1.

Must Article 2, Article 6(1) and (3) and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that a court before which a criminal case has been brought and which is at the same time a defendant in proceedings concerning an action for compensation brought by a defendant in that criminal case and based on an alleged infringement in the activity of that court or of a court whose successor in law it is, in the same or a different criminal case, or which would be liable to pay compensation if the action were upheld, is not an independent and impartial tribunal within the meaning of EU law?

2.

If so, must the abovementioned provisions of EU law be interpreted as meaning that such a court may not continue the criminal proceedings, including ruling on the merits of the case, and what would be the consequences for the procedural and substantive acts of that court were it not to disqualify itself?

3.

Must Article 2, Article 6(1) and (3) and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that, in the case where a court has been abolished by the adopted amendment to the Zakon za sadebnata vlast (Law on the Judiciary) (DV No 32/26 April 2022, the implementation of which has been postponed until 27 July 2022) but the judges must continue to hear the cases assigned to them up to that date and must also continue, after that date, to hear cases of that institution in which they have held preliminary hearings, the independence of that court is impaired, given that the abolition of the court is justified on the ground that the constitutional principle of the independence of the judiciary and the protection of the constitutional rights of citizens is thereby safeguarded and the facts leading to the conclusion that those principles have been infringed are not duly set out?

4.

Must the abovementioned provisions of EU law be interpreted as precluding national provisions such as those of the Law on the Judiciary (DV No 32/26 April 2022, the implementation of which has been postponed until [27] July 2022), which lead to the complete abolition of (the Specialised Criminal Court as) an autonomous body of the judiciary in Bulgaria on the ground referred to above and to the transfer of judges (including the judge of the panel who is hearing the criminal case at hand) from that court to various courts throughout the country, including courts situated far from the place where they currently perform their duties, without the place in question having been specified in advance, without the consent of the judges, and in the presence of restrictions which are laid down by law in respect of those members of the national legal service alone as to the maximum number which can be reappointed to a judicial body?

5.

If so, and in the light of the primacy of EU law, what procedural acts should be undertaken by the members of the national legal service attached to the courts to be abolished? What consequences would that have for the procedural decisions of the court to be abolished in the cases which must be taken to their conclusion and for the decisions terminating the proceedings in those cases?