Broad Scope, Restrained Scrutiny: Interpreting Article 19(2) TEU

The ruling in Valančius 1 is a prime example of a dynamic whereby the European Court of Justice establishes a broad scope of review for a provision, while exercising restrained scrutiny when it comes to applying its content.The case concerned whether a member state could disregard a merit-based list, compiled by a national expert group established under national law, when nominating a candidate for the EU's General Court.Mr Virgilijus Valančius, at the time a sitting judge at the General Court, challenged the Lithuanian government's decision to nominate a lower-ranked candidate for the position.The argument defended by Valančius was that the Lithuanian authorities involved in the process violated the requirements of ability and independence required by Article 254 TFEU.The Grand Chamber of the European of Justice ruled that EU law -Article 19(2) third subparagraph TEU and Article 254 second paragraph TEU 2allows a member state to nominate the candidate it wants, including one who was not the European