EN
C 24/4
Official Journal of the European Union
17.1.2022
other parties: Prokuratura Krajowa, formerly Prokuratura Rejonowa w Mińsku Mazowieckim (C-748/19), Prokuratura Rejonowa Warszawa-Żoliborz w Warszawie (C-749/19), Prokuratura Rejonowa Warszawa-Wola w Warszawie (C-750/19, C-753/19 and C-754/19), Prokuratura Rejonowa w Pruszkowie (C-751/19) and Prokuratura Rejonowa Warszawa-Ursynów w Warszawie (C-752/19), as well as Pictura sp. z o.o. (C-754/19)
Operative part of the judgment The second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in the light of Article 2 TEU, and Article 6(1) and (2) 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 must be interpreted as precluding provisions of national legislation pursuant to which the Minister for Justice of a Member State may, on the basis of criteria which have not been made public, second a judge to a higher criminal court for a fixed or indefinite period and may, at any time, by way of a decision which does not contain a statement of reasons, terminate that secondment, irrespective of whether that secondment is for a fixed or indefinite period.
(1)
OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 November 2021 — European Commission v Hungary (Case C-821/19) (1) (Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Area of freedom, security and justice — Asylum policy — Directives 2013/32/EU and 2013/33/EU — Procedure for granting international protection — Grounds of inadmissibility — Concepts of ‘safe third country’ and ‘first country of asylum’ — Assistance given to asylum seekers — Criminalisation — Prohibition on entry to the border transit zone of the relevant Member State) (2022/C 24/05) Language of the case: Hungarian Parties Applicant: European Commission (represented initially by J. Tomkin, A. Tokár and M. Condou-Durande, and subsequently by J. Tomkin and A. Tokár, acting as Agents) Defendant: Hungary (represented by: K. Szíjjártó, M.
Tátrai and M.Z. Fehér, acting as Agents)
Operative part of the judgment The Court: 1.
Declares that Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under: — Article 33(2) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection by allowing an application for international protection to be rejected as inadmissible on the ground that the applicant arrived on its territory via a State in which that person was not exposed to persecution or a risk of serious harm, or in which a sufficient degree of protection is guaranteed; — Article 8(2) and Article 22(1) of Directive 2013/32 and Article 10(4) of Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection by criminalising in its national law the actions of any person who, in connection with an organising activity, provides assistance in respect of the making or lodging of an application for asylum in its territory, where it can be proved beyond all reasonable doubt that that person was aware that that application could not be accepted under that law; — Article 8(2), Article 12(1)(c) and Article 22(1) of Directive 2013/32 and Article 10(4) of Directive 2013/33 by preventing any person who is suspected of having committed such an offence from the right to approach its external borders; 2.
Dismisses the action as to the remainder;