This is a preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning the interpretation of EU law related to the rule of law and the independence of judges in Poland. The case originates from a dispute between two companies, where the Supreme Court of Poland (Sąd Najwyższy), specifically its Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs (Izba Kontroli Nadzwyczajnej i Spraw Publicznych), overturned a final judgment of the Court of Appeal in Cracow (Sąd Apelacyjny w Krakowie). The Court of Appeal then questioned the validity of the Supreme Court’s decision, given doubts about the independence and legitimacy of the judges in the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs.
The judgment addresses four key questions regarding the interpretation of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in the context of national court decisions and legislation that restrict the ability of national courts to assess the legitimacy and independence of other judicial bodies. The CJEU is asked to clarify whether EU law allows national courts to disregard decisions of constitutional courts or national rules that prevent them from assessing the lawfulness of judicial appointments, especially when those appointments may compromise the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. The ruling emphasizes the importance of effective judicial protection and the primacy of EU law, even when national laws or constitutional court decisions conflict with EU principles.
The most important provisions of the act are:
– **The second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU**, which requires Member States to provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective judicial protection in the fields covered by EU law.
– **Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union**, which guarantees the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial.
– **The principle of primacy of EU law**, which means that EU law takes precedence over conflicting national law, including constitutional provisions.
The Court concludes that EU law precludes national legislation and constitutional court case-law that would force a national court to comply with a decision from a higher court if the national court finds that the judges in that higher court do not meet the standards of independence and impartiality required by EU law. Furthermore, EU law requires that a decision by a judicial body that does not meet these standards be considered null and void, especially when it affects the ability of a lower court to ensure effective legal protection.
****
