EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62020CN0492
Case C-492/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 25 September 2020 — W.Ż. v K.Z., Skarb Państwa — Sąd Najwyższy
Case C-492/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 25 September 2020 — W.Ż. v K.Z., Skarb Państwa — Sąd Najwyższy
Case C-492/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 25 September 2020 — W.Ż. v K.Z., Skarb Państwa — Sąd Najwyższy
OJ C 44, 8.2.2021, p. 15–16
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
8.2.2021 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 44/15 |
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 25 September 2020 — W.Ż. v K.Z., Skarb Państwa — Sąd Najwyższy
(Case C-492/20)
(2021/C 44/21)
Language of the case: Polish
Referring court
Sąd Najwyższy
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: W.Ż.
Defendants: K.Z., Skarb Państwa — Sąd Najwyższy
Questions referred
1. |
Must Article 279 TFEU and Article 160(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, in conjunction with Articles 4(3) and 19(1) TEU and the first and second indents of paragraph 1 of the operative part of the order of the Court of Justice of 8 April 2020 in Case C-791/19 R Commission v Poland be interpreted as meaning that a Public Prosecutor may not, until Case C-791/19 R has been resolved, request the transfer to the Izba Dyscyplinarna Sądu Najwyższego (Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court) of a case file concerning the establishment of the non-existence of a service relationship of a Supreme Court judge due to the suspension of the application of Article 3(5), Article 27 and Article 73(1) of the Ustawa z dnia 8 grudnia 2017 r. o Sądzie Najwyższym (Law of 8 December 2017 on the Supreme Court, consolidated text: Dz. U. of 2019, item 825 as amended)? |
2. |
Must the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU in conjunction with Articles 2 and 4(3) TEU and the right to a fair trial be interpreted as meaning that a national court ruling in a case concerning the establishment of the non-existence of a service relationship of a national court judge by reason of serious irregularities during the appointment procedure is required to order interim measures and to prohibit the defendant in such a case from ruling in all other cases falling within the scope of EU law, on pain of such rulings being invalid, and to order other bodies to refrain from assigning cases to that defendant or from assigning him to adjudicating panels? |
3. |
Must Articles 2 and 4(2) in conjunction with the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU and the right to a fair trial be interpreted as meaning that:
|
4. |
Must Articles 2 and 4(2) in conjunction with Article 19 TEU and the right to a fair trial as well as Article 267 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the content of the concept of the constitutional identity of a Member State, as regards the right to a fair trial, may be determined in a manner binding on the court or tribunal of final instance of a Member State only within the framework of a dialogue between the Court of Justice and that court or other national courts (for instance, the constitutional court) conducted using the preliminary ruling procedure? |
5. |
Must the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU and the general principle of the right to a fair trial before a court or tribunal previously established by law be interpreted as meaning that the court of final instance of a Member State must reject an application for the transfer of a case file where such an application has been lodged by a person appointed to a judicial post under national legislation and in circumstances which result in a court or tribunal being formed which does not meet the requirements of independence and impartiality and is not a court established by law, without first having to exhaust the procedure referred to in the question referred for a preliminary ruling in Case C-508/19 or in the judgment of the Court of Justice of 19 November 2019, C-585/18, C-624/18 and C-625/18, A.K. and others? |