Case C‑614/14

Criminal proceedings

against

Atanas Ognyanov

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 267 TFEU — Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Content of a request for a preliminary ruling — National rule providing that the national court is to be disqualified because it stated a provisional opinion in the request for a preliminary ruling when setting out the factual and legal context — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Second paragraph of Article 47 and Article 48(1)’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 5 July 2016

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Reference to the Court — Content of a request for a preliminary ruling — National legislation providing for the disqualification of the referring court for having set out the factual and legal context of the main proceedings

   (Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 47, first para., and 48(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 94)

2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the national court — Establishing and assessing the facts of the dispute — Alteration of its initial findings after delivery of the Court’s judgment — Obligation on the national courts to give full effect to the interpretation of EU law adopted by the Court

   (Art. 267 TFEU)

3. EU law — Primacy — Contrary national law — Existing rules to be automatically inapplicable — Obligation to modify settled case-law based on an interpretation of national law contrary to EU law

   (Art. 267 TFEU)

1.  Article 267 TFEU and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, read in the light of the second paragraph of Article 47 and of Article 48(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding a national rule which is interpreted in such a way as to oblige the referring court to disqualify itself from a case pending before the Court, on the ground that it set out, in its request for a preliminary ruling, the factual and legal context of that case.

   In setting out, in its request for a preliminary ruling, the factual and legal context of the main proceedings, a referring court is doing no more than meeting the requirements of Article 267 TFEU and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure. That being the case, where that referring court presents, in its request for a preliminary ruling, the relevant factual and legal context of the main proceedings, that is a response to the requirement of cooperation that is inherent in the preliminary reference mechanism and cannot, in itself, be a breach of either the right to a fair trial, enshrined in the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter, or the right to the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 48(1) of the Charter. In that regard, the effect of a national rule according to which, where a national court sets out, in a request for a preliminary ruling, the factual and legal context of the case at issue, that constitutes an example of bias, is likely to be that the national court may choose to refrain from referring questions for a preliminary ruling to the Court, in order to avoid, on the one hand, being disqualified and exposed to disciplinary penalties or, on the other, lodging requests for preliminary rulings that are inadmissible. Consequently, such a rule is detrimental to the prerogatives granted to national courts and tribunals by Article 267 TFEU and, consequently, to the effectiveness of the cooperation between the Court and the national courts and tribunals established by the preliminary ruling mechanism.

   (see paras 22, 23, 25, 26, operative part 1)

2.  EU law, and in particular Article 267 TFEU, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require the referring court, after the delivery of the preliminary ruling, to hear the parties again and to undertake further inquiries, which might lead it to alter the findings of fact or law made in the request for a preliminary ruling, nor does it prohibit the referring court from doing so, provided that the referring court gives full effect to the interpretation of EU law adopted by the Court.

   (see para. 30, operative part 2)

3.  EU law must be interpreted as precluding a referring court from applying a national rule that is interpreted in national case-law in such a way that it requires that court to disqualify itself from hearing the case before it on the ground that it set out, in its request for a preliminary ruling, the factual and legal context of that case, since that rule is held to be contrary to EU law. The referring court is obliged to ensure that Article 267 TFEU is given full effect, and if necessary to disapply, of its own motion, a national rule as so interpreted, since that interpretation is not compatible with EU law.

   (see paras 36, 37, operative part 3)