# C_2022051EN.01000301.xml

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Pesti Központi Kerületi Bíróság — Hungary) — Criminal proceedings against IS

(Case C-564/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive 2010/64/EU - Article 5 - Quality of the interpretation and translation - Directive 2012/13/EU - Right to information in criminal proceedings - Article 4(5) and Article 6(1) - Right to information about the accusation - Right to interpretation and translation - Directive 2016/343/EU - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial - Article 48(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 267 TFEU - Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU - Admissibility - Appeal in the interests of the law against a decision ordering a reference for a preliminary ruling - Disciplinary proceedings - Power of the higher court to declare the request for a preliminary ruling unlawful)

(2022/C 51/03)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Pesti Központi Kerületi Bíróság

Party in the main proceedings

IS

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding the supreme court of a Member State from declaring, following an appeal in the interests of the law, that a request for a preliminary ruling which has been submitted to the Court under Article 267 TFEU by a lower court is unlawful on the ground that the questions referred are not relevant and necessary for the resolution of the dispute in the main proceedings, without, however, altering the legal effects of the decision containing that request. The principle of the primacy of EU law requires that lower court to disregard such a decision of the national supreme court. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding the supreme court of a Member State from declaring, following an appeal in the interests of the law, that a request for a preliminary ruling which has been submitted to the Court under Article 267 TFEU by a lower court is unlawful on the ground that the questions referred are not relevant and necessary for the resolution of the dispute in the main proceedings, without, however, altering the legal effects of the decision containing that request. The principle of the primacy of EU law requires that lower court to disregard such a decision of the national supreme court.

| 2. | Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding disciplinary proceedings from being brought against a national judge on the ground that he or she has made a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice under that provision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding disciplinary proceedings from being brought against a national judge on the ground that he or she has made a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice under that provision.

| 3. | Article 5 of Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as requiring Member States to take concrete measures in order to ensure that the quality of the interpretation and translations provided is sufficient to enable the suspect or accused person to understand the accusation against him or her and in order that that interpretation can be reviewed by the national courts.
  Article 2(5) of Directive 2010/64 and Article 4(5) and Article 6(1) of Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings, read in the light of Article 48(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding a person from being tried in absentia when, on account of inadequate interpretation, he or she has not been informed, in a language which he or she understands, of the accusation against him or her or where it is impossible to ascertain the quality of the interpretation provided and therefore to establish that he or she has been informed, in a language which he or she understands, of the accusation against him or her. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 5 of Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as requiring Member States to take concrete measures in order to ensure that the quality of the interpretation and translations provided is sufficient to enable the suspect or accused person to understand the accusation against him or her and in order that that interpretation can be reviewed by the national courts.

Article 2(5) of Directive 2010/64 and Article 4(5) and Article 6(1) of Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings, read in the light of Article 48(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding a person from being tried in absentia when, on account of inadequate interpretation, he or she has not been informed, in a language which he or she understands, of the accusation against him or her or where it is impossible to ascertain the quality of the interpretation provided and therefore to establish that he or she has been informed, in a language which he or she understands, of the accusation against him or her.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 23.3.2020.

---