Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2024:302
Date: 2024-04-11
Language of the case: Romanian
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Romania

Summary C-792/22 – 1 
Case C-792/22 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
23 December 2022 
Referring court: 
Curtea de Apel Brașov (Romania) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
24 June 2022 
Criminal proceedings against: 
MG 
Civil parties: 
LV 
CRA 
LCM 
Party liable under civil law: 
SC Energotehnica SRL Sibiu 
Other interested party: 
Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Rupea 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Appeal against a judgment of the Judecătoria Rupea (Court of First Instance, 
Rupea, Romania) acquitting the defendant MG of the offences of (i) failing to 
comply with legal measures concerning safety and health at work and (ii) 
manslaughter. The dispute concerns a decision of the Curtea Constituțională 
(Constitutional Court, Romania) according to which the final judgment of a civil 
court (in the broad sense, meaning a court other than a criminal court) on a 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-792/22 
2  
preliminary question has the force of res judicata in criminal proceedings. In the 
present case, this would mean that the judgment of an administrative court which 
has ruled that a particular event does not constitute an accident at work is binding 
upon a criminal court examining the same event in the context of criminal 
proceedings. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request for a preliminary ruling 
Pursuant to Article 267 TFEU, interpretation is sought of Article 1(1) and (2) of 
Council Directive 89/391/EEC [on the introduction of measures to encourage 
improvements in the safety and health of workers at work], as well as Article 5(1) 
thereof, read in the light of Article 31(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of 
the European Union and the principle of the primacy of EU law 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
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, published in the 
Official Journal of the European Communities [(OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1)] [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 
ENERGOTEHNICA 
  3 
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]? 
Provisions of European Union law and case-law relied on 
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: Article 1(1) 
and (2) and Article 5(1); 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union: Article 31; 
The principle of the primacy of EU law; 
Judgments of 14 September 2010, Akzo Nobel Chemicals and Akcros Chemicals v 
Commission (C-550/07 P, EU:C:2010:512); of 22 March 1961, SNUPAT v High 
Authority (42/59 and 49/59, [EU:C:1961:5]); of 13 January 2004, Kühne & Heitz 
(C-453/00, EU:C:2004:17); of 14 October 2004, Mærsk Olie & Gas (C-39/02, 
EU:C:2004:615); of 6 December 1994, Tatry (C-406/92, EU:C:1994:400); of 
8 December 1987, Gubisch Maschinenfabrik (144/86, EU:C:1987:528); of 8 May 
2003, Gantner Electronic (C-111/01, EU:C:2003:257); of 18 July 2007, Lucchini 
(C-119/05, EU:C:2007:434); of 20 March 2018, Menci (C-524/15, 
EU:C:2018:197); of 6 February 2018, Altun and Others (C-359/16, 
EU:C:2018:63); of 18 May 2021, Asociația ‘Forumul Judecătorilor din România’ 
and Others (C-83/19, C-127/19, C-195/19, C-291/19, C-355/19 and C-397/19, 
EU:C:2021:393); of 21 December 2021, Euro Box Promotion and Others 
(C-357/19, C-379/19, C-547/19, C-811/19 and C-840/19, EU:C:2021:1034); of 
22 February 2022, RS (Effect of the decisions of a constitutional court) (C-430/21, 
EU:C:2022:99); [and] of 30 September 2003, Köbler (C-224/01, EU:C:2003:513); 
Opinion of Advocate General Bobek, delivered on 2 September 2021 in Case 
C-117/20, bpost (EU:C:2021:680). 
Provisions of international law and case-law of the European Court of 
Human Rights relied on 
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 
(‘ECHR’): Article 6; 
Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights: of 7 July 2009, Stanca 
Popescu v. Romania; of 24 July 2003, Ryabykh v. Russia; of 8 July 2019, 
Mihalache v. Romania; of 21 October 2014, Lungu and Others v. Romania; of 
31 May 2012, Esertas v. Lithuania; of 12 January 2006, Kehaya and Others v. 
Bulgaria; of 29 November 2016, Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. 
Romania; of 28 July 2009, Gök and Güler v. Turkey; of 28 October 1999, 
Brumărescu v. Romania; of 2 July 2009, Iordan Iordanov and Others v. Bulgaria; 
of 20 October 2011, Nejdet Șahin and Perihan Șahin v. Turkey; of 16 July 2013, 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-792/22 
4  
Remuszko v. Poland; of 20 July 2004, Nikitin v. Russia; of 24 May 2007, 
Radchikov v. Russia; of 1 December 2005, SC Mașinexportimport Industrial 
Group SA v. Romania; [and] of 23 September 2008, Amurăriței v. Romania. 
