Judgments of
Consolidated text published in Dz. U. of 2019, item 52, as amended.
The Minister for Justice may second a judge, with his or her consent, for the purpose of exercising judicial functions or administrative tasks: … for a fixed period, which may not exceed 2 years, or for an indeterminate period. …
Consolidated text published in Dz. U. of 2020, item 30.
Articles 200, 280, 177, 296 of the Ustawa z dnia 6 czerwca 1997 r. – Kodeks karny (Law of
Article 62(2) of the Ustawa z dnia
the composition of the court includes a [judge] seconded pursuant to a personal decision of the Minister Sprawiedliwości (Minister for Justice [Poland]) from a court situated one level below in the court hierarchy, the criteria followed by the Minister for Justice when seconding this judge are not known, and national law does not provide for any judicial review of such a decision and allows the Minister for Justice to terminate the judge’s secondment at any time?
Judgment of
See, to that effect,
See, to that effect, judgment of
See, for further detail in that regard, my Opinion in
See judgment of
See, for example, judgments of
See, for a recent example, judgment of
See, in this regard, for instance, judgment of
Judgment of
See, for example, judgment of
See to that effect, judgment of
Judgment of
Judgment of
Judgment of
Judgment of
See orders of
See, among many, judgments of
Ibid., paragraph 112.
See, for example, Council of Europe, Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE), Opinion N 19 (2016) of
See, for illustration, Article 11(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court.
See judgment of
Judgments of
See, among many, judgments of
See, inter alia, judgment of
See, notably, judgments of
See, inter alia, judgments of
See above, points 33 to 36 of this Opinion.
See, recently, judgments of
See, among many, judgment of
See, by way of example, judgment of
See, inter alia, my Opinion in
See, in particular, judgment in
Ibid., paragraphs 99 and 100.
Judgment of
See, inter alia, judgment of
See, for example, judgment of
See, inter alia, judgment of
Judgment of
Judgment of
Judgment of
See, inter alia, judgments of
See, for example, from amongst many, judgment of
See, recently, judgments of
See, for instance, judgments of
See, with further references, judgment of
Ibid., paragraph 103. The same logic was most recently confirmed yet again in judgment of
See, inter alia, judgment of
To that effect, judgment of
See above, footnote 30 of this Opinion.
See, for example, judgment of
Judgment of
Judgment in
Ibid., paragraph 48.
Ibid., paragraph 49, with reference to the judgment of
Ibid., paragraph 50, with reference to the judgment of
Ibid., paragraph 51, with reference to the judgment in
See, for further detail in that regard, my Opinion in
Opinion of Advocate General Tanchev in Joined Cases
Judgment in
See, for example, Platon, S.,
For a more detailed discussion, see my Opinion in
Order of
Order of
Judgment of
Ibid., see paragraphs 7 to 27, in particular paragraph 16.
See already judgment of
Ibid., paragraph 62.
Cf. Iannuccelli, P.,
See, inter alia, judgment of
See, inter alia, judgment of
See, inter alia, judgments of
See also Opinion of Advocate General Wahl in
As set out above in points 69 to 71 of this Opinion.
See, for example, judgment of
As already set out in my Opinion in
At that moment, the scholarly warnings quoted above could indeed be correct – see above, points 108 and 109 and footnote 69.
See my Opinion in
Intriguingly, ideas not too dissimilar about
On this issue, see also my Opinion in
Or indeed
In that context, see particularly judgments of
See, in particular, Opinions of Advocate General Tanchev in
See, in this regard, my Opinion in
For a similar view, in another context, see European Court of Human Rights (
See, by analogy, judgment of
See, to that effect, judgment of
See, to that effect, judgment of
See, to that effect, judgment of
See, with further references, my Opinion in
See, for example,
Returning to the metaphor of the patient, the suggestion that the objective context does not matter in such cases makes one think of a requirement that a first response medical team, having just arrived at the scene of a car crash, is to examine not only the passengers travelling in the vehicles which were part of the collision, but also all the passengers in all the other cars present, including those who were not involved in the collision, but who had simply stopped to observe what was happening. After all, they are
Bartlett, R.C., and Collins, S.D.,
For a recent example, see the Opinion of Advocate General Pikamäe in
In this regard, the reasoning set out by the Court in
Leaving aside other specific (typically secondary law) regimes that also embrace and further develop the concept of judicial independence and which may also come into question in specific scenarios, such as Commission Decision of
See, inter alia, judgment of
See Opinion of Advocate General Hogan in
See, in particular, judgment of
A case apart are situations in which the scope of EU law under Article 51(1) of the Charter is triggered by a specific regime of EU secondary law, which then renders Article 47 of the Charter applicable. See my Opinion in
See also, in this regard, Opinion of Advocate General Hogan in
There has been an individual breach of Article 47 of the Charter that does not reach the gravity threshold of Article 19(1) TEU.
The type of breach has reached the threshold of Article 19(1) TEU, but there were no individual rights stemming from EU law at stake under Article 47 of the Charter (most recently, in essence, the scenario in the judgment of
Opinion of Advocate General Hogan in
See, more recently,
Similarly, ECtHR judgments of
For example, by the judiciary self-governing body, and/or the presidents or the councils of the courts involved, and/or the judge in question.
See ECtHR judgment of
Of whatever form appropriate: be it by other members of the government and/or the national parliament; supervision by the media and public opinion; or ultimately also for a potential litigant who might entertain doubts as to the proper composition of the panel called on to adjudicate on his or her case and might wish to raise that issue in the course of the proceedings in his or her case.
See ECtHR judgment of
European Parliament (2006) Report on the Commission’s 21st and 22nd Annual reports on monitoring the application of Community law (A6-0089/2006 final) p. 17.
For more detail and an evaluation, see Venice Commission, Opinion on the Act on the Public Prosecutor’s Office, as amended (2017) Opinion 892/2017.
See especially Case C‑791/19,
Order of
Judgment of
Judgment of
See, recently, for example, judgment of
The second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU in conjunction with Article 2 TEU, and Article 6 of Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of Questions 2, 3 and 4 are inadmissible.