Case C-583/25, Kleczwiski: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Rzeszowie (Poland) lodged on 2 September 2025 – Criminal proceedings against A.B.
Date: 2025-09-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Poland, appointment of staff, courts and tribunals, independence of the judiciary, judge, right to an effective remedy, separation of powers








C_202506122EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6122


8.12.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Rzeszowie (Poland) lodged on 2 September 2025 – Criminal proceedings against A.B.


(Case C-583/25, Kleczwiski
                (1)
)

(C/2025/6122)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Rzeszowie

Parties to the main proceedings

A.B., Prokuratura Rejonowa w Rzeszowie

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 2, Article 6(1) and (3) and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the [Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’], be interpreted as meaning that a court of first instance of an EU Member State composed of a single judge of that court assigned to hear a case in flagrant breach of the provisions of national law on determining the distribution of activities, stipulating the assignment of judges to divisions of the court and the scope of judges’ duties and the manner in which they are to participate in the allocation of cases, as well as in flagrant breach of the provisions of national law on the allocation of cases and on the appointment and modification of the formations of a court, does not constitute an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law and ensuring effective judicial protection?










2.


Must Article 2, Article 6(1) and (3) and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the [Charter], be interpreted as precluding the application of provisions of national law, such as the second sentence of Article 55(4) of the ustawa z [dnia] 27 lipca 2001 r. – Prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych (Law of 27 July 2001 on the organisation of the ordinary courts, consolidated text: Dziennik Ustaw (Journal of Laws) of 2020, item 2072, as amended), in so far as those provisions prohibit a court of second instance from declaring pursuant to Article 439(1)(2) of the ustawa z [dnia] 6 czerwca 1997 r. – Kodeks postępowania karnego (Law of 6 June 1997 establishing the Code of Criminal Procedure, consolidated text: Dziennik Ustaw of 2022, item 1375, as amended) that the composition of the court of first instance in the case initiated before that court was invalid on the grounds that the composition of that court was contrary to the law, the court was improperly composed or a person not authorised or competent to give a ruling participated in giving the ruling, as a legal sanction ensuring effective judicial protection where a judge is assigned to hear a case in the court of first instance in flagrant breach of the provisions of national law on determining the distribution of activities, stipulating the assignment of judges to divisions of the court and the scope of judges’ duties and the manner in which they are to participate in the allocation of cases, as well as in flagrant breach of the provisions of national law on the allocation of cases and on the appointment and modification of the formations of a court?










3.


Must Article 2, Article 6(1) and (3) and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the [Charter], be interpreted as precluding the application of provisions of national law such as Article 22a(5) of the Law of 27 July 2001 on the organisation of the ordinary courts (consolidated text: Dziennik Ustaw of 2020, item 2072, as amended), in so far as those provisions allow a judge to lodge an appeal against a change in the distribution of activities exclusively before the Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa (National Council of the Judiciary) constituted under the procedure set out in the ustawa z dnia 8 grudnia 2017 r. o zmianie ustawy o Krajowej Radzie Sądownictwa oraz niektórych innych ustaw (Law of 8 December 2017 amending the Law on the National Council of the Judiciary and certain other laws, Dziennik Ustaw of 2018, item 3), while preventing a judge from lodging such an appeal against a change in the distribution of activities before an independent and impartial tribunal established by law?










4.


Must Article 2, Article 6(1) and (3) and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the [Charter], be interpreted as meaning that a court composed of a single judge who, by decision of the president of the court, has been transferred from a division of the court which hears cases corresponding to the judge’s specialisation to a division of the court which hears cases that do not correspond to the judge’s specialisation, despite the fact that the judge did not consent to the transfer and had no prior opportunity to appeal against the transfer before an impartial and independent tribunal in a procedure that meets the requirements arising from Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, does not constitute an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law and ensuring effective judicial protection for individuals in areas covered by EU law?










5.


Must Article 2, Article 6(1) and (3) and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the [Charter], be interpreted as meaning that a court of first instance of a Member State composed of a single judge of that court who, by decision of the president of the court, has been obliged to hear a case contrary to the statutory provisions of national law and contrary to the rulings of the body of that Member State authorised under national law to hear the appeals of judges against changes in the distribution of activities, does not constitute an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law and ensuring effective judicial protection?






(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.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6122/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)