A. K. and Others v Sąd Najwyższy.
Date: 2019-11-19
61


In that regard, it should be noted, first, that the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the Rules of Procedure of the Court make no provision for the interested parties referred to in Article 23 of the Statute to submit observations in response to the Advocate General’s Opinion (judgment of 6 March 2018, Achmea, C‑284/16, EU:C:2018:158, paragraph 26 and the case-law cited).
62


Second, under the second paragraph of Article 252 TFEU, the Advocate General, acting with complete impartiality and independence, is to make, in open court, reasoned submissions on cases which, in accordance with the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, require the Advocate General’s involvement. The Court is not bound either by those submissions or by the reasoning underpinning those submissions. Consequently, a party’s disagreement with the Opinion of the Advocate General, irrespective of the questions that he examines in his Opinion, cannot in itself constitute grounds justifying the reopening of the oral procedure (judgment of 6 March 2018, Achmea, C‑284/16, EU:C:2018:158, paragraph 27 and the case-law cited).
69


It has consistently been held that the procedure provided for in Article 267 TFEU is an instrument of cooperation between the Court of Justice and the national courts, by means of which the Court provides the national courts with the points of interpretation of EU law which they need in order to decide the disputes before them (judgment of 19 December 2013, Fish Legal and Shirley, C‑279/12, EU:C:2013:853, paragraph 29 and the case-law cited).
70


In that regard, it should be borne in mind that the justification for a reference for a preliminary ruling is not that it enables advisory opinions on general or hypothetical questions to be delivered but rather that it is necessary for the effective resolution of a dispute (judgment of 10 December 2018, Wightman and Others, C‑621/18, EU:C:2018:999, paragraph 28 and the case-law cited). If it appears that the question raised is manifestly no longer relevant for the purposes of deciding the case, the Court must declare that there is no need to proceed to judgment (see, to that effect, judgment of 24 October 2013, Stoilov i Ko, C‑180/12, EU:C:2013:693, paragraph 38 and the case-law cited).
74


However, the fact remains that the arguments thus advanced by the Public Prosecutor do in fact concern the very scope of those provisions of EU law and, thus, concern an interpretation of those provisions. An interpretation of that nature clearly falls within the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 267 TFEU.
75


In that regard, the Court has previously held that, although the organisation of justice in the Member States falls within the competence of those Member States, the fact remains that, when exercising that competence, the Member States are required to comply with their obligations deriving from EU law (judgment of 24 June 2019, Commission v Poland (Independence of the Supreme Court), C‑619/18, EU:C:2019:531, paragraph 52 and the case-law cited).
77


As regards, first of all, the provisions of the Charter, it should certainly be recalled that, in the context of a request for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU, the Court may interpret EU law only within the limits of the powers conferred upon it (judgment of 30 June 2016, Toma and Biroul Executorului Judecătoresc Horațiu-Vasile Cruduleci, C‑205/15, EU:C:2016:499, paragraph 22 and the case-law cited).
78


The scope of the Charter, in so far as the action of the Member States is concerned, is defined in Article 51(1) thereof, according to which the provisions of the Charter are addressed to the Member States when they are implementing EU law. That provision confirms the Court’s settled case-law, which states that the fundamental rights guaranteed in the legal order of the European Union are applicable in all situations governed by EU law, but not outside such situations (judgment of 30 June 2016, Toma and Biroul Executorului Judecătoresc Horațiu-Vasile Cruduleci, C‑205/15, EU:C:2016:499, paragraph 23 and the case-law cited).
80


In addition, it is to be noted that the right to an effective remedy is reaffirmed by Directive 2000/78, Article 9 of which provides that Member States must ensure that all persons who consider themselves wronged by failure to apply the principle of equal treatment to them as provided for by that directive are able to assert their rights (judgment of 8 May 2019, Leitner, C‑396/17, EU:C:2019:375, paragraph 61 and the case-law cited).
82


Next, as regards the scope of the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, that provision, first, aims to guarantee effective judicial protection in ‘the fields covered by Union law’, irrespective of whether the Member States are implementing Union law within the meaning of Article 51(1) of the Charter (judgment of 24 June 2019, Commission v Poland (Independence of the Supreme Court), C‑619/18, EU:C:2019:531, paragraph 50 and the case-law cited).
83


