search

… of the (‘Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial’) states: ‘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. …

… This question is particularly pressing where, as here, the addressee of the information order obtains disclosure of the minimum information referred to in 20(2) of Directive 2011/16 only during the course of the judicial proceedings. II. Legal context A. EU law 1. of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 4. …

… Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and tribunal previously established by law. … …’ 7. …

… Title VI of the of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the ’), under the heading ‘Justice’, includes thereof, entitled ‘Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial’, which states as follows: ‘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 Article. …

… Finally, in Land Hessen, the referring court had asked the Court a question concerning its own status as a ‘court or tribunal’ within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU, read in the light of Article of the . The Court noted that, by that question, the referring court was, in essence, inviting the EU judiciary to examine the admissibility of its request for a preliminary ruling. …

… 6 and 13 ECHR and which is now reaffirmed by of the . (36) Indeed, as expressed in my Opinion in A. …

… OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL TANCHEV delivered on 6 May 2021(1) Case C-791/19 European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - National measures establishing a disciplinary regime for judges - Second subparagraph of 19(1) TEU - Rule of law - Judicial - Definition of disciplinary offences - Examination by an and tribunal established by law - Reasonable time - Rights of the defence - and 48 of the …

… K. and Others, (37) there is a ‘constitutional passerelle’ between the second subparagraph of 19(1) TEU and of the and the case-law concerning them inevitably intersects, given that those provisions share common legal sources. Thus, the rights covered by each are bound to overlap, and the second subparagraph of 19(1) TEU includes, but is not limited to, the obligation to have and courts. 70. …

… of the helps to ensure respect for the right to effective judicial protection of any individual relying, in a given case, on a right which he or she derives from EU law, the second subparagraph of 19(1) TEU seeks to ensure that the system of legal remedies established by each Member State guarantees effective judicial protection in the fields covered by EU law. 53 It is settled case-law of the Court that the guarantees of and required under EU law presuppose …

… law will be protected and that the values common to the Member States set out in Article 2 TEU, in particular the value of the rule of law, will be safeguarded (see, to that effect, judgments of 26 March 2020, Review Simpson v Council and HG v Commission, C-542/18 RX-II and C-543/18 RX-II, EU:C:2020:232, paragraphs 70 and 71, and of 2 March 2021, A.B. and Others (Appointment of judges to the Supreme Court - Actions), C-824/18, EU:C:2021:153, paragraph 116 and the case-law cited). 52 Thus, while …

… See also Pech, L., The Right to an and Tribunal Previously Established by Law under of the EU , in Peers, S. et al., The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: A Commentary, Hart, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id= 3608669. 23 Emphasis added. Judgment in A. …

… Given that W.Ż. comes under the scope of the protection afforded in the second subparagraph of 19(1) TEU, read in the light of of the , he has a right under those provisions - flowing directly from EU law (17) - to effective judicial protection which implies that his action must be examined by a body which has the status of a ‘court or tribunal’ as defined by EU law, that is, a body which is , and established by law. (18) In this case, as the KRS is …

… The right to effective judicial protection under the second subparagraph of 19(1) TEU and of the encompasses the right to a tribunal established by law and the scope of those provisions and of that notion must be established by having regard to the case-law of the ECtHR concerning 6(1) and 13 of the ECHR. 71. …

… The second subparagraph of 19(1) TEU in the light of of the must be interpreted as meaning that a court chamber does not constitute an and tribunal, within the meaning of those provisions, when the objective conditions in which it was created, its characteristics as well as the manner of appointment of its members are capable of giving rise to legitimate doubts, in the minds of subjects of the law, as to the imperviousness of that chamber to external …

… K. and Others, that the answer to the first part of the fourth question and the fifth question referred is that the second subparagraph of 19(1) TEU, read in the light of of the , must be interpreted as meaning that a body does not constitute an and court, within the meaning of those provisions, where the objective circumstances in which that body was formed, its characteristics and the means by which its members have been appointed are capable of giving …

… a court which is not an and tribunal, within the meaning of the former provision. …

… It argues that the procedural guarantees underlying both the preliminary and administrative penalty proceedings are such that the resulting decisions are taken by an and ‘tribunal’ within the meaning of of the . Given that the Takeover Commission thus, in both cases, acts as the ‘court of first instance’, limiting the standard of review of the Supreme Court to questions of law only, is compatible with Article 47 of the Charter. 63. …

… As regards the first paragraph of of the , those parties submit that, in the light of the limited judicial review available to the Supreme Court, recognising the binding effect of the Preliminary Decision, once it became definitive, in the context of the subsequent administrative penalty proceeding and for court proceedings before the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court, Austria), undermines their right to effective judicial protection arising from the …

… According to the Commission, there is nothing to indicate that the Constitutional Court, and in particular, the constitutional decisions at issue, are not compliant with the requirements of judicial and flowing from the second subparagraph of 19(1) TEU and from of the . 82. I agree with that latter position. 83. …

… As a result, I propose that the Court answer the first part of Question 3 as follows: the EU principle of judicial , enshrined in the second paragraph of of the and in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, does not preclude decisions of a national constitutional court declaring the carrying out of technical surveillance measures in the framework of criminal proceedings by domestic intelligence services to be unconstitutional and requiring the exclusion of any …

… Thus, respecting the formal institutional authority of another (judicial) institution is warranted as long as that institution itself meets the structural guarantees of and . (32) 89. …

… It transpires from the decision of the Constitutional Court at issue that what is at stake is the interpretation of the second paragraph of of the with regard not only to the right to a ‘tribunal previously established by law’, but also with regard to other elements of the right to a fair trial, such as the requirements of and , in particular with regard to the ‘internal ’ of judges. (74) 136. …

… By its second question in Case C-357/19, the referring court asks whether the second paragraph of of the is to be interpreted as precluding the finding, by the Constitutional Court, of a lack of and of a judicial panel where that panel includes a judge responsible for judicial administration who, unlike the other four members of that panel, was not randomly selected. …

… (2) Must (2) 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? …

… For the reasons already set out in detail in points 145 to 156 in the Euro Box Promotion Opinion, the answer is no, of the does not preclude any such finding. 106. …

… With regard to legal issues and situations falling within the scope of EU law, but which are not fully determined by it, although the Court has found that of the is infringed particularly when irregularities are of such gravity that they create a real risk of undue discretion which thus raises reasonable doubts as to the and of judges, (33) this does not preclude a national constitutional court from finding that the constitutional right to a fair trial …

… Second, from the EU point of view, and in close connection to the approach taken by the ECtHR on that matter, it does not appear that any infringement of national rules governing the composition of a judicial panel would automatically lead to an infringement of of the . …