Legislator Case Law & Legislation
I ZB 95/24 AI generated

Supreme Court suspends proceedings to refer preliminary questions to the EU Court of Justice on judicial independence.

Case Number I ZB 95/24
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Poland (PL)
Outcome Dismissed

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court suspended the professional liability proceedings against Prosecutor X.Y. regarding Judge Marka Motuka's independence. The court deferred its decision on the allegations of bias to await answers from the European Court of Justice. This suspension was necessary because the court had already referred specific questions to the EU Court of Justice under Article 267 TFEU.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 267 TFUE; Art. 22 § 1 k.p.k. in conjunction with Art. 29 § 24 of the Supreme Court Act: The Supreme Court must suspend domestic proceedings and refer preliminary questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union when the interpretation of EU law is required to determine the independence of a national judge.

Keywords

AI generated
judicial independence preliminary ruling EU Court of Justice professional liability suspension of proceedings Article 267 TFEU Supreme Court Act

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 267 TFUE
Art. 22 § 1 k.p.k.
267 TFUE postanowieniami z dnia 20 października 2023 r., III CB 40/23 i z dnia 11 stycznia 2024 r., I ZB 73/22, IZB 81/23 i I ZB 91/23 (art. 22 § 1 k.p.k. w związku z art.
Art. 29 § 24 of the Supreme Court Act
w związku z art. 29 § 24 ustawy z dnia 8 grudnia 2017 r.
art. 22 § 1 k.p.k
267 TFUE postanowieniami z dnia 20 października 2023 r., III CB 40/23 i z dnia 11 stycznia 2024 r., I ZB 73/22, IZB 81/23 i I ZB 91/23 (art. 22 § 1 k.p.k.

Cited Case Law

AI generated
III CB 40/23
Supreme Court suspends proceedings to refer questions on judicial independence and impartiality to the CJEU.
I ZB 73/22
Polish Supreme Court refers to EU Court on judge independence and impartiality in disciplinary proceedings. The court seeks clarification on whether a randomly selected bench is 'established by law' if a judge was nominated via flawed procedure.
IZB 81/23
krajowy Sąd Najwyższy w szczególnym postępowaniu zainicjowanym przez stronę wnioskiem o zbadanie spełnienia przez sędziego Sądu Najwyższego - wyznaczonego do składu rozpoznającego sprawę dyscyplinarną dotyczącą sędziego sądu powszechnego - wymogów niezawisłości i bezstronności, ma obowiązek zbadania z urzędu, czy wyznaczony w drodze losowania spośród całego składu Sądu Najwyższego skład orzekający jest także sądem „ustanowionym uprzednio ustawą”;
I ZB 91/23
Polish Supreme Court refers to EU Court regarding judge independence and impartiality requirements in disciplinary proceedings. The court seeks clarification on whether a randomly selected bench must be pre-established by law and if judges appointed via flawed nomination procedures compromise the entire bench's independence under EU law. The court decided to refer questions to the CJEU to determine if a flawed nomination process invalidates the entire five-member bench or only the specific judges involved, and whether the remaining judges can ensure a fair trial under Article 19(1) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The court's decision was to refer the case to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of EU law regarding the independence and impartiality of the Polish Supreme Court's disciplinary bench. The court decided as it did because the issue of whether a flawed nomination procedure invalidates the entire bench or only the specific judges involved requires a uniform interpretation of EU law to ensure the right to a fair trial and the independence of the judiciary. The court referred the case to the CJEU to obtain a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of EU law regarding the independence and impartiality of the Polish Supreme Court's disciplinary bench. The court decided as it did because the issue of whether a flawed nomination procedure invalidates the entire bench or only the specific judges involved requires a uniform interpretation of EU law to ensure the right to a fair trial and the independence of the judiciary. The court referred the case to the CJEU to obtain a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of EU law regarding the independence and impartiality of the Polish Supreme Court's disciplinary bench. The court decided as it did because the issue of whether a flawed nomination procedure invalidates the entire bench or only the specific judges involved requires a uniform interpretation of EU law to ensure the right to a fair trial and the independence of the judiciary.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

I ZB 95/24 POSTANOWIENIE Dnia 25 kwietnia 2025 r.Sąd Najwyższy w składzie: SSN Paweł Grzegorczyk w sprawie prokuratora X.Y.‎w Izbie Odpowiedzialności Zawodowej na posiedzeniu bez udziału stron w dniu 25 kwietnia 2025 r.,‎na skutek wniosku, wniesionego przez prokuratora X.Y. o zbadanie spełnienia wymogów niezawisłości i bezstronności przez SSN Marka Motuka w sprawie II ZOW 25/23 zawiesza postępowanie w związku z pytaniami prejudycjalnymi przedstawionymi przez Sąd Najwyższy Trybunałowi Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej na podstawie art. 267 TFUE postanowieniami z dnia 20 października 2023 r., III CB 40/23 i z dnia 11 stycznia 2024 r., I ZB 73/22, IZB 81/23 i I ZB 91/23 (art. 22 § 1 k.p.k. w związku z art. 29 § 24 ustawy z dnia 8 grudnia 2017 r. o Sądzie Najwyższym). [M. T.][a.ł]