Contrary to what has been claimed by the Public Prosecutor in that regard, the fact that the national salary reduction measures at issue in the case which gave rise to the judgment of 27 February 2018, Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses (C‑64/16, EU:C:2018:117) were adopted due to requirements linked to the elimination of the excessive budget deficit of the Member State concerned and in the context of an EU financial assistance programme for that Member State did not, as is apparent from paragraphs 29 to 40 of that judgment, play any role in the interpretation which led the Court to conclude that the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU was applicable in the case in question. That conclusion was reached on the basis of the fact that the national body at issue in that case, namely the Tribunal de Contas (Court of Auditors, Portugal), could, subject to verification to be carried out by the referring court in that case, rule, as a court or tribunal, on questions concerning the application or interpretation of EU law and thus falling within the fields covered by EU law (judgment of 24 June 2019, Commission v Poland (Independence of the Supreme Court), C‑619/18, EU:C:2019:531, paragraph 51 and the case-law cited).
85


Lastly, in respect of Protocol (No 30) on the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to the Republic of Poland and to the United Kingdom (OJ 2010 C 83, p. 313), on which the Public Prosecutor also relies, it must be observed that that protocol does not concern the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU and it should be recalled that it does not call into question the applicability of the Charter in Poland, nor is it intended to exempt the Republic of Poland from the obligation to comply with the provisions of the Charter (judgment of 24 June 2019, Commission v Poland (Independence of the Supreme Court), C‑619/18, EU:C:2019:531, paragraph 53 and the case-law cited).
86


It follows from all the foregoing that the Court has jurisdiction to interpret Article 47 of the Charter and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU in the present cases.
90


Article 4(1) of the Law of 21 November 2018 provides that ‘procedures commenced pursuant to Article 37(1) and to Article 111(1) to (1b) of the [New Law on the Supreme Court] and appeal procedures pending in those cases on the date of the entry into force of the present law shall be discontinued’, and Article 4(2) thereof provides that ‘procedures commenced and pending at the date of the entry into force of the present law, for the purposes of establishing the existence of an employment relationship as a judge in active service of the Sąd Najwyższy [(Supreme Court)] or of the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny [(Supreme Administrative Court)], in respect of the judged referred to in Article 2(1), shall be discontinued’.
97


It should be noted that, as is clear from settled case-law, it is solely for the national court before which the dispute has been brought, and which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine in the light of the particular circumstances of the case, both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court. Consequently, where the questions submitted concern the interpretation of a rule of EU law, the Court is in principle bound to give a ruling (judgment of 10 December 2018, Wightman and Others, C‑621/18, EU:C:2018:999, paragraph 26 and the case-law cited).
98


It follows that questions relating to EU law enjoy a presumption of relevance. The Court may refuse to rule on a question referred for a preliminary ruling by a national court only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of EU law that is sought bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it (judgment of 10 December 2018, Wightman and Others, C‑621/18, EU:C:2018:999, paragraph 27 and the case-law cited).
100


In that regard, it should be noted that, according to settled case-law, the Court has power to explain to the national court points of EU law which may help to solve the problem of jurisdiction with which that court is faced (judgments of 22 October 1998, IN. CO. GE.’90 and Others, C‑10/97 to C‑22/97, EU:C:1998:498, paragraph 15 and the case-law cited, and of 12 December 2002, Universale-Bau and Others, C‑470/99, EU:C:2002:746, paragraph 43). That applies in particular where, as in the present cases, and as is clear from paragraphs 79 to 81 above, the questions raised relate to the issue whether a national court which ordinarily has jurisdiction to rule on a case in which an individual relies on a right stemming from EU law meets the requirements derived from the right to an effective remedy before a court of law as enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter and Article 9(1) of Directive 2000/78.
102


Next, it should be made clear that the fact that national legislation, such as Article 4(1) and (2) of the Law of 21 November 2018, provides for discontinuance of cases such as those in the main proceedings cannot, in principle and without a decision of the referring court ordering such discontinuance or to the effect that there is no need to rule on the cases in the main proceedings, lead the Court to find that it is no longer necessary for it to answer the questions before it which were referred for a preliminary ruling.
103


It should be noted that national courts have the widest discretion in referring questions to the Court involving interpretation of relevant provisions of EU law, that discretion being replaced by an obligation for courts ruling at final instance, subject to certain exceptions recognised by the Court’s case-law. A rule of national law thus cannot prevent a national court, where appropriate, from exercising that discretion, or complying with that obligation. Both that discretion and that obligation are an inherent part of the system of cooperation between the national courts and the Court of Justice established by Article 267 TFEU and of the functions of the court responsible for the application of EU law entrusted by that provision to the national courts (judgment of 5 April 2016, PFE, C‑689/13, EU:C:2016:199, paragraphs 32 and 33 and the case-law cited).
104


