# C_2022165EN.01002101.xml

| 19.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 165/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/21

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova — Romania) — proceedings brought by RS

(Case C-430/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Rule of law - Independence of the judiciary - Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Primacy of EU law - Lack of jurisdiction of a national court to examine the conformity with EU law of national legislation found to be constitutional by the constitutional court of the Member State concerned - Disciplinary proceedings)

(2022/C 165/24)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Craiova

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RS

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 2 and Article 4(2) and (3) TEU, with Article 267 TFEU and with the principle of the primacy of EU law, must be interpreted as precluding national rules or a national practice under which the ordinary courts of a Member State have no jurisdiction to examine the compatibility with EU law of national legislation which the constitutional court of that Member State has found to be consistent with a national constitutional provision that requires compliance with the principle of the primacy of EU law. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 2 and Article 4(2) and (3) TEU, with Article 267 TFEU and with the principle of the primacy of EU law, must be interpreted as precluding national rules or a national practice under which the ordinary courts of a Member State have no jurisdiction to examine the compatibility with EU law of national legislation which the constitutional court of that Member State has found to be consistent with a national constitutional provision that requires compliance with the principle of the primacy of EU law.

| 2. | The second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 2 and Article 4(2) and (3) TEU, with Article 267 TFEU and with the principle of the primacy of EU law, must be interpreted as precluding national rules or a national practice under which a national judge may incur disciplinary liability on the ground that he or she has applied EU law, as interpreted by the Court, thereby departing from case-law of the constitutional court of the Member State concerned that is incompatible with the principle of the primacy of EU law. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 2 and Article 4(2) and (3) TEU, with Article 267 TFEU and with the principle of the primacy of EU law, must be interpreted as precluding national rules or a national practice under which a national judge may incur disciplinary liability on the ground that he or she has applied EU law, as interpreted by the Court, thereby departing from case-law of the constitutional court of the Member State concerned that is incompatible with the principle of the primacy of EU law.

---

(1)  OJ C 371, 3.11.2020.

---