.

Even detention by the local authorities at the border, which is one of the risks alleged by the applicant in the case at hand, would appear to have no chance of being considered relevant if it is not giving rise to ill-treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the EU-Charter. This might also be the reason why the CJEU does not address the issue of arbitrary detentions as such but only as part of pushbacks exposing applicants to a situation of extreme material poverty (§ 63). The individual guarantees, which the CJEU suggests could be asked, seem limited to ill-treatment too (§ 80).

This approach seems to be ignoring the fact that several other fundamental rights issues can arise in the context of such pushbacks, as illustrated, inter alia, by Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary and N.D. and N.T. v. Spain. Only recently was the case of C.O.C.G. and Others v. Lithuania, concerning pushbacks at the Lithuanian border with Belarus, brought before the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR for a determination of whether Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of ill-treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 34 (right to individual petition) of the Convention, as well as Article 4 of Protocol No 4 (prohibition of collective expulsions) have been breached.

Given that, in addition to Article 3, Articles 2, 5 and 13 of the Convention, and 4 of Protocol No 4, have also found their way into the EU-Charter, i.e. in Articles 2, 6, 47(1) and 19(1) respectively, and in light of Article 52(3) of that same EU-Charter, one may wonder whether the Dublin III Regulation can legally restrict the impact of that Charter on the practices described above, to the extent that they come within the scope of EU law (Art. 51(1) of the EU-Charter). Thus, here too, EU law seems to be creating two different categories of fundamental rights, depending on their capacity to be invoked under the Dublin III Regulation, even though Recital 39 of the Preamble of that same Regulation states in its first sentence: “This Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles which are acknowledged, in particular, in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.”

2. Secondly, to the extent that a complaint can be considered relevant under the Dublin III Regulation because it genuinely relates to Article 4 of the EU-Charter, it will be confronted with another restriction to the effect that the only abuses at the State border which that complaint will be capable of preventing are systemic flaws which “concern, generally, the asylum procedure and the reception conditions applicable to applicants for international protection or, at the very least, … certain groups of applicant for international protection as a whole, such as the group of persons seeking international protection after crossing or having attempted to cross the border between Poland and Belarus.” (§ 59)

Thus, the CJEU drew here on the two-step methodology which it developed in the field of the European arrest warrant. It requires the existence of systemic or generalised deficiencies in the issuing Member State as a pre-condition to any individual assessment of the risks incurred by the person concerned (e.g. in GN). One may wonder whether, by requiring such systemic or generalised flaws, this approach does not come down to replacing risk by certainty as a condition for the protection of a person’s fundamental rights in the context of a transfer. In any event, it considerably increases the burden of proof to be discharged by the person concerned.

This seems in contrast with the approach adopted in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, in which the ECtHR, while taking note of the fact that the very poor situation in which the applicant found himself in Greece existed “on a large scale” (§ 255), did not require it to be in any way “systemic” or “generalised”, and even less made the individual assessment of whether the applicant’s fundamental rights had been complied with hinging on such a preliminary finding. In other words, this finding served merely as evidence in support of an individual assessment, not as a pre-condition to the latter.

*              *              *

How should national courts handle these different levels of protection between Luxembourg and Strasbourg? Since the Convention is the mandatory minimum protection level governing also the application of EU law by the courts of the Member States, and in light of Article 52(3) of the EU-Charter, it would appear that in the face of such differences, like in the present case, national judges should, wherever EU law falls below the Convention level, apply the latter, without prejudice to their possibility to consult the CJEU under Art. 267 TFEU. Failure to apply a higher Convention standard indeed entails the risk of seeing the final domestic judgment in the case successfully challenged before the ECtHR, as in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece and, mutatis mutandis, Bivolaru and Moldovan v. France or M.B. v. the Netherlands. In other words, a wholistic approach is called for here.

In the case of Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa (C-718/21, 21.12.2023), a Grand Chamber of the CJEU ruled that a request for a preliminary ruling from the Polish Supreme Court (Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs, “the CECPA”) was inadmissible, on account of the fact that the panel of judges of the CECPA which submitted that request was not an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law for the purposes of the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in the light of Article 47 of the EU-Charter. This was because of the procedure which had led to the appointment of the three judges composing that panel. Consequently, it did not constitute a “court or tribunal” within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU.

