This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62021CN0709
Case C-709/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Pitești (Romania) lodged on 24 November 2021 — MK
Case C-709/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Pitești (Romania) lodged on 24 November 2021 — MK
Case C-709/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Pitești (Romania) lodged on 24 November 2021 — MK
OJ C 51, 31.1.2022, p. 22–23
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
31.1.2022 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 51/22 |
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Pitești (Romania) lodged on 24 November 2021 — MK
(Case C-709/21)
(2022/C 51/31)
Language of the case: Romanian
Referring court
Curtea de Apel Pitești
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant/complainant: MK
Questions referred
1. |
Does the principle of the independence of the judiciary, enshrined in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 2 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude a provision of national law, such as that contained in Article 148(2) of the Romanian Constitution, as interpreted by the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court, Romania) in Decision No 390/2021, according to which national courts have no jurisdiction to examine the conformity with EU law of a provision of national law that has been found to be constitutional by a decision of the Constitutional Court? |
2. |
Does the principle of the independence of the judiciary, enshrined in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 2 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude a provision of national law, such as that contained in Article 99(ș) of Legea nr. 303/2004 privind statutul judecătorilor și procurorilor (Law No 303/2004 on the rules governing judges and prosecutors), which provides for the initiation of disciplinary proceedings and the application of disciplinary penalties in respect of a judge for failure to comply with a decision of the Constitutional Court, where that judge is called upon to acknowledge the primacy of EU law over the grounds of a decision of the Constitutional Court, that provision of national law depriving him or her of the possibility of applying a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union which he or she regards as taking precedence? |
3. |
Does the principle of the independence of the judiciary, enshrined in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 2 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude a national judicial practice which precludes a judge, on pain of incurring disciplinary liability, from applying the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union in criminal proceedings in relation to a complaint regarding the reasonable duration of criminal proceedings, governed by Article 4881 of the Romanian Code of Criminal Procedure? |