Source: https://fra.europa.eu/en/caselaw-reference/poland-supreme-administrative-court-ii-osk-134616
Timestamp: 2020-08-11 13:27:46
Legal References Found: art. 32
 art. 91
 art. 5
 art. 32
 art. 47
 art. 5
 art. 32
 art. 91
 art. 5
 art. 32
 art. 47
 art. 5

Document Content:
Poland / Supreme Administrative Court / II OSK 1346/16 | European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights
S.E. v. Consul of Poland in R.
The applicant submitted a motion for a Schengen visa in order to visit his wife and son who were Polish nationals. That application was refused by the consul. Mr El Hassani submitted a request for review to the same consul who, again refused to grant visa. The applicant appealed against that decision before the Regional Administrative Court, but the court dismissed the appeal, holding that actions brought against a decision to refuse a Schengen visa by the consul does not fall within the jurisdiction of the administrative court. The Supreme Administrative Court referred the request to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling arguing that lack of jurisdiction of the administrative courts may infringe e.g. Article 47 of the Charter. CJEU issued a ruling in December 2017 stating that the Community Code on Visas and Article 47 of Charter “requires Member States to provide for an appeal procedure against decisions refusing visas, the procedural rules for which are a matter for the legal order of each Member State in accordance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness. Those proceedings must, at a certain stage of the proceedings, guarantee a judicial appeal”. On 19 February 2018 the Supreme Administrative Court overruled the decision of Regional Administrative Court and referred the case to the Regional Administrative Court to rule it within regard to the merits. The Court stated that according to the CJEU ruling administrative courts’ procedure is incompatible with Article 32 (3) of Code on Visas in conjunction with Article 47 para. 1 of the Charter. According to the Supreme Administrative Court, there was no ground for the Regional Administrative Court to dismiss this case without review of merits.
What is the scope of administrative courts’ jurisdiction in the light of Community Visa Code and Article 47 of the Charter?
The Regional Administrative Court ruled the case in Septemeber 2018 and quashed the decision of consul. The case is still pending.
The law of the European Union is a part of the national legal order. In the case of a collision of EU and national standards regulating the same subject, in accordance with the principles of: direct effect, supremacy and effectiveness - secondary Union law, ie art. 32 para. 3 of the Visa Code leads to the disapplication of national standards, which results from art. 91 par. 3 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland. Poland - as other Member States - has the obligation to apply EU law and ensure its full effectiveness. It should also be emphasized that the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union under the Treaty of Lisbon has the same legal value as the Treaties (Article 6 (1) TEU). Taking into account the interpretation of EU law by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the judgment of [...] in the case [...], it should be stated that art. 5 point 4 p.p.s.a. [law on administrative courts’ procedure] does not comply with art. 32 para. 3 of the Visa Code in connection with art. 47 para. 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Due to the judgment of the Court issued in the case under consideration, the application of art. 5 point 4 p.p.s.a. shall be refused. Consequently, it must be concluded that there were no grounds to reject the complaint brought against the reason referred to by the court of first instance [Regional Administrative Court] in the grounds of the deicison under appeal.
Prawo Unii Europejskiej stanowi część krajowego porządku prawnego. W przypadku kolizji normy unijnej i krajowej regulujących ten sam przedmiot, zgodnie z zasadami: bezpośredniego skutku, pierwszeństwa i efektywności – prawo wtórne Unii tj. art. 32 ust. 3 kodeksu wizowego ma pierwszeństwo w stosowaniu przed normami krajowymi, co wynika z art. 91 ust. 3 Konstytucji RP. Polska – tak jak pozostałe Państwa Członkowskie – ma obowiązek stosowania prawa Unii, a także zapewnienia mu pełnej efektywności. Podkreślić także należy, że Karta Praw Podstawowych Unii Europejskiej na mocy Traktatu z Lizbony ma taką samą moc prawną jak Traktaty (art. 6 ust. 1 TUE). Biorąc pod uwagę wykładnię przepisów prawa Unii dokonaną przez Trybunał Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej w wyroku z dnia [...] r., w sprawie [...], stwierdzić należy, że art. 5 pkt 4 p.p.s.a. jest niezgodny art. 32 ust. 3 kodeksu wizowego w związku z art. 47 akapit pierwszy Karty praw podstawowych Unii Europejskiej. Ze względu na wyrok Trybunału, w rozpoznawanej sprawie należało odmówić zastosowania art. 5 pkt 4 p.p.s.a. W konsekwencji należy stwierdzić, że brak było podstaw do odrzucenia wniesionej skargi z przyczyny wskazanej przez Sąd I instancji w uzasadnieniu zaskarżonego postanowienia.