(Inspired by and referring to Anna Walczak’s op-ed in EU Law Live: “Is the European Ship of Justice on Fire? Inside the Medel & Others v Council (C-555/24 P)”)
On 2 December 2025, something unusual happened in the EU’s Court of Justice. The main courtroom filled with judges from all across Europe – not just on the bench, but in the audience, and even at the appellants’ table. They were there because they believe something fundamental is at stake: the ability of judges to defend the rule of law when national systems stop working.
The case is Medel & Others v Council (C-555/24 P). It may sound technical, but the issue is simple: can European judges, acting through their associations, challenge an EU decision that they believe helps cement rule-of-law backsliding in a Member State?
If the answer is no, then even when a country’s judiciary is under political pressure, there may be no effective way for judges to alert Luxembourg.
If the answer is yes, judges would have a tool to defend the very conditions they need to do their jobs.
What Triggered the Case?
In 2022, the EU approved Poland’s Recovery and Resilience Plan and opened the door to billions in funding – even though serious problems in Poland’s judiciary remained unresolved. Four European judicial associations (AEAJ, EAJ, Judges for Judges, and Medel) argued that the conditions attached to the funds were too weak and risked locking in systemic damage to judicial independence.
The General Court dismissed their action as inadmissible. The judges’ associations appealed.
What the Appeal Is Really About
The Grand Chamber hearing exposed the core question:
If judges are under pressure at home, who can speak for them at EU level?
Three main arguments were raised:
-
The milestones tied to EU funds do affect judges because they refer directly to procedures the Court of Justice has already ruled unlawful.
-
Judges are affected even by omissions – accepting incomplete safeguards forces them to work under uncertainty or pressure.
-
Standing cannot ignore context – procedural rules should not shut the door when national institutions are in trouble.
Some EU institutions argued the opposite: standing rules are strict, and Article 263 TFEU is not meant to deal with systemic crises. But the bench pushed back, asking whether any level of deterioration in judicial independence could ever justify flexibility.
Why It Matters
Judicial associations play a vital role when judges face political pressure. They are not “just another NGO”. They give judges a collective voice – often the only safe one they have – when the rule of law is under threat.
If they cannot act when systemic pressure is high, then no one can.
The hearing made clear how serious this moment is. Judges filled the courtroom not as abstract legal actors, but as people directly affected by the EU’s decisions.
What Happens Next?
Advocate General Ćapeta will deliver her Opinion on 16 April. The Court’s final judgment will determine whether judges can defend judicial independence at EU level when domestic systems fail. At The Good Lobby, we are proud to support work that strengthens democratic accountability and empowers individuals, including judges, to defend the public interest when institutions fall short. Europe’s “ship of justice” may be taking on water. The question now is whether those best placed to see the leaks will be allowed to raise the alarm.