implement fully the judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal of 3 and 9 December 2015. These require that the three judges that were lawfully nominated in October 2015 by the previous legislature can take up their function of judge in the Constitutional Tribunal, and that the three judges nominated by the new legislature without a valid legal basis do not take up the post of judge without being validly elected; publish and implement fully the judgment of 9 March 2016 of the Constitutional Tribunal, as well as all subsequent judgments and ensure that the publication of future judgments is automatic and does not depend on any decision of ...[+++]the executive or legislative powers; ensure that any reform of the Law on the Constitutional Tribunal respects the judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal, including the judgments of 3 and 9 December 2015 and the judgment of 9 March 2016, and takes the Opinion of the Venice Commission fully into account; ensure that the effectiveness of the Constitutional Tribunal as a guarantor of the Constitution is not undermined by requirements, whether separately or through their combined effect; ensure that the Constitutional Tribunal can review the compatibility of the new law adopted on 22 July 2016 on the Constitutional Tribunal before its entry into force and publish and implement fully the judgment of the Tribunal in that respect; refrain from actions and public statements which could undermine the legitimacy and efficiency of the Constitutional Tribunal.

respects and fully implements the judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal of 3 and 9 December 2015. These require that the three judges that were lawfully nominated in October 2015 by the previous legislature can take up their function of judge in the Constitutional Tribunal, and that the three judges nominated by the new legislature without a valid legal basis do not take up the post of judge without being validly elected; publishes and implements fully the judgment of 9 March 2016 of the Constitutional Tribunal, as well as all subsequent judgments, and ensures that the publication of future judgements is automatic and does not depend ...[+++] on any decision of the executive or legislative powers ; ensures that any reform of the Law on the Constitutional Tribunal respects the judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal, including the judgments of 3 and 9 December 2015 and the judgment of 9 March 2016, and takes the Opinion of the Venice Commission fully into account; and ensures that the effectiveness of the Constitutional Tribunal as a guarantor of the Constitution is not undermined by new requirements, whether separately or through their combined effect; ensures that the Constitutional Tribunal can review the compatibility of the new law adopted on 22 July 2016 on the Constitutional Tribunal before its entry into force and publish and implement fully the judgment of the Tribunal in that respect.

Is a national law compatible with the obligation of a Member State to provide for the effective prosecution of criminal offences by customs officials if that law provides for criminal proceedings brought against customs officials — for participation in a conspiracy to commit corruption offences while performing their professional duties (accepting bribes for non-performance of customs inspections), and for specific bribery offences and concealment of bribes received — to be terminated, without the court having examined the charges bro ...[+++]ught, under the following conditions: (a) two years have elapsed since the accused was charged; (b) the accused has lodged a request for the pre-trial investigation to be concluded; (c) the court has given the prosecutor a period of three months to conclude the pre-trial investigation; (d) during that period, the prosecutor has committed ‘infringements of essential procedural requirements’ (failure properly to notify a supplementary charge, failure to disclose the investigation file, contradictory indictment); (e) the court has given the prosecutor a further period of one month to remedy those ‘infringements of essential procedural requirements’; ([f]) the prosecutor has failed to remedy the ‘infringements of essential procedural requirements’ within that time-limit — albeit that the infringements committed within the first three-month period and the failure to remedy them within the subsequent one-month period are attributable both to the prosecutor (failure to remove contradictions in the indictment; failure to take real action for most of those periods) and also to the defence (breach of the duty to cooperate with respect to notification of the charge and inspection of the investigation file due to the hospitalisation of the accused and claims regarding the lawyers’ other professional commitments); ([g]) the accused has acquired a subjective right to the termination of the criminal proceedings on account of the failure to reme ...

Three European Commissioners, the European Parliament's ITRE President, the Danish Science Minister representing the EU Presidency, and the ERC leadership had the opportunity to listen to research results, success stories and, more importantly, plans for the future.

BE: transfer for organisational reasons only within a court; CZ: a judge can be transferred only to the court of the same instance, the court one instance higher or lower (all within the same judicial district); DE: transfer for maximum of three months and only in cases of representation; EL: one judge transferred from civil/criminal judiciary; LT: temporary transfer, when there is an urgent need to ensure the proper functioning of the court; FR: Minister of justice can transfer a judge for organisational reasons in the rare event such as the closure of a court or for legal reasons such as fixed-term appointments (for a court’s pres ...[+++]ident or for specialized functions); PL: following court reorganisation, approximately five hundred judges from closed courts were transferred to other courts; RO: only temporary transfer, up to a year, for disciplinary sanctions; UK (EN+WL): fewer than five judges transferred in 2013, if any at all.

The members of the Board of Auditors that perform audits according to Article 1 shall be the same persons as those appointed in and for the same term as set out in the Decision of the ESA/Court Committee No 1 of 26 May 2010 on the Appointment of the Members of the EFTA Board of Auditors (‘at three’).