search

… of the . …

… JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Ninth Chamber) 7 July 2022 (*) (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Second subparagraph of 19(1) TEU - Obligation on Member States to provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by EU law - 267 TFEU - Obligation on the referring court to give full effect to the interpretation of EU law provided by the Court of Justice - of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - - Access to an and …

… In that regard, it is sufficient to observe that, where, in the field of EU law concerned, individuals have access to an and tribunal previously established by law, which appears to be the case, subject to verification by the referring court, in the Italian legal system, the right of access to such a tribunal, enshrined in the , is respected, and the rule of national law which restricts the possibility of seeking revision of judgments of the supreme court of the administrative …

… In addition, that presumption may be rebutted where a judicial decision that has become final handed down by a national or international court or tribunal leads to the conclusion that the judge or judges constituting the referring court is or are not an and tribunal previously established by law for the purposes of the second subparagraph of 19(1) TEU, read in the light of the second paragraph of of the of Fundamental Rights. …

… It cannot therefore be inferred from that presumption that the conditions for appointment of the judges that make up the referring court necessarily satisfy the guarantees of access to an and tribunal previously established by law for the purposes of the second subparagraph of 19(1) TEU and of the of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (see, to that effect, judgment of 29 March 2022, Getin Noble Bank, C-132/20, EU:C:2022:235, paragraph 74). 51 …

… The same would apply if there were, beyond the personal situation of the judge or judges formally making a request under 267 TFEU, other factors which would have repercussions on the functioning of the referring court to which that judge belongs - or those judges belong - and thus contribute to undermining the and of that court (see, to that effect, judgment of 29 March 2022, Getin Noble Bank, C-132/20, EU:C:2022:235, paragraphs 72 and 75). 52 In the present case …

… and tribunal previously established by law, as enshrined in the second paragraph of of the . (12) 53. …

… for ensuring that the rights conferred by EU law are effectively protected in each case and, in particular, for ensuring compliance, first, with the principle that the addressees of decisions that significantly affect their interests must be placed in a position in which they can effectively make known their views as regards the information on which the authorities intend to base their decision and, second, with the right of any person to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an …

… EUROPEAN UNION LAW AND PRACTICE The of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 38. of the EU (Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial) provides: “Everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal in compliance with the conditions laid down in this . …

… Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and tribunal previously established by law. Everyone shall have the possibility of being advised, defended and represented. Legal aid shall be made available to those who lack sufficient resources in so far as such aid is necessary to ensure effective access to justice.” Ahmed Mahamdia v. People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria (Case C‑154/11 ECLI:EU:C:2012:491) 39. Mr. …

… of the , which is the standard by reference to which the Council must assess the observance of the right to effective judicial protection (see judgments of 3 February 2021, Klymenko v Council, T-258/20, EU:T:2021:52, paragraph 98 and the case-law cited, and of 9 June 2021, Yanukovych v Council, T-303/19, not published, EU:T:2021:334, paragraph 124 and the case-law cited), provides that everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and …

… Anti-Corruption Bureau, with the result that they had not been brought before a Ukrainian court for consideration of the merits, the Ukrainian court having been seised only of procedural matters, notwithstanding the fact that the Pechersk District Court had delivered a decision on 27 July 2015 granting the PGO permission to proceed in absentia (see, to that effect, judgment of 9 June 2021, Yanukovych v Council, T-303/19, not published, EU:T:2021:334, paragraph 123). 114 The second paragraph of …

… of the , which is the standard by reference to which the Council must assess the observance of the right to effective judicial protection (see judgments of 3 February 2021, Klymenko v Council, T-258/20, EU:T:2021:52, paragraph 98 and the case-law cited, and of 9 June 2021, Yanukovych v Council, T-302/19, not published, EU:T:2021:333, paragraph 116 and the case-law cited), provides that everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and …

… confidential], initiated in 2014 and currently suspended, were still at the stage of the pre-trial investigation, itself recently transferred to the Ukrainian National Police Department, with the result that they had not been brought before a Ukrainian court for consideration of the merits, the Ukrainian court having been seised only of procedural matters (see, to that effect, judgment of 9 June 2021, Yanukovych v Council, T-302/19, not published, EU:T:2021:333, paragraph 115). 111 The second paragraph of …

… of the order for reference that those questions concern, in essence, the interpretation of the principle of and of tribunals under the second subparagraph of 19(1) TEU and Article of the . …

… 19(1) TEU, with the result that it must meet the requirements of effective judicial protection. 93 To guarantee that such a court is in a position to ensure the effective legal protection thus required under the second subparagraph of 19(1) TEU, maintaining its and is essential, as confirmed by the second paragraph of of the , which refers to access to an ‘’ tribunal as one of the requirements linked to the fundamental right to an effective …

… Consideration of the questions referred Questions 1 to 5 Preliminary observations 77 Questions 1 to 5 referred for a preliminary ruling concern the interpretation of 2, 4(3), 6(1) and (3) and the second subparagraph of 19(1) TEU in conjunction with the first and second paragraphs of of the and the third paragraph of 267 TFEU, 38 of the and 7(1) and (2) of Directive 93/13. 78 However, it is apparent from the grounds …

… and that of this formation in the present case (see, to that effect, order of 2 April 2020, Kerstens v Commission, C-577/18 P-REV, not published, EU:C:2020:250, paragraphs 25 to 30). 19 In that regard, 18 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which is the expression of the right of access to an and tribunal enshrined in of the , provides, in its first paragraph, that no Judge or Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the …

… interests, the appellant does not seek to call into question the personal impartiality of that member, but the objective impartiality of the formation of that court. 18 As regards the grounds on which the appellant bases that claim, it should be stated that the mere fact that that member of the formation of the General Court worked for the Commission, the defendant at first instance, before performing his duties as a Judge at the General Court is not sufficient to cast a doubt as to his objective …

… and tribunal previously established by law within the meaning of the second paragraph of of the . …

… questions, the referring court seeks to determine whether J.M.’s appointment as President of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court) and the designation by that judge of the disciplinary court called upon to hear disciplinary proceedings such as those in respect of the applicant in the main proceedings, are compatible with EU law and, ultimately, whether the disciplinary court thus designated by J.M. to hear such disciplinary proceedings in respect of that applicant constitutes an …

… circumstances, to a violation of the guarantees of and within the meaning of 45 § 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, Article of the of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6 § 1 of the [Convention]. 3. …

… As regards the substance of the second paragraph of of the , it is clear from the very wording of that provision that the fundamental right to an effective remedy enshrined therein means, inter alia, that everyone is entitled to a fair hearing by an and tribunal. 120. …

… It held, in so far as relevant: “ of the of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and 9(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as precluding cases concerning the application of EU law from falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of a court which is not an and tribunal, within the meaning of the former provisions. …