Provisions of national law and case-law relied on 
Legea nr. 319 din 14 iulie 2006 a securității și sănătății în muncă (Law No 319 
of 14 July 2006 on Safety and Health at Work; ‘Law No 319/2006’). Article 5(g) 
provides that ‘accident at work’ means ‘serious injury to the body or acute 
occupational poisoning, sustained in the course of work or in the performance of 
work duties, which results in a temporary incapacity to work lasting at least 3 
calendar days, disability or death’. Article 29(1)(d) essentially makes it mandatory 
for an administrative inquiry to be conducted into events constituting accidents at 
work and provides that, in the case of events which result in the victim’s death, 
that inquiry must be carried out by the regional labour inspectorate. 
Hotărârea Guvernului nr. 1146/2006 [din 30 august 2006] privind cerinţele 
minime de securitate şi sănătate pentru utilizarea în munca de către lucrători 
a echipamentelor de muncă (Government Decision No 1146/2006 [of 30 August 
2006] concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the use of work 
equipment by workers at work). Point 3.3, entitled ‘Minimum requirements 
applicable to electrical work installations and equipment’, establishes, inter alia, 
that in order to prevent electrocution by direct contact, work on electrical 
installations must be carried out solely by qualified electricians who are licensed 
and trained to do the work in question. In addition, work on installations, 
machinery, equipment and appliances which use electricity is permitted solely on 
the basis of, inter alia, verbal instructions. Lastly, in the case of electrical work 
installations or equipment on which work is carried out with or without 
interrupting the power, electro-insulating means of protection must be used and, in 
the case of work on electrical installations or equipment carried out without 
interrupting the power, that work must be carried out by individuals licensed to 
work on live systems. 
Codul penal (Criminal Code), adopted by Legea nr. 286 din 17 iulie 2009 (Law 
No 286 of 17 July 2009). Article 350 defines the offence of ‘failing to comply 
with legal measures concerning safety and health at work’ and Article 192 defines 
the offence of ‘manslaughter’. 
Codul de procedură penală (Code of Criminal Procedure), adopted by Legea nr. 
135 din 1 iulie 2010 (Law No 135 of 1 July 2010). Article 52, entitled 
‘Preliminary questions’, provides: 
‘(1) The criminal court shall have jurisdiction to hear any preliminary question 
for the determination of the case, even if, by its nature, the question falls within 
the jurisdiction of another court, except in situations where jurisdiction does not 
lie with the judiciary. 
ENERGOTEHNICA 
  5 
(2) The preliminary question shall be decided by the criminal court in 
accordance with the rules and means of proof relating to the subject matter of the 
question. 
(3) Final judgments of courts and tribunals other than criminal courts regarding 
a preliminary question in criminal proceedings shall have the force of res judicata 
before the criminal court, with the exception of the circumstances relating to the 
existence of the offence.’ 
Decizia nr. 102 din 17 februarie 2021 a Curții Constituționale (Decision 
No 102 of the Constitutional Court of 17 February 2021; ‘Decision 
No 102/2021’), in which that court held that the expression ‘with the exception of 
the circumstances relating to the existence of the offence’ contained in 
Article 52(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was unconstitutional. In the 
grounds of that decision, that court held, in essence: 
‘… Preliminary questions are aspects of a case of a non-criminal-law nature that 
must be resolved before the issues going to the substance of the criminal case are 
resolved and concern the existence of an essential constituent of a criminal 
offence, such as the situation prior to the commission of an offence or an essential 
element of the content of an offence. … By reason of their object, preliminary 
questions are in the nature of conditions of fact or of law the existence of which 
must be ascertained in order for a criminal case to be resolved equitably or, in 
other words, they are issues of a non-criminal-law nature that must be resolved 
before a decision is taken on the substance of a criminal case and on the prior 
resolution of which the outcome of that case depends. …The principle of res 
judicata precludes not only the re-examination of proceedings that have been 
concluded, had the same subject matter and cause of action and were between the 
same parties, but also the delivery of two conflicting judgments, in the sense that 
the rights acknowledged in a final judgment cannot be contradicted by a 
subsequent judgment delivered in different proceedings. … Any failure on the part 
of the criminal courts to observe the authority of res judicata of a judgment of a 
civil court (in the broad sense) breaches the principle of legal certainty, which is a 
fundamental aspect of the rule of law, as established by Article 1(3) of the 
Constitution. … With reference to [ECHR] standards, there is no objective, 
reasonable argument to justify the re-examination by a criminal court of aspects of 
a case which constitute preliminary questions and which have been resolved, by 
final judgment, by a court having jurisdiction in another matter, even if those 
questions concern the existence of the criminal offence.’ 
