Judgment_paragraph 53 · Criminal proceedings against YR and Others (C-16/24)

53In that regard, it should be noted that the possibility of verifying compliance with the guarantees attached to the concept of a ‘tribunal previously established by law’, within the meaning specified in paragraph 47 above, is necessary for the confidence which the courts in a democratic society must inspire in those subject to their jurisdiction. Thus, reviewing compliance with the requirement that every court, as composed, must constitute an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law is an essential procedural requirement, compliance with which is a matter of public policy (see, to that effect, judgment of 1 July 2008, Chronopost and La Poste v UFEX and Others, C‑341/06 P and C‑342/06 P, EU:C:2008:375, paragraph 46 and of 8 May 2024, Asociaţia ‘Forumul Judecătorilor din România’ (Associations of judges), C‑53/23, EU:C:2024:388, paragraph 55 and the case-law cited). The Court has held that such a review must be made in the examination of an action, where necessary of its own motion, where a serious doubt arises on that point (see, to that effect, judgment of 26 March 2020, Review Simpson v Council and HG v Commission, C‑542/18 RX-II and C‑543/18 RX-II, EU:C:2020:232, paragraphs 57 and 58).

Criminal proceedings against YR and Others (C-16/24)

Key facts

Connections

History · 1 version