HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE EUROPEAN CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER

stated that: “ it is necessary, in particular, that those conditions and procedural rules are designed so that those judges are protected from potential temptations to give in to external intervention or pressure that is liable to jeopardise their independence ”. 42 This measure was also a reason for Poland’s finding of a breach of obligations. This case illustrates that Article 19 TEU, when combined with the infringement procedure, serves as an effective tool for protecting the right to a fair hearing. As the infringement procedure is not tied to a specific case, Article 19 TEU can be effectively enforced through it, indirectly upholding Article 47 of the Charter. The infringement procedure is indeed a practical option that the Commission can use. Schmidt and Bogdanowicz rightly point out the advantage of the Commission’s initiating the proceedings without needing to wait. Moreover, the procedure offers significant flexibility. 43 However, relying primarily on the infringement procedure to enforce Article 19 TEU and, indirectly, Article 47 of the Charter places the responsibility for protecting the rule of law on the Commission. This could be problematic. The infringement procedure is not only a legal instrument but also has a political dimension. The Commission does not have unlimited resources and must focus only on a part of the potential breach of EU law. 44 These factors may weaken the usefulness of this procedure. For example, one can imagine a situation where the Commission is politically dependent on a state that violates the rule of law. The Commission would likely not initiate the procedure in such a dual position. Although the Commission is currently quite active, the question remains whether this active approach will persist. In such a case, it would be appropriate to reconsider the relationship between procedural limits and preliminary references. A change in approach ensures that issues of systemic breach of the rule of law are decided within proceedings before the CJEU. Conclusion This article has examined the role of Article 19 TEU in safeguarding the rule of law, with a particular focus on judicial independence. The right guaranteed by Article 47 is typically protected within the limits of the Charter’s scope of application. However, these limits have not been absolute in the recent development of case law, especially in the ASJP case. In situations of systemic breach of the rule of law principle, Article 19 also serves as grounds to protect this fundamental right. The CJEU has extended protection beyond the limitations of the Charter. The discovery 42 Ibid. § 112. 43 SCHMIDT, M. – BOGDANOWICZ, P. The infringement procedure in the rule of law crisis: How to make effective use of Article 258 TFEU. Common market law review 2018, Vol 55, No 4, p.1065–1066. 44 PRETE, L. – SMULDERS, B. The Age of Maturity of Infringement Proceedings. Common market law review 2021. Vol 58, No 2, p. 295–296.

156