# C_2022073EN.01000701.xml

| 14.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Słupsku (Poland) lodged on 25 October 2021 — Criminal proceedings against M.C., M.F.

(Case C-648/21)

(2022/C 73/10)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Słupsku

Parties to the main proceedings

M.C., M.F.

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as Article 47b(5) and (6) of the Ustawa z dnia 27 lipca 2001 r. — Prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych (Law of 27 July 2001 on the system of ordinary courts), in conjunction with Articles 30(1) and 24(1) thereof, under which a body of a national court, such as the college of a court, has the power to release a judge of that court from the obligation to hear some or all of the cases assigned to him or her, in the case where:






  (a) | the composition of the college includes, by law, the presidents of courts appointed to those posts by an executive body, such as the Minister for Justice, who is also the Public Prosecutor General; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Must the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as Article 47b(5) and (6) of the Ustawa z dnia 27 lipca 2001 r. — Prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych (Law of 27 July 2001 on the system of ordinary courts), in conjunction with Articles 30(1) and 24(1) thereof, under which a body of a national court, such as the college of a court, has the power to release a judge of that court from the obligation to hear some or all of the cases assigned to him or her, in the case where:

(a)

the composition of the college includes, by law, the presidents of courts appointed to those posts by an executive body, such as the Minister for Justice, who is also the Public Prosecutor General;

| (b) | the judge is released, without his or her consent, from the obligation to hear the cases assigned to him or her; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the judge is released, without his or her consent, from the obligation to hear the cases assigned to him or her;

| (c) | national law does not lay down any criteria to guide the college of a court when releasing a judge from the obligation to hear the cases assigned to him or her, nor does it lay down any obligation to state reasons and to conduct a judicial review of that release; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

national law does not lay down any criteria to guide the college of a court when releasing a judge from the obligation to hear the cases assigned to him or her, nor does it lay down any obligation to state reasons and to conduct a judicial review of that release;

| (d) | some of the members of the college of the court were appointed to the post of judge in circumstances similar to those referred to in the judgment of the Court of Justice of 15 July 2021 in Commission v Poland (disciplinary regime applicable to judges) (C-791/19, EU:C:2021:596)? |
| --- | --- |

(d)

some of the members of the college of the court were appointed to the post of judge in circumstances similar to those referred to in the judgment of the Court of Justice of 15 July 2021 in Commission v Poland (disciplinary regime applicable to judges) (C-791/19, EU:C:2021:596)?

| 2. | Must the provisions referred to in Question 1, and also the principle of primacy, be interpreted as empowering (or obliging) a national court hearing a case in criminal proceedings coming within the scope of Directive 2016/343, (1) the judge dealing with which has been released from the obligation to hear cases in the manner described in Question 1, and all public bodies, to disregard an act of the college of a court and other acts issued subsequently, such as an order reassigning cases, including the case in the main proceedings, without the consent of the judge who has been released, so that he or she can continue to sit on the panel hearing that case? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must the provisions referred to in Question 1, and also the principle of primacy, be interpreted as empowering (or obliging) a national court hearing a case in criminal proceedings coming within the scope of Directive 2016/343, (1) the judge dealing with which has been released from the obligation to hear cases in the manner described in Question 1, and all public bodies, to disregard an act of the college of a court and other acts issued subsequently, such as an order reassigning cases, including the case in the main proceedings, without the consent of the judge who has been released, so that he or she can continue to sit on the panel hearing that case?

| 3. | Must the provisions referred to in Question 1, and also the principle of primacy, be interpreted as requiring the existence in the national legal order, in criminal proceedings coming within the scope of Directive 2016/343, of remedies of the kind which ensure that the parties to the proceedings, such as the defendant in the main proceedings, can secure a review of, and appeal against, decisions such as those referred to in [Question 1], which are intended to bring about a change in the composition of the panel hearing the case and consequently to release the judge hitherto assigned to hear the case from the obligation to do so, in the manner described in Question 1? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must the provisions referred to in Question 1, and also the principle of primacy, be interpreted as requiring the existence in the national legal order, in criminal proceedings coming within the scope of Directive 2016/343, of remedies of the kind which ensure that the parties to the proceedings, such as the defendant in the main proceedings, can secure a review of, and appeal against, decisions such as those referred to in [Question 1], which are intended to bring about a change in the composition of the panel hearing the case and consequently to release the judge hitherto assigned to hear the case from the obligation to do so, in the manner described in Question 1?

---

(1)  Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings (OJ 2016 L 65, p. 1).

---