Provisions of national law such as those referred to in paragraph 102 above cannot therefore preclude a chamber of a court from which there is no appeal, faced with a question on the interpretation of EU law, from confirming questions which it referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling.
111


However, the arguments thus put forward, which concern matters of substance, cannot affect the admissibility of the questions referred.
112


Indeed, the questions referred precisely concern the question of whether, notwithstanding rules of national law in force in the Member State in question attributing jurisdiction, a court such as the referring court has the obligation, under the provisions of EU law to which those questions refer, to disapply those rules of national law and to assume, where relevant, jurisdiction for the actions in the main proceedings. A judgment in which the Court were to uphold the existence of such an obligation would be binding on the referring court and all other bodies of the Republic of Poland, and could not be affected by provisions of domestic law relating to the invalidity of proceedings or by the distribution of jurisdiction between the courts to which the Polish Government refers.
115


In that regard, according to settled case-law, when there are no EU rules governing the matter, although it is for the domestic legal system of every Member State to designate the courts and tribunals having jurisdiction and to lay down the detailed procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding rights which individuals derive from EU law, the Member States are, however, responsible for ensuring that those rights are effectively protected in every case, compliance with the right to effective judicial protection of those rights as enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter (see, to that effect, judgments of 22 October 1998, IN. CO. GE.’90 and Others, C‑10/97 to C‑22/97, EU:C:1998:498, paragraph 14 and the case-law cited; of 15 April 2008, Impact, C‑268/06, EU:C:2008:223, paragraphs 44 and 45; and of 19 March 2015, E.ON Földgáz Trade, C‑510/13, EU:C:2015:189, paragraphs 49 and 50 and the case-law cited).
117


As is clear from the explanations relating to Article 47 of the Charter, which, in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 6(1) TEU and Article 52(7) of the Charter, have to be taken into consideration for the interpretation of the Charter, the first and second paragraphs of Article 47 of the Charter correspond to Article 6(1) and Article 13 of the ECHR (judgment of 30 June 2016, Toma and Biroul Executorului Judecătoresc Horațiu-Vasile Cruduleci, C‑205/15, EU:C:2016:499, paragraph 40 and the case-law cited).
118


The Court must therefore ensure that the interpretation which it gives to the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter safeguards a level of protection which does not fall below the level of protection established in Article 6 of the ECHR, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (judgment of 29 July 2019, Gambino and Hyka, C‑38/18, EU:C:2019:628, paragraph 39).
120


That requirement that courts be independent, which is inherent in the task of adjudication, forms part of the essence of the right to effective judicial protection and the fundamental right to a fair trial, which is of cardinal importance as a guarantee that all the rights which individuals derive from EU law will be protected and that the values common to the Member States set out in Article 2 TEU, in particular the value of the rule of law, will be safeguarded (judgment of 24 June 2019, Commission v Poland (Independence of the Supreme Court), C‑619/18, EU:C:2019:531, paragraph 58 and the case-law cited).
121


According to settled case-law, the requirement that courts be independent has two aspects to it. The first aspect, which is external in nature, requires that the court concerned exercise its functions wholly autonomously, without being subject to any hierarchical constraint or subordinated to any other body and without taking orders or instructions from any source whatsoever, thus being protected against external interventions or pressure liable to impair the independent judgment of its members and to influence their decisions (judgments of 25 July 2018, Minister for Justice and Equality (Deficiencies in the system of justice), C‑216/18 PPU, EU:C:2018:586, paragraph 63 and the case-law cited, and of 24 June 2019, Commission v Poland (Independence of the Supreme Court), C‑619/18, EU:C:2019:531, paragraph 72).
122


The second aspect, which is internal in nature, is linked to impartiality and seeks to ensure that an equal distance is maintained from the parties to the proceedings and their respective interests with regard to the subject matter of those proceedings. That aspect requires objectivity and the absence of any interest in the outcome of the proceedings apart from the strict application of the rule of law (judgments of 25 July 2018, Minister for Justice and Equality (Deficiencies in the system of justice), C‑216/18 PPU, EU:C:2018:586, paragraph 65 and the case-law cited, and of 24 June 2019, Commission v Poland (Independence of the Supreme Court), C‑619/18, EU:C:2019:531, paragraph 73).
123


