Organisation of the internal functioning of the State's judiciary and the principle of subsidiarity and respect for Member States' competences.
Critical remarks in the light of the ruling of the CJEU of 16 November 2021 in Joined Cases C-748/19 to C-754/19 (on the question of the secondment of judges to higher courts within the domestic judicial system in Poland by the Minister of Justice)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15290/eejtr.2025.09.02.04Abstract
The article examines the division of competences between the European Union and its Member States in the light of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in joined cases C 748/19 to C 754/19. The analysis focuses on two closely interrelated issues: the delegation of judges from first instance courts to higher courts by the Polish Minister of Justice and the admissibility of preliminary references submitted by national courts under Article 267 TFEU. The paper reconstructs the reasoning of both the CJEU and the Polish Government, arguing that the secondment of judges essentially belongs to the sphere of internal administrative management of the judiciary, which falls within the exclusive competence of the Member States. It is submitted that, in the case at hand, the CJEU exceeded the limits of its conferred powers by accepting a hypothetical preliminary reference and by intervening in the internal organisation of the Polish judiciary without a clear cross border element. The article formulates critical remarks regarding the systemic coherence of the judgment with the Court’s previous case law and proposes de lege ferenda changes to Polish criminal procedure on the submission of preliminary references in order to enhance legal certainty while remaining in line with EU standards of the rule of law.
Downloads
References
Act of 6 June 1997 - Code of Criminal Procedure (consolidated text: Dz.U. 2022, item 1375). (1997).
Act of 27 July 2001 - Law on the Organisation of Common Courts (Dz.U. 2001, No. 98, item 1070, as amended). (2001).
Chevallier, R.-M. (1965). Methods and reasoning of the European Court in its interpretation of Community law. Common Market Law Review, 2, 21-37.
Corbiau v. Administration des contributions (Case C 24/92). (1993). Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities.
Court of Justice of the European Union. (1980). Pasquale Foglia v. Mariella Novello (Joined Cases C 104/79 and C 244/81).
Court of Justice of the European Union. (2002). Lyckeskog (Case C 99/00).
Court of Justice of the European Union. (2019). Land Hessen (Case C 272/19).
Court of Justice of the European Union. (2021). Asociația “Forumul Judecătorilor din România” and Others (Joined Cases C 83/19, C 127/19, C 195/19, C 291/19, C 355/19).
Court of Justice of the European Union. (2021). W.Ż. (Case C 487/19, Poland).
Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on strengthening certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings, OJ L 65, 11.3.2016, 1-11.
Fennelly, N. (1996). Legal interpretation at the European Court of Justice. Fordham International Law Journal, 20, 656-679.
Gerecka Żołyńska, A. (2009). Internacjonalizacja współczesnego procesu karnego w Polsce [Internationalisation of the contemporary criminal trial in Poland]. Wolters Kluwer.
Judgment of the Danish Supreme Court in Carlsen (I 361/1997). (1998, April 6).
Kastelik Smaza, A. (2007). Konsekwencje naruszenia obowiązku skierowania pytania prejudycjalnego do ETS [Consequences of breaching the duty to refer a preliminary question to the ECJ]. Europejski Przegląd Sądowy, 2, 28-34.
Kutscher, H. (1976). Methods of interpretation as seen by a Judge at the Court of Justice. In Reports of a Judicial and Academic Conference held in Luxembourg on 27-28 September 1976 (pp. 1-15).
Lecourt, R. (1976). L’Europe des juges [Europe of the judges]. Bruylant.
Maniewska, E. (2005). Prowspólnotowa wykładnia prawa polskiego w poakcesyjnym orzecznictwie Sądu Najwyższego [Pro Community interpretation of Polish law in the post accession case law of the Supreme Court]. Europejski Przegląd Sądowy, 1, 57-64.
Mertens de Wilmars, J. (1986). Réflexions sur les méthodes d’interprétation de la Cour de justice des Communautés européennes. Cahiers de droit européen, 1-2, 5-13.
Mik, C. (2005). Wykładnia zgodna prawa krajowego z prawem Unii Europejskiej [Conforming interpretation of national law with European Union law]. In S. Wronkowska (Ed.), Polska kultura prawna a proces integracji europejskiej [Polish legal culture and the process of European integration] (pp. 119-136). Zakamycze.
