Joined Cases C-646/23 and C-661/23, Lita and Jeszek: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 July 2025 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Wojskowy Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie – Poland) – Criminal proceedings against P. B. (C-646/23), R. S. (C-661/23) (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Rule of law – Independence of the judiciary – Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU – Effective judicial protection in areas covered by EU law – Principle of irremovability of judges – Military judge found unfit for professional military service – National legislation requiring the early retirement of that judge)
Date: 2025-07-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: early retirement, independence of the judiciary, judge, military court, primacy of EU law, professional army, reintegration into working life, retirement conditions, right to an effective remedy, rule of law








C_202504554EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4554


25.8.2025






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 July 2025 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Wojskowy Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie – Poland) – Criminal proceedings against P. B. (C-646/23), R. S. (C-661/23)


(Joined Cases C-646/23
                (1)
and C-661/23,
                (2)
Lita and Jeszek
                (3)
)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Rule of law - Independence of the judiciary - Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU - Effective judicial protection in areas covered by EU law - Principle of irremovability of judges - Military judge found unfit for professional military service - National legislation requiring the early retirement of that judge)
(C/2025/4554)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojskowy Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

Parties in the main proceedings

P. B. (C-646/23), R. S. (C-661/23)

Other parties: Prokuratura Rejonowa w Lublinie (C-646/23), Prokuratura Rejonowa Warszawa-Ursynów w Warszawie (C-661/23)

Operative part of the judgment







1.


The second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU
must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national legislation which provides for compulsory early retirement, as from the entry into force of those rules, of a military judge declared unfit for professional military service, in circumstances where, first of all, those rules do not explain the reasons justifying the introduction of their provisions or indicate any public interest to which they respond, next, those rules do not apply to military prosecutors declared unfit for professional military service, whereas those two categories of magistrates were previously subject to the same rules, and in fact affects only one judge, while forming part of a series of measures, taken in respect of that judge, having the nature of a sanction and, finally, no judicial remedy is available to that judge to challenge the measure of compulsory early retirement to which he or she is thus subject.










2.


The second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU and the principle of primacy of EU law
must be interpreted as meaning that they require a national court or tribunal and any other authority of the Member State concerned to disapply national legislation requiring the early retirement of a judge, where those rules have been adopted in breach of the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, which means that a judge retired pursuant to those rules must be reinstated in his or her office. The judicial bodies responsible for determining and amending the composition of panels are required to ensure such reinstatement.










3.


The second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU
must be interpreted as meaning that a national court which decides to stay proceedings and to refer questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling is entitled temporarily to suspend the application of national legislation providing for the compulsory early retirement of the single judge sitting on that court, even if, under national law, it does not have the power to order such a suspension. That provisional suspension means that the judge affected by the compulsory retirement measure must be able to continue hearing other cases before him or her on the date on which that measure takes effect.






(1)  OJ C, C/2024/1084.

(2)  OJ C, C/2024/1085.

(3)  The names of the present cases are fictitious names. They do not correspond to the real name of any party to these proceedings.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4554/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)