Those guarantees of independence and impartiality require rules, particularly as regards the composition of the body and the appointment, length of service and grounds for abstention, rejection and dismissal of its members, in order to dispel any reasonable doubt in the minds of individuals as to the imperviousness of that body to external factors and its neutrality with respect to the interests before it (judgments of 25 July 2018, Minister for Justice and Equality (Deficiencies in the system of justice), C‑216/18 PPU, EU:C:2018:586, paragraph 66 and the case-law cited, and of 24 June 2019, Commission v Poland (Independence of the Supreme Court), C‑619/18, EU:C:2019:531, paragraph 74).
124


Moreover, in accordance with the principle of the separation of powers which characterises the operation of the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary must be ensured in relation to the legislature and the executive (see, to that effect, judgment of 10 November 2016, Poltorak, C‑452/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:858, paragraph 35).
125


In that regard, it is necessary that judges are protected from external intervention or pressure liable to jeopardise their independence. The rules set out in paragraph 123 above must, in particular, be such as to preclude not only any direct influence, in the form of instructions, but also types of influence which are more indirect and which are liable to have an effect on the decisions of the judges concerned (see, to that effect, judgment of 24 June 2019, Commission v Poland (Independence of the Supreme Court), C‑619/18, EU:C:2019:531, paragraph 112 and the case-law cited).
132


It is ultimately for the referring court to rule on that matter having made the relevant findings in that regard. It must be borne in mind that Article 267 TFEU does not empower the Court to apply rules of EU law to a particular case, but only to rule on the interpretation of the Treaties and of acts adopted by the EU institutions. According to settled case-law, the Court may, however, in the framework of the judicial cooperation provided for by that article and on the basis of the material presented to it, provide the national court with an interpretation of EU law which may be useful to it in assessing the effects of one or other of its provisions (judgment of 16 July 2015, CHEZ Razpredelenie Bulgaria, C‑83/14, EU:C:2015:480, paragraph 71 and the case-law cited).
133


In that regard, as far as concerns the circumstances in which the members of the Disciplinary Chamber were appointed, the Court points out, as a preliminary remark, that the mere fact that those judges were appointed by the President of the Republic does not give rise to a relationship of subordination of the former to the latter or to doubts as to the former’s impartiality, if, once appointed, they are free from influence or pressure when carrying out their role (see, to that effect, judgment of 31 January 2013, D. and A., C‑175/11, EU:C:2013:45, paragraph 99, and ECtHR, 28 June 1984, Campbell and Fell
v. United Kingdom, CE:ECHR:1984:0628JUD000781977, § 79; 2 June 2005, Zolotas
v. Greece, CE:ECHR:2005:0602JUD003824002 §§ 24 and 25; 9 November 2006, Sacilor Lormines
v. France, CE:ECHR:2006:1109JUD006541101, § 67; and 18 October 2018, Thiam
v. France, CE:ECHR:2018:1018JUD008001812, § 80 and the case-law cited).
134


However, it is still necessary to ensure that the substantive conditions and detailed procedural rules governing the adoption of appointment decisions are such that they cannot give rise to reasonable doubts, in the minds of individuals, as to the imperviousness of the judges concerned to external factors and as to their neutrality with respect to the interests before them, once appointed as judges (see, by analogy, judgment of 24 June 2019, Commission v Poland (Independence of the Supreme Court), C‑619/18, EU:C:2019:531, paragraph 111).
135


In that perspective, it is important, inter alia, that those conditions and detailed procedural rules are drafted in a way which meets the requirements set out in paragraph 125 above.
136


In the present cases, it should be made clear that Article 30 of the New Law on the Supreme Court sets out all the conditions which must be satisfied by an individual in order for that individual to be appointed as a judge of that court. Furthermore, under Article 179 of the Constitution and Article 29 of the New Law on the Supreme Court, the judges of the Disciplinary Chamber are, as is the case for judges who are to sit in the other chambers of the referring court, appointed by the President of the Republic on a proposal of the KRS, that is to say the body empowered under Article 186 of the Constitution to ensure the independence of the courts and of the judiciary.
137


The participation of such a body, in the context of a process for the appointment of judges, may, in principle, be such as to contribute to making that process more objective (see, by analogy, judgment of 24 June 2019, Commission v Poland (Independence of the Supreme Court), C‑619/18, EU:C:2019:531, paragraph 115; see also, to that effect, ECtHR, 18 October 2018, Thiam
v. France, CE:ECHR:2018:1018JUD008001812, §§ 81 and 82). In particular, the fact of subjecting the very possibility for the President of the Republic to appoint a judge to the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court) to the existence of a favourable opinion of the KRS is capable of objectively circumscribing the President of the Republic’s discretion in exercising the powers of his office.
138


