Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 June 2014 — Pańczyk

(Case C‑28/14)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Implementation of EU law — No such implementation — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Request for an interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Object of the dispute not presenting any link to EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 6(1) TEU; Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 51(1) and (2); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 53(2)) (see paras 19-21, 23, 24, 27, 28, operative part)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Sąd Okręgowy w Częstochowie — Interpretation of Articles 2, 4(3) and (6) TEU and Articles 1, 17, 20, 21 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — General principles of EU law — Constitutional traditions of the Member States — Special pension scheme for officials — Method of calculation of pensions of former members of the security services of the former Communist regime — Reduction in the amount of payments — Presumption of the participation of the parties concerned in the criminal activities of the services in question — Obligation for the persons concerned to furnish evidence of their having acted together with the resistance to the Communist regime — Less favourable treatment of the period in question for officials who have been incriminated for conduct in relation to their official activities — Less favourable treatment of the period of employment within the services concerned than of the period of contribution to the general retirement scheme.

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to reply to the questions submitted by the Sąd Okręgowy w Częstochowie (Poland) by decision of 20 December 2013 in Case C‑28/14.

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 June 2014 — Pańczyk

(Case C‑28/14)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Implementation of EU law — No such implementation — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Request for an interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Object of the dispute not presenting any link to EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 6(1) TEU; Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 51(1) and (2); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 53(2)) (see paras 19-21, 23, 24, 27, 28, operative part)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Sąd Okręgowy w Częstochowie — Interpretation of Articles 2, 4(3) and (6) TEU and Articles 1, 17, 20, 21 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — General principles of EU law — Constitutional traditions of the Member States — Special pension scheme for officials — Method of calculation of pensions of former members of the security services of the former Communist regime — Reduction in the amount of payments — Presumption of the participation of the parties concerned in the criminal activities of the services in question — Obligation for the persons concerned to furnish evidence of their having acted together with the resistance to the Communist regime — Less favourable treatment of the period in question for officials who have been incriminated for conduct in relation to their official activities — Less favourable treatment of the period of employment within the services concerned than of the period of contribution to the general retirement scheme.

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to reply to the questions submitted by the Sąd Okręgowy w Częstochowie (Poland) by decision of 20 December 2013 in Case C‑28/14.