# C_2016335EN.01000802.xml

| 12.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 335/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 335/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against Atanas Ognyanov

(Case C-614/14) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 267 TFEU - Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Content of a request for a preliminary ruling - National rule providing that the national court is to be disqualified because it stated a provisional opinion in the request for a preliminary ruling when setting out the factual and legal context - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Second paragraph of Article 47 and Article 48(1)))

(2016/C 335/10)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Referring court

Sofiyski gradski sad

Party in the main proceedings

Party in the main proceedings

Atanas Ognyanov

Intervener: Sofiyska gradska prokuratura

Intervener:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 267 TFEU and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, read in the light of the second paragraph of Article 47 and of Article 48(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding a national rule which is interpreted in such a way as to oblige the referring court to disqualify itself from a pending case, on the ground that it set out, in its request for a preliminary ruling, the factual and legal context of that case. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 267 TFEU and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, read in the light of the second paragraph of Article 47 and of Article 48(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding a national rule which is interpreted in such a way as to oblige the referring court to disqualify itself from a pending case, on the ground that it set out, in its request for a preliminary ruling, the factual and legal context of that case.

| 2. | EU law, and in particular Article 267 TFEU, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require the referring court, after the delivery of the preliminary ruling, to hear the parties again and to undertake further inquiries, which might lead it to alter the findings of fact or law made in the request for a preliminary ruling, nor does it prohibit the referring court from doing so, provided that the referring court gives full effect to the interpretation of EU law adopted by the Court of Justice of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

EU law, and in particular Article 267 TFEU, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require the referring court, after the delivery of the preliminary ruling, to hear the parties again and to undertake further inquiries, which might lead it to alter the findings of fact or law made in the request for a preliminary ruling, nor does it prohibit the referring court from doing so, provided that the referring court gives full effect to the interpretation of EU law adopted by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

| 3. | EU law must be interpreted as precluding a referring court from applying a national rule, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which is deemed to be contrary to EU law. |
| --- | --- |

3.

EU law must be interpreted as precluding a referring court from applying a national rule, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which is deemed to be contrary to EU law.

---

(1)  OJ C 96, 23.3.2015.

1

---