search

… K. and Others ( of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court) (C-585/18, C-624/18 and C-625/18, EU:C:2019:982), that that chamber is not an and tribunal within the meaning of of the . 44 In those circumstances, the Sąd Dyscyplinarny Izby Adwokackiej w Warszawie (Bar Association Disciplinary Court, Warsaw), which will be required, once it has given its decision in the main proceedings, to inform the parties of the possibility for them to bring …

… in those proceedings by a body which is not an and tribunal for the purposes of that provision?’ …

… and tribunal for the purposes of of the ; (b) in accordance with the position previously expressed by the Criminal Chamber of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court), that is to say, the judicial body which would have jurisdiction to examine that appeal if the abovementioned provisions did not preclude it, may (or should) the Bar Association Disciplinary Court disregard the position expressed by the Disciplinary Chamber of the Sąd Najwyżsy (Supreme Court)? …

… of the , which is the standard by reference to which the Council must assess compliance with the right to effective judicial protection (see judgment of 3 February 2021, Klymenko v Council, T-258/20, EU:T:2021:52, paragraph 98 and the case-law cited), provides that everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and tribunal previously established by law. 102 In so far as the Charter contains rights which correspond to rights guaranteed …

… by the ECHR, such as those provided for by 6, their meaning and scope are, under Article 52(3) of the Charter, the same as those laid down by the ECHR. 103 In that regard, it must be noted that, in its interpretation of Article 6 ECHR, the ECtHR has held that the purpose of the reasonable time principle is, inter alia, to protect persons charged with a criminal offence against excessive procedural delays and to prevent them from being left in a state of uncertainty about their fate for too …

… rights of defence and right to effective judicial protection had been respected, whereas, as the applicant argued, those proceedings, which concerned acts allegedly committed between 2011 and 2014, were still at the preliminary investigation stage and, moreover, had been transferred, already closed, to other investigating authorities in November 2019, with the result that the cases in question had not yet been submitted to a Ukrainian court with regard to the substance. 101 The second paragraph of …

… of the enshrines the entitlement of everyone to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and tribunal previously established by law. …

… (2) Must [the second paragraph of ] of the [] be interpreted as precluding a finding by a body outside the judicial system - binding under national law - of the lack of and of a Chamber which includes a judge responsible for judicial administration who has not been randomly appointed, but on the basis of a transparent rule known to the parties and unchallenged by them, applicable to all the cases dealt with by that same chamber? …

… (Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs of the Supreme Court - Appointment), C-487/19, EU:C:2021:798, paragraph 129). 206 It should be observed that an irregularity committed during the composition of panels entails an infringement of the first sentence of the second paragraph of of the , particularly when that irregularity is of such a kind and of such gravity as to create a real risk that other branches of the State, in particular the executive, could exercise undue …

… In those circumstances, the term ‘ review body’ within the meaning of 2a of that directive must, for the purposes of determining whether the exclusion of a tenderer has become definitive, be understood to mean an and tribunal previously established by law, within the meaning of of the . 74 The fact that the exclusion decision is not yet definitive thus determines, for those tenderers, their standing to challenge the contract award decision …

… 1(3) makes clear, moreover, that such reviews must be available at least to any person having or having had an interest in obtaining a particular contract and who has been or risks being harmed by an alleged infringement. 69 In so far as individual parties have access, in the relevant field, to an and tribunal previously established by law, within the meaning of the second paragraph of of the , which appears to be the case - subject to verification …

… Consequently, the judgment of the Consiglio di State (Council of State) is also inconsistent with the first paragraph of of the . 78 However, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where, subject to verification by the referring court, national procedural law in itself permits interested persons to bring an action before an and tribunal and to assert effectively that EU law, and provisions of national law transposing EU law into the domestic …

… of the , entitled ‘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. …

… persons to the issuing judicial authority - Grounds for refusal to execute - of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - - Right of access to an and tribunal - Systemic or generalised failings concerning the independence of the issuing judicial authority - Absence of an effective remedy to challenge the validity of the appointment of the judges in the issuing Member State - Serious risk, for the person covered by the European arrest warrant, of a breach …

… of the , particularly where that irregularity is of such a kind and of such gravity as to create a real risk that other branches of the State, in particular the executive, could exercise undue discretion undermining the integrity of the outcome of the appointment process and thus give rise to a reasonable doubt in the minds of individuals as to the and of the judge or judges concerned, which is the case when what is at issue are fundamental rules forming an integral …

… of the , 6 of the Convention and Article 45 § 1 of the Polish Constitution”.... …

… process leads, in specific 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. …