Legea nr. 303 [din 15 noiembrie 2022] privind statutul judecătorilor și 
procurorilor (Law No 303 [of 15 November 2022] on the rules governing judges 
and prosecutors). Article 271(s) provides that the performance of judicial duties in 
bad faith or with gross negligence constitutes a disciplinary offence. 
Decizia nr. 520 din 9 noiembrie 2022 a Curții Constituționale (Decision 
No 520 of the Constitutional Court of 9 November 2022; ‘Decision No 520/2022’) 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-792/22 
6  
concerning objections of unconstitutionality in relation to Law No 303 [of 
15 November 2022] on the rules governing judges and prosecutors. 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 On 5 September 2017, in the commune of Ticușu, in Brașov County, an accident 
occurred following which LV, employed as an electrician at Energotehnica SRL 
who had been working on the outdoor light fixture of a low-voltage pylon at a 
local farm, died from electrocution. Two inquiries were conducted in respect of 
that event, one being an administrative inquiry involving Energotehnica and the 
other a criminal inquiry involving the manager responsible for the place of work, 
namely the defendant MG. 
The administrative proceedings 
2 In accordance with Article 29(1)(d) of Law No 319/2006, the regional labour 
inspectorate for Brașov (‘the Regional Labour Inspectorate’) conducted an 
administrative inquiry into the event referred to above. During the inquiry, which 
was concluded on 11 July 2019, individuals from the locality were heard and 
documents were obtained. 
3 In its report of the inquiry of 9 September 2019, the Regional Labour Inspectorate 
noted that the work in question had been decided upon in advance by members of 
the team to which LV had belonged, in agreement with the management of 
Energotehnica. Thus, LV had left the site before the end of working hours with a 
colleague, SC, on board a special lifting machine belonging to Energotehnica. The 
two workers had been working together, LV as electrician and SC as operator of 
the lifting machine, carrying out specialist work on an electrical installation in 
operation. The accident that occurred in that context was characterised by the 
Regional Labour Inspectorate as a fatal accident at work and Energotehnica was 
issued with two fines. 
4 On 12 March 2020, Energotehnica brought an administrative-law action before 
the Tribunalul Sibiu (Regional Court, Sibiu, Romania) seeking the annulment of 
the Regional Labour Inspectorate’s report of the inquiry of 9 September 2019. By 
judgment of 10 February 2021, the Regional Court, Sibiu, upheld the action and 
annulled the report. 
5 In reaching its decision, that court held that, in order for an event to be an accident 
at work, the injury must have occurred in the course of work or in the performance 
of work duties. However, it held that that condition was not satisfied in the case at 
hand. From the evidence produced, it appeared that the incident had taken place 
outside working hours, namely between 18.30 and 18.45 or thereabouts. 
Moreover, it found that there was no evidence to confirm that MG had given 
verbal instructions to carry out the work in question. That finding arose from the 
statement given by the eyewitness SC, who denied having received any such 
ENERGOTEHNICA 
  7 
order, a point corroborated by the defendant MG, who did not admit to having 
given any such order. In the case, only one other witness was heard, whose 
statement the Regional Court, Sibiu, treated as irrelevant. The referring court 
emphasises the scarcity of the evidence adduced in the case and certain 
inconsistencies in the grounds of the judgment of 10 February 2021. 
6 The appeal brought by the Regional Labour Inspectorate against that judgment 
was dismissed by the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Court of Appeal, Alba Iulia, 
Romania) by decision of 14 June 2021, with the result that the judgment of 
10 February 2021 has become final. 
The criminal proceedings 
7 On the day of the accident, the police drew up a report. Subsequently, criminal 
proceedings were instituted in which LV (the victim’s surviving spouse), as well 
as CRA and LCM (the victim’s daughter and son, respectively), entered 
appearances as civil parties. On 31 July 2020, the Parchetul de pe lângă 
Judecătoria Rupea (Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Court of First 
Instance, Rupea; ‘the Prosecutor’) issued an indictment committing MG for trial 
before the Court of First Instance, Rupea, on charges of (i) failing to comply with 
legal measures concerning safety and health at work and (ii) manslaughter. 
8 The indictment stated that, on 5 September 2017, at approximately 18.00, at the 
end of working hours, the defendant MG, acting in his capacity as a chief 
electrician at Energotehnica with specific responsibility for the organisation of 
work, the training of staff to carry out work and the adoption of occupational 
safety measures, gave LV, who was under his supervision, verbal instructions to 
replace an outdoor light fixture, without adopting specific measures concerning 
safety and health at work. Such instructions should have been given only to an 
electrician licenced and trained to work on live systems; qualifications which LV 
did not possess. LV’s death by electrocution was the result of his carrying out 
work on an electrical installation in operation without interrupting the power and 
without wearing electro-insulating protective gloves. 