The CJEU insisted that it is alone responsible for interpreting EU law and must consider the issue in the light of its own case-law (§§ 40, 46 and 58). At the same time, it amply relied in its reasoning on the judgment of the ECtHR in the case of Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v. Poland, which concerned the dismissal by the CECPA of the appeals against resolutions of the National Council of the Judiciary (“the NCJ”, referred to as the “KRS” by the CJEU) on the non-recommendation of judges to posts at higher courts. It also referred to the judgment of the Polish Supreme Administrative Court of 21 September 2021, which had annulled Resolution No 331/2018 proposing the appointment of some of the judges of the CECPA.

What is noteworthy about this ruling is, first, the convergence between Strasbourg and Luxembourg in considering that the CECPA is not a “tribunal established by law”. According to both European Courts, this is because members of the CECPA were appointed following a procedure characterised by undue influence of the legislative and executive powers on the appointment of judges: the recommendation of candidates for judicial appointment to the CECPA was entrusted to the NCJ, a body that lacked sufficient guarantees of independence from the legislature and the executive. In addition, and in breach of the rule of law and the separation of powers, the members of the CECPA had been appointed by the President of the Republic in spite of a stay of execution which had been decided by the Supreme Administrative Court pending its examination of the lawfulness of the Resolution which had recommended the appointment of the judges concerned. The ECtHR called this an act of “utter disregard for the authority, independence and role of the judiciary” (§ 330).

The importance of that convergence between the two European Courts on principles as fundamental for democratic societies as the rule of law and judicial independence can hardly be overestimated.

Some differences between the reasoning of the ECtHR and the CJEU on these issues should however be noted. The first one relates to the concepts being relied on by the two Courts. In Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek the ECtHR considered the two main shortcomings mentioned above, i.e. the nomination by a non-independent body and the appointment by the President of the Republic in disregard of a court order, to be sufficiently serious, as such, to impair the very essence of the applicant’s right to a “tribunal established by law” (§ 350).

By contrast, the CJEU saw the problem more as one concerning appearances of independence and impartiality and “reasonable doubts in the minds of individuals as to the imperviousness of the persons concerned and the panel in which they sit with regard to external factors, in particular the direct or indirect influence of the national legislature and executive and their neutrality with respect to the interests before them” (§ 61, 62, 68 and 77).

The explanation for this reliance by the CJEU on appearances and doubts, rather than on the “very essence” of the right to a tribunal, may be found in the fact that here independence and impartiality are considered together by the CJEU, impartiality being the concept for the assessment of which the ECtHR itself relies on appearances and reasonable doubts (e.g. in Morice v. France, §§ 76-78). While there is of course a link between these two notions (see Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek, §§ 315-316), they nonetheless cover different requirements.

However that may be, one may wonder whether the massive interference of the legislative and executive powers in the appointment of judges, as described in the case at hand, is only a problem of appearances and doubts, or whether it affects the substance of the rights concerned, leaving no room for any possible doubts or mere appearances. In other words, the problem should perhaps not be reduced to one of mere appearances and doubts. Rather, as indicated by the ECtHR, it goes to the heart of the rule of law, the separation of powers and judicial independence. These principles do not only appear to have been ignored in the case at hand. Rather, they were actually disregarded and therefore the very essence of judicial independence was genuinely affected.

Secondly, while the ECtHR saw the two main shortcomings mentioned above, in addition to the absence of adequate legal remedies, as sufficient to support its conclusion of a violation of the right to a tribunal established by law, the CJEU relied on several additional circumstances, such as the extent of the jurisdiction of the CECPA, the adoption by the Polish legislature of a new law limiting the possibility to challenge decisions by the NCJ,  or the annulment by the Supreme Administrative Court of Resolution No 331/2018 (§§ 65-76).

This could be interpreted as suggesting that under EU law the two main shortcomings identified by the ECtHR are not sufficient and require the combination of all mentioned additional circumstances to lead to a conclusion of incompatibility with Article 19(2), second sub-paragraph, TEU, read in the light of Article 47 of the EU-Charter. This, in turn, could be seen as offering a lesser protection of the right to a tribunal established by law.

Should this be the case, and in view of the fact that the Convention represents in this field the minimum protection standard also applicable under EU law (Art. 52(3) of the EU-Charter), the circumstances listed in Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek should be considered sufficient to deny a national court the status of a “tribunal established by law”.