# C_2019288EN.01001901.xml

| 26.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 6 May 2019 — Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Direcția Națională Anticorupție, PM, RO, SP, TQ v QN, UR, VS, WT, Autoritatea Națională pentru Turism, Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală, SC Euro Box Promotion SRL

(Case C-357/19)

(2019/C 288/24)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Direcția Națională Anticorupție, PM, RO, SP, TQ

Defendants: QN, UR, VS, WT, Autoritatea Națională pentru Turism, Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală, SC Euro Box Promotion SRL

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, Article 325(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 1(1)(a) and (b) and Article 2(1) of the Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, and the principle of legal certainty be interpreted as precluding the adoption of a decision by a body outside the judicial system, the Curtea Constituțională a României (Constitutional Court of Romania), which adjudicates on the lawfulness of the composition of Chambers hearing the case, in that way creating the conditions for allowing extraordinary actions brought against final judgments delivered in a given period? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, Article 325(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 1(1)(a) and (b) and Article 2(1) of the Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, and the principle of legal certainty be interpreted as precluding the adoption of a decision by a body outside the judicial system, the Curtea Constituțională a României (Constitutional Court of Romania), which adjudicates on the lawfulness of the composition of Chambers hearing the case, in that way creating the conditions for allowing extraordinary actions brought against final judgments delivered in a given period?

| 2. | Must Article 47(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding a finding by a body outside the judicial system — binding under national law — of the lack of independence and impartiality of a Chamber which includes a judge responsible for judicial administration who has not been randomly appointed, but on the basis of a transparent rule known to the parties and unchallenged by them, applicable to all the cases dealt with by that same chamber? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 47(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding a finding by a body outside the judicial system — binding under national law — of the lack of independence and impartiality of a Chamber which includes a judge responsible for judicial administration who has not been randomly appointed, but on the basis of a transparent rule known to the parties and unchallenged by them, applicable to all the cases dealt with by that same chamber?

| 3. | Must the primacy of EU law be interpreted as allowing the national court to disapply a decision of the constitutional court, handed down in a case concerning a constitutional dispute, binding under national law? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must the primacy of EU law be interpreted as allowing the national court to disapply a decision of the constitutional court, handed down in a case concerning a constitutional dispute, binding under national law?

---