9 By criminal judgment of 24 December 2021, the Court of First Instance, Rupea, 
acquitted the defendant MG of the offences referred to above and dismissed as 
unfounded the civil action brought by the civil parties against the defendant MG 
and the party liable under civil law, Energotehnica. In reaching its decision, that 
court held, in essence, first, that there remained a reasonable doubt as to whether 
the defendant had given the victim verbal instructions to carry out the work and, 
secondly, that the event had occurred at between 18.30 and 18.40 or thereabouts, 
after the end of working hours, and for that reason could not be classified as an 
accident at work. 
10 The civil parties and the Prosecutor have brought an appeal against that judgment 
before the referring court, arguing that there is evidence to show, beyond a 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-792/22 
8  
reasonable doubt, that the defendant gave verbal instructions to carry out the work 
in question. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
11 The request for a preliminary ruling contains no information regarding the parties’ 
positions on the questions referred by the national court of its own motion for a 
preliminary ruling. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
12 As regards the first question, the referring court begins by explaining that, in the 
appeal before it, it is required to examine all the points of law and fact in the case. 
After analysing the evidence in order to establish the facts, it notes that another 
national court, specialising in non-criminal matters, has delivered a final judgment 
concerning the event at issue, classifying it as not constituting an accident at work. 
In the light of Decision No 102/2021, the referring court is bound by that finding, 
since it concerns a preliminary question in the criminal proceedings. However, the 
classification of the event as an accident at work is an essential constituent of the 
criminal offences for which the defendant was committed for trial and is in the 
nature of a condition of fact or of law the existence of which must be ascertained 
in order for the criminal proceedings to be resolved equitably. 
13 Although prior to Decision No 102/2021 it could be held that a final civil 
judgment did not have the force of res judicata in criminal proceedings in so far 
as concerned the circumstances relating to the existence of the offence, such as the 
classification of an event as an accident at work, such a solution is no longer 
possible, particularly because Decision No 102/2021 states that ‘the principle of 
res judicata precludes not only the re-examination of proceedings that have been 
concluded and had the same subject matter and cause of action and were between 
the same parties, but also the delivery of two conflicting judgments, in the sense 
that the rights acknowledged in a final judgment cannot be contradicted by a 
subsequent judgment delivered in different proceedings’. 
14 The referring court considers that, if the judgment of the administrative court, 
which was delivered in the absence of the civil parties, were to be given the force 
of res judicata, those civil parties would be denied access to justice, in breach of 
Article 6(1) ECHR. 
15 The referring court also considers that it is being prevented from resolving the 
criminal case before it, which relates to an offence concerning safety and health at 
work, and that this undermines 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 Directive 89/391, read in the light of Article 31(1) of the Charter. 
The referring court should, therefore, order that the defendant MG be acquitted of 
the offences for which he was committed for trial and dismiss the civil action 
ENERGOTEHNICA 
  9 
brought in the case, leaving the victim without any specific protection in terms of 
safety and health at work, under criminal law or under civil law. The referring 
court also emphasises that, since the worker in question lost his life in the 
accident, it could also be held that the same provisions of Directive 89/391, read 
in the light of Article 2(1) of the Charter, concerning the right to life, have been 
infringed. 
16 The referring court then conducts a broad review of the case-law of the Court of 
Justice and of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the principle of res 
judicata, before going on to set out the national context, in terms of legal theory 
and case-law, in which the Constitutional Court, in Decision No 102/2021, held 
the force of res judicata of civil judgments to be absolute in criminal proceedings, 
in so far as concerns preliminary questions. 
17 Next, the referring court considers, in the preamble to an extensive legal analysis 
of the case, from the perspective of national law in particular, that ascribing the 
force of res judicata absolutely to civil judgments in criminal proceedings, by 
virtue of the principle of legal certainty, without taking account of the lack of 
identity of the parties in the two sets of proceedings or of the different nature of a 
civil action by comparison with a criminal action, those two types of action 
protecting different legal interests, could hinder access to justice for the parties 
concerned and undermine the principle of establishing the truth in criminal 
proceedings, thereby undermining the principle of effectiveness and the principle 
of the primacy of EU law, in so far as concerns the need to protect workers and 
employer responsibility, in accordance with Directive 89/391. 
