search

… . …’ 3 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. …

… courts from examining whether there is compliance with EU requirements concerning an and tribunal previously established by law within the meaning of 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article of the ?’ …

… , in 6(1) of the ECHR, and is now reaffirmed in the second paragraph of of the . 69 The guarantees of access to an and tribunal previously established by law, and in particular those which determine what constitutes a tribunal and how it is composed, represent the cornerstone of the right to a fair trial. …

… of 19(1) TEU in conjunction with Article of the and under the principle of the primacy of EU law. In the case which gave rise to that judgment, the Court upheld the first and second complaints raised by the European Commission, which concerned, inter alia, the compatibility with the second subparagraph of 19(1) TEU in conjunction with of the of 42a(1) and (2) of the ustawa - Prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych (Law relating to the organisation …

… and tribunal in proceedings that meet the requirements arising from [] of the []?’ …

… By the second part of its question, the referring court asks the Court, in essence, to examine whether the use of a computerised system for randomly allocating cases, such as the SLPS, is compatible with the requirements of an and tribunal established by law, for the purposes of the second subparagraph of 19(1) TEU, read in the light of of the . 57. …

… It asks whether the second subparagraph of 19(1) TEU, read in the light of of the , requires that the judge himself or herself have a judicial remedy against such decisions. 72. …

… Legal context European Union law The 3 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. …

… In that regard, of the , which guarantees the right to effective judicial protection, must be taken into account where the exercise of that right by victims might be impeded. An extension of the immunity of EESC members beyond its strictly functional character would undermine that right. …

… Functional immunity, while pursuing a legitimate public interest, is not absolute and must be reconciled with the need to avoid criminal impunity and to ensure and investigations and judgments. (44) Therefore, where the alleged offences are not in the interest of the European Union, their coverage by immunity would create a risk of impunity incompatible with that provision, by depriving the victims of an effective remedy. 92. …

… Furthermore, the Supreme Court in a resolution on legal interpretation of 23 January 2020 found that the DCSC had “structurally fail[ed] to fulfil the criteria of an court within the meaning of of the and Article 45 § 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland and Article 6 § 1 [of the Convention]” (ibid., §§ 199-200). 133. …

… Poland (Disciplinary regime for judges), C‑791/19, EU:C:2021:596, that Poland had failed to fulfil its obligations under 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union by, in particular, “failing to guarantee the and of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court” (see Tuleya, cited above, §§ 229-31 and 441). …

… It follows from the first sentence of the second paragraph of of the that everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and tribunal previously established by law. The Court has stressed that the guarantees of an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law represent the cornerstone of the right to a fair trial. (25) 35. …

… The principle of the effective judicial protection of individuals’ rights under EU law, referred to in the second subparagraph of 19(1) TEU, is a general principle of EU law reaffirmed by of the . As previously indicated, (24) while the latter provision is not applicable in the present case, as such, it must be duly taken into consideration for the purposes of interpreting the second subparagraph of 19(1) TEU. …

… Third, the referring court considers that OUG No 62/2024 adversely affects the right to a fair trial guaranteed, inter alia, by of the . Litigants may perceive that that emergency order favours the administration in cases concerning salary entitlements and that judges of the lower courts do not enjoy the public trust necessary to adopt decisions on their own, which undermines public confidence in the judicial system. …

… . - The first part of the second plea, relating to infringement of the principles of and in the conduct of the investigation procedure 45 The applicant argues that, both in the report at issue and in the contested decision, which validates the former, statements, complaints and evidence submitted by him were not examined, in breach of 22.1 and 27 of the Dignity at Work Policy and Article 41 of the of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 46 The EIB disputes …

… the applicant’s arguments. In that regard, it should be borne in mind that, under the first paragraph of Article 21 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the application initiating proceedings must contain a brief statement of the pleas in law on which the application is based. 48 According to settled case-law, the information given must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare …

… Until now, the possibility of relying on such a ground has been considered in relation to a risk of infringement of the fundamental rights guaranteed in 4 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment), 7 (right to respect for family and private life) and (right to an effective remedy before an and tribunal previously established by law) of the . 54. …

… In my view, there is no reason to exclude outright and categorically the possibility that a risk of infringement of the fundamental right enshrined in 49(3) of the Charter may also justify, in exceptional circumstances, a refusal to surrender on the basis of Article 1(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584. …

… and tribunal established by law to be able, in accordance with a procedure that fully safeguards the rights enshrined in and 48 of the , to review the validity of that decision and that of the decision not to adjudicate of a body such as the [NCJ] concerning the challenge brought against that transfer decision.” …

… THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION as regards the review of the decision on the applicant’s TRANSFER 51. …

… The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his right to safeguard and respect his individual by the State authorities and his right to have the decision on his transfer reviewed by an independent and body had not been respected in the proceedings concerning his transfer, both as regards the proceedings held before the NCJ and in so far as there had been no judicial review of the NCJ’s resolution of 25 July 2019 dismissing his appeal against the transfer …