However, that is only the case provided, inter alia, that that body is itself sufficiently independent of the legislature and executive and of the authority to which it is required to deliver such an appointment proposal (see, by analogy, judgment of 24 June 2019, Commission v Poland (Independence of the Supreme Court), C‑619/18, EU:C:2019:531, paragraph 116).
139


The degree of independence enjoyed by the KRS in respect of the legislature and the executive in exercising the responsibilities attributed to it under national legislation, as the body empowered, under Article 186 of the Constitution, to ensure the independence of the courts and of the judiciary, may become relevant when ascertaining whether the judges which it selects will be capable of meeting the requirements of independence and impartiality arising from Article 47 of the Charter.
142


In that regard, although one or other of the factors thus pointed to by the referring court may be such as to escape criticism per se and may fall, in that case, within the competence of, and choices made by, the Member States, when taken together, in addition to the circumstances in which those choices were made, they may, by contrast, throw doubt on the independence of a body involved in the procedure for the appointment of judges, despite the fact that, when those factors are taken individually, that conclusion is not inevitable.
143


Subject to those reservations, among the factors pointed to by the referring court which it shall be incumbent on that court, as necessary, to establish, the following circumstances may be relevant for the purposes of such an overall assessment: first, the KRS, as newly composed, was formed by reducing the ongoing four-year term in office of the members of that body at that time; second, whereas the 15 members of the KRS elected among members of the judiciary were previously elected by their peers, those judges are now elected by a branch of the legislature among candidates capable of being proposed inter alia by groups of 2000 citizens or 25 judges, such a reform leading to appointments bringing the number of members of the KRS directly originating from or elected by the political authorities to 23 of the 25 members of that body; third, the potential for irregularities which could adversely affect the process for the appointment of certain members of the newly formed KRS.
144


For the purposes of that overall assessment, the referring court is also justified in taking into account the way in which that body exercises its constitutional responsibilities of ensuring the independence of the courts and of the judiciary and its various powers, in particular if it does so in a way which is capable of calling into question its independence in relation to the legislature and the executive.
145


Furthermore, in the light of the fact that, as is clear from the case file before the Court, the decisions of the President of the Republic appointing judges to the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court) are not amenable to judicial review, it is for the referring court to ascertain whether the terms of the definition, in Article 44(1) and (1a) of the Law on the KRS, of the scope of the action which may be brought challenging a resolution of the KRS, including its decisions concerning proposals for appointment to the post of judge of that court, allows an effective judicial review to be conducted of such resolutions, covering, at the very least, an examination of whether there was no ultra vires or improper exercise of authority, error of law or manifest error of assessment (see, to that effect, ECtHR, 18 October 2018, Thiam
v. France, CE:ECHR:2018:1018JUD008001812, §§ 25 and 81).
157


The principle of the primacy of EU law establishes the pre-eminence of EU law over the law of the Member States (judgment of 24 June 2019, Popławski, C‑573/17, EU:C:2019:530, paragraph 53 and the case-law cited).
158


That principle therefore requires all Member State bodies to give full effect to the various EU provisions, and the law of the Member States may not undermine the effect accorded to those various provisions in the territory of those States (judgment of 24 June 2019, Popławski, C‑573/17, EU:C:2019:530, paragraph 54 and the case-law cited).
159


In that regard, it should, inter alia, be pointed out that the principle that national law must be interpreted in conformity with EU law, by virtue of which the national court is required, to the greatest extent possible, to interpret national law in conformity with the requirements of EU law, is inherent in the system of the treaties, since it permits the national court, within the limits of its jurisdiction, to ensure the full effectiveness of EU law when it determines the dispute before it (judgment of 24 June 2019, Popławski, C‑573/17, EU:C:2019:530, paragraph 55 and the case-law cited).
160


It is also in the light of the primacy principle that, where it is impossible for it to interpret national law in compliance with the requirements of EU law, the national court which is called upon within the exercise of its jurisdiction to apply provisions of EU law is under a duty to give full effect to those provisions, if necessary refusing of its own motion to apply any conflicting provision of national legislation, even if adopted subsequently, and it is not necessary for that court to request or await the prior setting aside of such provision by legislative or other constitutional means (judgment of 24 June 2019, Popławski, C‑573/17, EU:C:2019:530, paragraph 58 and the case-law cited).
161


