This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62019CN0791
Case C-791/19: Action brought on 25 October 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
Case C-791/19: Action brought on 25 October 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
Case C-791/19: Action brought on 25 October 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
OJ C 413, 9.12.2019, p. 36–37
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
9.12.2019 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 413/36 |
Action brought on 25 October 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
(Case C-791/19)
(2019/C 413/44)
Language of the case: Polish
Parties
Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Banks, H. Krämer, S.L. Kalėda, Agents)
Defendant: Republic of Poland
Form of order sought
1. |
Declare that:
the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU; and that
the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second and third paragraphs of Article 267 TFEU; |
2. |
Order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
First, as regards the infringement of the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, the Commission submits that the disputed provisions (i) allow the content of judicial decisions to be treated as a disciplinary offence, (ii) fail to guarantee the independence and impartiality of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court, which has jurisdiction for the review of decisions issued in disciplinary proceedings, (iii) confer on the President of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court the discretionary power to designate the competent disciplinary court of first instance in cases concerning judges of the ordinary courts and, therefore, fail to guarantee that disciplinary cases are adjudicated on by a court ‘established by law’, (iv) fail to guarantee that disciplinary cases against judges of the ordinary courts are heard within a reasonable period, and thus fail to guarantee the rights of the defence of accused judges of the ordinary courts.
Secondly, as regards the infringement of the second and third paragraphs of Article 267 TFEU, the Commission submits that the national provisions at issue allow the right of courts to refer questions for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice to be limited by the possibility of the initiation of disciplinary proceedings.