# C_2023024EN.01002701.xml

| 23.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 10 October 2022 — Criminal proceedings against OT, PG, CR, VT, MD

(Case C-634/22)

(2023/C 24/35)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski gradski sad

Defendants in the criminal proceedings

OT, PG, CR, VT, MD

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 2, Article 6(1) and (3) and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that, where a court has been abolished by the adopted amendment to the Zakon za sadebnata vlast (Law on the judiciary) (DV No 32/26 April 2022, with effect from 27 July 2022), but the judges are to continue up to and after that date to deal with those cases before that court in which preliminary hearings have been held, the independence of that court is impaired, given that the abolition of the court is justified on the ground that the constitutional principle of the independence of the judiciary and the protection of the constitutional rights of citizens are thereby safeguarded, and the facts leading to the conclusion that those principles have been infringed are not duly set out[?] |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 2, Article 6(1) and (3) and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that, where a court has been abolished by the adopted amendment to the Zakon za sadebnata vlast (Law on the judiciary) (DV No 32/26 April 2022, with effect from 27 July 2022), but the judges are to continue up to and after that date to deal with those cases before that court in which preliminary hearings have been held, the independence of that court is impaired, given that the abolition of the court is justified on the ground that the constitutional principle of the independence of the judiciary and the protection of the constitutional rights of citizens are thereby safeguarded, and the facts leading to the conclusion that those principles have been infringed are not duly set out[?]

| 2. | Must the abovementioned provisions of EU law be interpreted as precluding national provisions such as those of the Law amending and supplementing the Law on the judiciary (DV No 32/26 April 2022), which result in the complete abolition of an autonomous judicial body in Bulgaria (the Specialised Criminal Court) on the ground referred to above and in the transfer of judges (including the judge of the panel hearing the criminal case at hand) from that court to various other courts, but which require those judges to continue to deal with those cases which are pending before the abolished court and which they have already commenced? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must the abovementioned provisions of EU law be interpreted as precluding national provisions such as those of the Law amending and supplementing the Law on the judiciary (DV No 32/26 April 2022), which result in the complete abolition of an autonomous judicial body in Bulgaria (the Specialised Criminal Court) on the ground referred to above and in the transfer of judges (including the judge of the panel hearing the criminal case at hand) from that court to various other courts, but which require those judges to continue to deal with those cases which are pending before the abolished court and which they have already commenced?

| 3. | If so, what procedural acts should be undertaken — also in the light of the primacy of EU law — by the members of the national legal service attached to the recently abolished courts in the cases of the abolished court (which, by law, they must complete), having regard also to their obligation to examine closely whether they must recuse themselves from those cases? What consequences would that have for the procedural decisions of the recently abolished court in the cases which must be completed and for the legal acts terminating the proceedings in those cases? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If so, what procedural acts should be undertaken — also in the light of the primacy of EU law — by the members of the national legal service attached to the recently abolished courts in the cases of the abolished court (which, by law, they must complete), having regard also to their obligation to examine closely whether they must recuse themselves from those cases? What consequences would that have for the procedural decisions of the recently abolished court in the cases which must be completed and for the legal acts terminating the proceedings in those cases?

---