# C_2023164EN.01002702.xml

| 8.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Brașov (Romania) lodged on 23 December 2022 — Criminal proceedings against MG

(Case C-792/22, Energotehnica)

(2023/C 164/35)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Brașov

Criminal proceedings against

MG

Civil parties: LV, CRA and LCM

Party liable under civil law: SC Energotehnica SRL Sibiu

Questions referred

| 1. | Do the principle of the protection of workers and the principle of employer responsibility, enshrined in Article 1(1) and (2) and Article 5(1) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work, (1) published in the Official Journal of the European Communities ... [and] transposed into national law by Legea nr. 319/2006 a securității și sănătății în muncă (Law No 319/2006 on Safety and Health at Work), read in the light of Article 31(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude rules such as those which apply in the case in the main proceedings, imposed by a decision of the national Constitutional Court, in accordance with which an administrative court may, at the request of an employer and in inter partes proceedings involving only the State administrative authority, give a final ruling that an event does not constitute an accident at work, within the meaning of that directive, and may thus prevent a criminal court — seised both by a prosecutor bringing criminal proceedings against the worker responsible and by a civil party bringing civil proceedings against the employer as the party liable under civil law in the criminal proceedings, on the one hand, and the worker employed by that employer, on the other — from reaching a different decision regarding the characterisation of the same event as an accident at work, that characterisation being a constituent element of the offences tried in the criminal proceedings (without which it is impossible to make a finding of either criminal liability or civil liability alongside criminal liability), regard being had to the force of res judicata of the final administrative judgment? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do the principle of the protection of workers and the principle of employer responsibility, enshrined in Article 1(1) and (2) and Article 5(1) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work, (1) published in the Official Journal of the European Communities ... [and] transposed into national law by Legea nr. 319/2006 a securității și sănătății în muncă (Law No 319/2006 on Safety and Health at Work), read in the light of Article 31(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude rules such as those which apply in the case in the main proceedings, imposed by a decision of the national Constitutional Court, in accordance with which an administrative court may, at the request of an employer and in inter partes proceedings involving only the State administrative authority, give a final ruling that an event does not constitute an accident at work, within the meaning of that directive, and may thus prevent a criminal court — seised both by a prosecutor bringing criminal proceedings against the worker responsible and by a civil party bringing civil proceedings against the employer as the party liable under civil law in the criminal proceedings, on the one hand, and the worker employed by that employer, on the other — from reaching a different decision regarding the characterisation of the same event as an accident at work, that characterisation being a constituent element of the offences tried in the criminal proceedings (without which it is impossible to make a finding of either criminal liability or civil liability alongside criminal liability), regard being had to the force of res judicata of the final administrative judgment?

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the affirmative, is the principle of the primacy of EU law to be interpreted as precluding national legislation or a national practice pursuant to which the ordinary national courts are bound by decisions of the national Constitutional Court and may not, for that reason, without committing a disciplinary offence, of their own motion disapply the case-law resulting from those decisions, even if, in light of a judgment of the Court of Justice, they take the view that that case-law is contrary to Article 1(1) and (2) and Article 5(1) of [Directive 89/391], transposed into national law by Law No 319/2006, read in the light of Article 31(1) of [the Charter]? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, is the principle of the primacy of EU law to be interpreted as precluding national legislation or a national practice pursuant to which the ordinary national courts are bound by decisions of the national Constitutional Court and may not, for that reason, without committing a disciplinary offence, of their own motion disapply the case-law resulting from those decisions, even if, in light of a judgment of the Court of Justice, they take the view that that case-law is contrary to Article 1(1) and (2) and Article 5(1) of [Directive 89/391], transposed into national law by Law No 319/2006, read in the light of Article 31(1) of [the Charter]?

---

(1)  Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1).

---