1.

Must the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union, and Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, be interpreted as making admissible a legal remedy, such as an extraordinary appeal, aimed at setting aside a final ruling of a court where there is a need to ‘ensure compliance with the principle of a democratic state ruled by law and implementing the principles of social justice’ if the use of that remedy is necessary to ensure the effectiveness of EU law?

2.

Must the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union, and Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, be interpreted as meaning that, where provisions of national law make it possible for a final ruling of a court to be varied or set aside by means of a remedy such as an extraordinary appeal in the event of a breach of the principles enshrined in the Constitution of a Member State, those provisions may also be relied on as grounds for setting aside or varying a final ruling of a court in the event of a breach of EU law?

3.

Must the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union, and Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, be interpreted as meaning that, where a national court has infringed EU law in a manner which has led to a case being decided in a way that is flawed from the point of view of that law, the final ruling of that court may be set aside or varied by means of a legal remedy, such as an extraordinary appeal, which makes such a decision conditional upon a ‘flagrant’ breach of the law?