On Tuesday, April 20, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled in Case C-896/19, [3]Repubblika v. Il-Prim Ministru [3] that Malta’s system for appointing judges did not contradict EU law. As reported by JURIST [4], the ruling went before the national court when Repubblika, an association created to promote the rule of law in Malta, had challenged the procedure, which was provided by the Constitution of Malta. The process in the Maltese Constitution stated that judiciary members are appointed by the president acting under the advisement of the prime minister. However, appointees must satisfy certain conditions and are subject to background checks or other examinations by the Judicial Appointments Committee, whose purpose is to assess candidates and provide feedback to the prime minister. The national court brought this to the CJEU to decide whether this system was constitutional under EU law, specifically under Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, in light of Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which states that member states must provide conditions for a fair, independent, and impartial trial to ensure true justice. The court reached the conclusion that this practice was not prohibited by EU law because, in order to guarantee conditions of judicial independence and impartiality, procedures must exist to ensure that appointees are free from influence from the legislature and/or executive with regard to judiciary proceedings. The Court found that power of the prime minister to submit a candidate that was not suggested by the Judicial Appointments Committee was not contrary to EU law because of various safeguarding measures included in the Constitution. The Court held: “Inasmuch as the Prime Minister exercises that power only in quite exceptional circumstances and adheres to strict and effective compliance with that obligation to state reasons, that power is not such as to give rise to legitimate doubts concerning the independence of the candidates selected” (para. 71). Therefore, the Court concluded that the national provisions at issue do not give rise to any legitimate uncertainties, or doubts of independence, regarding the chosen judiciary candidates.