Poland, Supreme Court - Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 26 November 2021, C-720/21

Member State
Poland
Deciding Court Original Language
Sąd Najwyższy
Deciding Court English translation
Supreme Court
Registration N
C-720/21
Date Decision
29 May 2024
ECLI (if available)

ECLI:EU:C:2024:489

National Follow Up Of (when relevant)
N/A
EU legal sources and CJEU jurisprudence

Art. 47 of the Charter, art. 19 and 267 of TFEU, art. 4 and 2 of TEU

C-718/21

ECtHR Jurisprudence
Dolinska-Ficek and Ozimek v. Poland, 8.11.2021
Subject Matter
(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Article 267 TFEU – Definition of ‘court or tribunal’ – Criteria – Izba Kontroli Nadzwyczajnej i Spraw Publicznych (Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs) of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland) – Reference for a preliminary ruling from an adjudicating panel which does not have the status of an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law – Manifest inadmissibility)
Legal issue(s)
The  newly created chamber of Supreme Court in Poland as an adjudicating panel which does not have the status of an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.
Interim Relief
N/A
National Law Sources
Law on Supreme Court, art. 26,89, 115. Law on National Coucil of Judiciary
Facts of the case
The Extraordinary Review and Public Affairs Chamber of Supreme Court referred a question to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling, which was declared inadmissible in view of the case-law to date and the way in which the judges had been appointed.
Reasoning (role of the Charter or other EU, ECHR related legal basis)
The Court therefore considers that, taken together, all the elements, both systemic and concerning the specific factual circumstances referred to in paragraphs 47 to 57 and 62 to 76 of the judgment of 21 December 2023, National Council of the Judiciary (Continued holding of the office of judge) (C-718/21, EU:C:2023:1015), which characterised the appointment to the Extraordinary Review and Public Afffairs Chamber of three judges forming the referring authority in the case which ended with that judgment, have the effect that that body does not have the status of an independent and impartial court previously established by law within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 19(1) TEU in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter. Indeed, the totality of those elements may give rise, in the minds of individuals, to justified doubts as to the invulnerability of those judges and the formation of the court in which they sit to external factors, in particular direct or indirect influences of the national legislature and the executive, and as to their neutrality with regard to the interests before them. Such elements may lead to a lack of visible signs of the independence or impartiality of those judges and that body, which could undermine the confidence that the judiciary should inspire in those individuals in a democratic society and in the rule of law [Judgment of 21 December 2023, National Council of the Judiciary (Continued holding of the position of judge), C-718/21, EU:C:2023:1015, paragraph 77].
Relation of the case to the EU Charter
Not directly
Relation between the EU Charter and ECHR
Concensus  + common interpretation of the "court established by law"
Use of Judicial Interaction technique(s)
preliminary reference
Horizontal Judicial Interaction patterns (Internal – with other national courts, and external – with foreign courts)
N/A
Vertical Judicial Interaction patterns (Internal – with other superior national courts, and external – with European supranational courts)
Strenghtenig the reasoning in the case with the ECHR jurisprudence.
Strategic use of judicial interaction technique (purpose aimed by the national court)
Institutional conflict
Impact on Legislation / Policy
No reaction - the Chamber still opertates, and the judges are appointed to adjudicate cases there by the President of Poland.
Notes on the national implementation of the preliminary ruling by the referring court
N/A
Did the national court quote case law of the CJEU/ECtHR (in particular cases not already referred to by the CJEU in its decision) or the Explanations?
N/A
Did the national court quote soft law instruments, such as GRECO Reports, Venice Commission, CEPEJ Reports, or CCEJ Reports?
N/A
Did the national court take into account national case law on fundamental rights?
N/A
If the court that issued the preliminary reference is not a last instance court, and the “follow up” was appealed before a higher court, include the information
N/A
Was there a consensus among national courts on how to implement the CJEU's preliminary ruling; and were there divergences between the judiciary and other state powers regarding the implementation of the preliminary ruling?
N/A
Impact on national case law from the same Member State or other Member States
N/A
Connected national caselaw / templates
N/A
Author
Jarosław Gwizdak, INPRIS
History of the case: (please note the chronological order of the summarised/referred national judgments.)

1. Reference for preliminary ruling by the PolishSC 17.11.2021

2. Order of CJEU - 29.05.2024 - reasoning;

 
Project implemented with financial support of the Fundamental Rights & Citizenship Programme of the European Union
© European University Institute 2019
Villa Schifanoia - Via Boccaccio 121, I-50133 Firenze - Italy