1.

Must Articles 4(3) and 19(1) TEU, having regard to the principle of equivalence which arises from the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the interpretation of EU law given pursuant to Article 267(1) TFEU constitutes grounds for reopening civil proceedings which ended with a final judgment, if a provision of national law, such as Article 4011 of the Code of Civil Procedure, allows proceedings to be reopened in the event that a final judgment is given on the basis of a provision which has been held by a judgment of the Trybunał Konstytucyjny (Constitutional Court, Poland) to be incompatible with a higher-ranking law?

2.

Does the principle of interpretation of national law in conformity with EU law arising from Article 4(3) TEU and from the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union require a broad interpretation of a provision of national law, such as Article 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, so as to include in the grounds for reopening proceedings set out therein a final default judgment in which the court, infringing the obligations arising from the judgment of the Court of Justice in Profi Credit (C-176/17), omitted to examine a contract between a consumer and a lender in terms of unfair contractual terms and limited itself to examining only the formal validity of the promissory note?