In that regard, any national court, hearing a case within its jurisdiction, has, as a body of a Member State, more specifically the obligation to disapply any provision of national law which is contrary to a provision of EU law with direct effect in the case pending before it (judgment of 24 June 2019, Popławski, C‑573/17, EU:C:2019:530, paragraph 61 and the case-law cited).
162


As regards Article 47 of the Charter, it is clear from the case-law of the Court that that provision is sufficient in itself and does not need to be made more specific by provisions of EU or national law in order to confer on individuals a right which they may rely on as such (judgments of 17 April 2018, Egenberger, C‑414/16, EU:C:2018:257, paragraph 78, and of 29 July 2019, Torubarov, C‑556/17, EU:C:2019:626, paragraph 56).
163


The same applies to Article 9(1) of Directive 2000/78 in so far as, as has been stated in paragraph 80 above, by providing that the Member States are to ensure that all persons who consider themselves wronged by a failure to apply the principle of equal treatment enshrined in that directive to them may enforce their rights, that provision expressly reaffirms the right to an effective remedy in the relevant field. In applying Directive 2000/78, the Member States are required to comply with Article 47 of the Charter and the characteristics of the remedy provided for in Article 9(1) of the directive must be determined in a manner that is consistent with Article 47 of the Charter (see, by analogy, judgment of 29 July 2019, Torubarov, C‑556/17, EU:C:2019:626, paragraphs 55 and 56).
164


Consequently, in the situation referred to in paragraph 160 above, the national court is required to ensure within its jurisdiction the judicial protection for individuals flowing from Article 47 of the Charter and from Article 9(1) of Directive 2000/78, and to guarantee the full effectiveness of those articles by disapplying if need be any contrary provision of national law (see, to that effect, judgment of 17 April 2018, Egenberger, C‑414/16, EU:C:2018:257, paragraph 79).
165


A provision of national law which granted exclusive jurisdiction to hear and rule on a case in which an individual pleads, as in the present cases, an infringement of rights arising from rules of EU law in a particular court which does not meet the requirements of independence and impartiality arising from Article 47 of the Charter would deprive that individual of any effective remedy within the meaning of that article and of Article 9(1) of Directive 2000/78, and would fail to comply with the essential content of the right to an effective remedy enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter (see, by analogy, judgment of 29 July 2019, Torubarov, C‑556/17, EU:C:2019:626, paragraph 72).
166


It follows that, where it appears that a provision of national law reserves jurisdiction to hear cases, such as those in the main proceedings, to a court which does not meet the requirements of independence or impartiality under EU law, in particular, those of Article 47 of the Charter, another court before which such a case is brought has the obligation, in order to ensure effective judicial protection, within the meaning of Article 47, in accordance with the principle of sincere cooperation enshrined in Article 4(3) TEU, to disapply that provision of national law, so that that case may be determined by a court which meets those requirements and which, were it not for that provision, would have jurisdiction in the relevant field, namely, in general, the court which had jurisdiction, in accordance with the law then in force, before the entry into force of the amending legislation which conferred jurisdiction on the court which does not meet those requirements (see, by analogy, judgments of 22 May 2003, Connect Austria, C‑462/99, EU:C:2003:297, paragraph 42, and of 2 June 2005, Koppensteiner, C‑15/04, EU:C:2005:345, paragraphs 32 to 39).
167


Furthermore, as regards Articles 2 and 19 TEU, provisions on which the referring court has also referred questions to the Court, it must be borne in mind that Article 19 TEU, which gives concrete expression to the value of the rule of law affirmed in Article 2 TEU, entrusts the responsibility for ensuring the full application of EU law in all Member States and judicial protection of the rights of individuals under that law to national courts and tribunals and to the Court (judgment of 24 June 2019, Commission v Poland (Independence of the Supreme Court), C‑619/18, EU:C:2019:531, paragraph 47 and the case-law cited).
168


The principle of the effective judicial protection of individuals’ rights under EU law, referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, is a general principle of EU law which is now enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter, so that the former provision requires Member States to provide remedies that are sufficient to ensure effective legal protection, within the meaning in particular of the latter provision, in the fields covered by EU law (see, to that effect, judgment of 24 June 2019, Commission v Poland (Independence of the Supreme Court), C‑619/18, EU:C:2019:531, paragraphs 49 and 54 and the case-law cited).