… If, however, the Constitution of Poland, in particular 179, which provides that judges shall be appointed by the President of the Republic of Poland on a motion of the [NCJ], is found to prevent review of the and of a court adjudicating in a given case, then the Polish Constitution would be in fundamental conflict with of the . …

… 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with of the , and under 267 TFEU and the principle of primacy of EU law; - by adopting and maintaining in force points 2 and 3 of 107(1) of the amended Law relating to the ordinary courts and points 1 to 3 of 72(1) of the amended Law on the Supreme Court, under which the examination of compliance with the EU requirements relating to an and tribunal previously established by law may be classified as a ‘ …

… disciplinary offence’, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with of the , and under 267 TFEU; - by conferring on the Izba Dyscyplinarna (Disciplinary Chamber) of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court) (‘the Disciplinary Chamber’), whose and are not guaranteed, jurisdiction to hear and determine cases having a direct impact on the status of judges and trainee …

… U. of 2002, item 1269), as amended by the amending law (‘the amended Law relating to the administrative courts’), and 8 of the amending law, which prohibit any national court from reviewing compliance with the EU requirements relating to an and tribunal previously established by law, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article of the of Fundamental Rights of …

… courts, the Law on the Supreme Court and certain other laws, in so far as they prohibit national courts from verifying compliance with the requirements of the European Union relating to an and tribunal previously established by law, within the meaning of 19(1) TEU in conjunction with Article of the of Fundamental Rights; (e) to suspend the application of Article 26(2) and (4) to (6) and Article 82(2) to (5) of the Law on the Supreme Court, as amended, and …

… 1) of the Law on the Supreme Court, as amended, which allow the disciplinary liability of judges to be incurred for having examined compliance with the requirements of and of a tribunal previously established by law, within the meaning of 19(1) TEU in conjunction with Article of the of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; (d) to suspend the application of Article 42a(1) and (2) and of Article 55(4) of the Law relating to the organisation of the ordinary …

… K. and Others (Independence of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court) (C-585/18, C-624/18 and C-625/18, EU:C:2019:982); (c) to suspend the application of points 2 and 3 of Article 107(1) of the ustawa - Prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych (Law relating to the organisation of the ordinary courts) of 27 July 2001, as amended by the Law amending the Law relating to the organisation of the ordinary courts, the Law on the Supreme Court and certain other laws, and of points 1 to 3 of 72( …

… 40 The referring court considers that the answer to the questions thus addressed to it will depend, inter alia, on whether a judge appointed in such circumstances constitutes an and tribunal established by law, within the meaning of the second subparagraph of 19(1) TEU, Article 267 TFEU, the second subparagraph of Article of the , and Article 6(1) ECHR. 41 According to the referring court, the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, requires Member States …

… According to its wording, that question concerns, more specifically whether, taking those circumstances into account, that judge may be regarded as constituting an ‘ and tribunal previously established by law within the meaning of EU law’. 122 As regards those concepts, it follows from the first sentence of the second paragraph of of the , which reflects, in essence and as has already been noted in paragraph 102 of this judgment, the general principle of EU …

… law of effective judicial protection, to which the second subparagraph of 19(1) TEU also refers, that everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and tribunal previously established by law. 123 Moreover, in so far as the sets out rights corresponding to rights guaranteed under the ECHR, 52(3) of the Charter is intended to ensure the necessary consistency between the rights contained in the Charter and the corresponding …

… (b) Findings of the Court 122 As a preliminary point, with regard to the lack of two levels of jurisdiction, it is sufficient to note that the fact that no appeal may be brought against the Court’s decision in the proceedings provided for in Article 286(6) TFEU does not constitute a deficiency which contravenes the right of the Member or former Member concerned of the Court of Auditors to effective judicial protection as guaranteed in of the (see, by analogy, judgment of 11 July …

… and tribunal established by the EU and FEU Treaties and not as an administrative authority hearing a disciplinary matter. 124 Consequently, the examination by the Court, at first and last instance, of the complaints alleging a breach by Mr Pinxten of the obligations arising from his office as a Member of the Court of Auditors adequately ensures his effective judicial protection. 2. …

… 2006, Commission v Cresson, C-432/04, EU:C:2006:455, paragraphs 112 and 113). 123 In addition, since Mr Pinxten claims that his plea is different from the plea examined by the Court in the judgment of 11 July 2006, Commission v Cresson (C-432/04, EU:C:2006:455), in that it argues a complete lack of judicial protection and not an infringement of the right to two levels of jurisdiction, it should be stated that the Court is adjudicating in the present proceedings, after hearing Mr Pinxten, as an …