18 As regards the identity of the parties, the referring court recalls that the judgment 
of the administrative court was not delivered in proceedings in which civil parties 
and the Ministerul Public (Public Prosecutor’s Office) were parties. With 
reference to the autonomy and specific characteristics of a criminal action, the 
referring court asserts that, by contrast with other legal actions, a criminal action 
is a public-law action (a State action brought by bodies specifically empowered by 
procedural provisions), binding (in principle, a prosecutor is obliged to bring a 
criminal action in the cases provided for by law), unavailable (once brought, it 
cannot be withdrawn), indivisible and personal (concerning all the participants in 
the offence and only them, personally). 
19 In that context, the party liable under civil law will clearly have an interest in 
pursuing the legal path where the general interest is less well represented or not 
represented at all, or where the opposing parties do not participate at all, given that 
a judgment delivered in such circumstances will have the force of res judicata in 
criminal proceedings. Indeed, the judgment of 10 February 2021 of the Regional 
Court, Sibiu, was delivered in proceedings in which the public interest was 
represented solely by the Regional Labour Inspectorate, rather than by the Public 
Prosecutor’s Office, which is the only institution that has the constitutional role of 
representing the general interests of society in legal proceedings and of protecting 
citizens’ rights and freedoms and the entire legal order. Moreover, none of the 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-792/22 
10  
opposing parties, that is to say, the civil parties in the criminal proceedings, 
participated in the administrative proceedings in which a final ruling was given on 
the preliminary question in the criminal proceedings. 
20 The referring court also points to the guarantees specific to criminal proceedings, 
which distinguish them from civil proceedings (in the broad sense), such as the 
active role of the criminal court and the principle of immediacy in the taking of 
evidence in a criminal case, the accused’s right to remain silent and to avoid self-
incrimination, the requirement for two levels of jurisdiction to address the 
substance of the case and, lastly, the public nature of criminal proceedings. It 
observes that the accused himself could be completely denied those procedural 
guarantees if, in a situation contrasting with the present case, the administrative 
action were dismissed by final judgment and the event in question were found to 
constitute an accident at work, and that ruling had the force of res judicata before 
a criminal court. The accused would then be placed in the absurd situation of 
having no possibility of defending himself in criminal proceedings, given the 
obligation to comply with a final civil judgment which concerns a preliminary 
question in criminal proceedings and is unfavourable to him. 
21 The referring court also emphasises the major differences between the legal 
regime governing the taking of evidence in civil proceedings and that in criminal 
proceedings and states that a criminal court will have at its disposal far more 
effective procedural means for establishing the truth and deciding a case 
equitably, in that, even at the criminal investigation stage, it may, for example, 
employ special investigation methods that are not available in civil proceedings. 
22 After recalling the fundamental differences between the legal interest protected in 
civil proceedings (in the broad sense) and that protected in criminal proceedings, 
and after considering the possibility, in the present case, of invoking the principle 
that fraud corrupts all (fraus omnia corrumpit), the referring court returns to the 
principle of res judicata and considers that a fair balance must be struck between 
that principle and the principle that penalties must have a proper legal basis and 
that, from that perspective, the rights of the defence and the inter partes principle 
must be observed. 
23 On the basis of that set of arguments, the referring court considers that the taking 
of evidence under the conditions specific to criminal proceedings and with all the 
guarantees offered by such proceedings could, in the present case, result in 
compliance with the principle of ascertaining the truth by establishing the factual 
situation, in particular, as regards whether the defendant MG gave the victim 
verbal instructions to carry out the work and whether those instructions fell within 
the scope of the work process. 
24 As regards the second question, the referring court considers that, if the first 
question is answered in the affirmative, it will have to be authorised to disapply 
Decision No 102/2021, given that, under national law, any failure to follow that 
decision could render the judge in the case liable to disciplinary action. 
ENERGOTEHNICA 
  11 
25 Indeed, although the legal provision which the Court of Justice analysed in its 
judgment of 22 February 2022, [RS (Effect of the decisions of a constitutional 
court) (C-430/21, EU:C:2022:99)], which provided for the disciplinary liability of 
judges in the event of failure to comply with decisions of the Constitutional Court, 
has been repealed, the new law on the rules governing judges and prosecutors 
establishes that ‘the performance of duties in bad faith or with gross negligence’ is 
a disciplinary offence. By Decision No 520/2022, the Constitutional Court held, in 
essence, that the Constitution provides that its decisions are binding generally, and 
for that reason any infringement of that constitutional text in bad faith or with 
gross negligence constitutes a disciplinary offence. 
26 That being so, the referring court considers that the same liability for failure to 
comply with decisions of the Constitutional Court under the old legislation may 
now be found in the new legislation, and for that reason the second question 
remains pertinent, even following the adoption of a new law in this area.