Case C-335/25, Osswicz: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Elblągu (Poland) lodged on 16 May 2025 – XY
Date: 2025-05-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Poland, courts and tribunals, disciplinary proceedings, judge, magistrate, national law, presumption of innocence, primacy of EU law, public prosecution, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_202600620EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/620


9.2.2026






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Elblągu (Poland) lodged on 16 May 2025 – XY


(Case C-335/25, Osswicz
                (1)
)

(C/2026/620)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Elblągu

Parties to the main proceedings


Criminal proceedings against: XY

Party to the proceedings: Prokurator Prokuratury Krajowej w Warszawie

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 2 and Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union (‘TEU’) and Article 6(1) to (3) TEU, read in conjunction with the first and second sentences of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (‘the Charter’), be understood as meaning that a court that includes members of the Izba Odpowiedzialności Zawodowej Sądu Najwyższego (Chamber of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court), which was established in place of the Izba Dyscyplinarna Sądu Najwyższego (Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court) pursuant to the amendment to the ustawa o Sądzie Najwyższym (Law on the Supreme Court) of 2017 (ustawa z 9 czerwca 2022 r. o zmianie ustawy o Sądzie Najwyższym oraz niektórych innych ustaw) (Law of 9 June 2022 amending the Law on the Supreme Court and certain other laws; Dz. U. of 2022, item 1259), and whose competences include the competence to review decisions issued in disciplinary proceedings conducted against, among others, judges and prosecutors (Articles 3(4a), 27a and 73(1) of the Law of 8 December 2017 on the Supreme Court – consolidated text of 23 April 2024 (Dz. U. of 2024, item 622)), is not a tribunal established by law within the meaning of EU law;










2.


Must the provisions indicated in the first question, as well as the principle of primacy and the principle of effectiveness, in connection with Article 4(1) and (2) read in conjunction with Article 10(1) and the first sentence of recital 16 of Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings, (2) be interpreted as meaning that, with respect to rulings given in cases examined by the Chamber of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court, those provisions oblige (or authorise) the national court hearing a case concerning a criminal offence allegedly committed by a person acting as a public prosecutor to assume that the legal immunity of the accused has not been definitively waived – the accused being a public prosecutor in respect of whom the waiving of that immunity is a prerequisite for bringing charges, drawing up an indictment, and trying the case against him or her[?]






(1)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

(2)  
            OJ 2016 L 65, p. 1.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/620/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)