# C_2022198EN.01002201.xml

| 16.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 18 January 2022 — Prokurator Generalny

(Case C-43/22)

(2022/C 198/32)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Prokurator Generalny

Other parties to the proceedings: D.J., D[X]. J., Ł.J., S.J., Wojewódzkie Pogotowie Ratunkowe w K.

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) and Article 5(1) to (3) of the Treaty on European Union, read in conjunction with Articles 47 and 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, be interpreted as precluding national rules under which the Minister for Justice of a Member State may, on the basis of criteria which have not been made public, on the one hand, second a judge to a higher civil court with jurisdiction over matters of EU law for a fixed or indefinite period, and, on the other hand, terminate the secondment of that judge at any time by way of a decision which does not contain a statement of reasons? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) and Article 5(1) to (3) of the Treaty on European Union, read in conjunction with Articles 47 and 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, be interpreted as precluding national rules under which the Minister for Justice of a Member State may, on the basis of criteria which have not been made public, on the one hand, second a judge to a higher civil court with jurisdiction over matters of EU law for a fixed or indefinite period, and, on the other hand, terminate the secondment of that judge at any time by way of a decision which does not contain a statement of reasons?

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative: must the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) and Article 5(1) to (3) of the Treaty on European Union, read in conjunction with Articles 47 and 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, be interpreted as meaning that a national court seised of an appeal against a decision of a court which includes a judge seconded in the manner described in the first question is required to examine of its own motion whether that court is independent and impartial even if the case at issue does not involve a matter of EU law? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative: must the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) and Article 5(1) to (3) of the Treaty on European Union, read in conjunction with Articles 47 and 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, be interpreted as meaning that a national court seised of an appeal against a decision of a court which includes a judge seconded in the manner described in the first question is required to examine of its own motion whether that court is independent and impartial even if the case at issue does not involve a matter of EU law?

| 3. | If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative: must the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) and Article 5(1) to (3) of the Treaty on European Union, read in conjunction with Articles 47 and 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, be interpreted as requiring a court of a Member State to set aside a final court decision whenever it is established that such a seconded judge participated in the examination of the case, and that the court which included the judge in question was not independent and impartial, by means of a legal remedy the purpose of which is to set aside final decisions, such as an extraordinary appeal, or does the determination of the effects of such an infringement come within the procedural autonomy of the Member State? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative: must the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) and Article 5(1) to (3) of the Treaty on European Union, read in conjunction with Articles 47 and 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, be interpreted as requiring a court of a Member State to set aside a final court decision whenever it is established that such a seconded judge participated in the examination of the case, and that the court which included the judge in question was not independent and impartial, by means of a legal remedy the purpose of which is to set aside final decisions, such as an extraordinary appeal, or does the determination of the effects of such an infringement come within the procedural autonomy of the Member State?

---