Mostowik, P. (2011). Jak nie ujednolicać międzynarodowego prawa prywatnego i postępowania cywilnego, czyli o projektach rozporządzeń unijnych dotyczących majątkowych ustrojów małżeńskich i skutków związków partnerskich [How not to unify private international law and civil procedure: On draft EU regulations on matrimonial property regimes and registered partnerships]. Europejski Przegląd Sądowy, 2, 12-13.
Muszyński, M. (2020). Pytanie prejudycjalne jako instrument wykładni prawa UE: istota, granice i możliwości kontroli [The preliminary reference as an instrument of EU law interpretation: Nature, limits, and possibilities of review]. Prokuratura i Prawo, 7-8, 84-112.
Perkowski, M. (Ed.). (2003). Wymiar sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej. Wybrane zagadnienia [The judiciary of the European Union: Selected issues]. Wolters Kluwer.
Polish Constitutional Tribunal. (2021, October 7). Judgment in Case K 3/21 (written reasons published November 2022).
Postulski, K. (2005). Sądy państw członkowskich jako sądy wspólnotowe [Courts of the Member States as Community courts]. In A. Wróbel (Ed.), Stosowanie prawa Unii Europejskiej przez sądy [Application of European Union law by courts] (pp. 101-118). Zakamycze.
Radziewicz, P. (2020). Kryzys konstytucyjny i paradygmatyczna zmiana konstytucji [Constitutional crisis and paradigmatic change of the constitution]. Państwo i Prawo, 10, 3-18.
Regulation of the Minister of Justice of 18 June 2019 - Rules of procedure of common courts of law (Dz.U. 2022, item 2514). (2019).
Sokołowski, M. (2022). W stronę wspólnych wartości - przyczynek do refleksji nad treścią wyroku TK z 7.10.2021 r., K 3/21 w związku z zapytaniem Prezesa Rady Ministrów w sprawie zgodności art. 1, 2, 4 i 19 TUE z Konstytucją RP [Towards common values - A contribution to the discussion on the judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of 7.10.2021, K 3/21, in connection with the Prime Minister’s request on the compatibility of Articles 1, 2, 4 and 19 TEU with the Polish Constitution]. In J. Haberko, J. Grykiel, & K. Mularski (Eds.), Ius civile vigilantibus est. Księga jubileuszowa Profesora Adama Olejniczaka [Ius civile vigilantibus est. Jubilee book for Professor Adam Olejniczak] (pp. 647-657). C.H. Beck.
Szpunar, M. (2006). Procedura prejudycjalna z perspektywy unormowań kodeksu postępowania cywilnego oraz prawa o postępowaniu przed sądami administracyjnymi [The preliminary reference procedure from the perspective of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Law on Proceedings before Administrative Courts]. In C. Mik (Ed.), Pytanie prejudycjalne w orzecznictwie ETS [The preliminary question in the case law of the ECJ] (pp. 125-137). TNOiK.
Szumiło Kulczycka, D. (Ed.). (2022). Kodeks postępowania karnego. Komentarz do wybranych przepisów. Art. 30 [Code of Criminal Procedure. Commentary on selected provisions. Article 30] [Lex].
Szumiło Kulczycka, D., & Kozub Ciembroniewicz, K. (2021). Konsekwencje uchybień w obsadzie TK (uwagi na tle orzeczenia w sprawie K 1/20) [Consequences of irregularities in the composition of the Constitutional Tribunal (remarks on the judgment in Case K 1/20)]. Państwo i Prawo, 8, 81-87, 94-97.
Taborowski, M. (2003). Pojęcie „sąd” lub „trybunał” w rozumieniu art. 234/177 Traktatu ustanawiającego Wspólnotę Europejską [The notion of “court” or “tribunal” under Article 234/177 of the EC Treaty]. In T. Piątek & A. Zawidzka (Eds.), Szkice z prawa Unii Europejskiej. T. 1: Prawo instytucjonalne [Studies in European Union law. Vol. 1: Institutional law] (pp. 247-295). Zakamycze.
Talaga, R. (2010). Pytania prejudycjalne do Trybunału Sprawiedliwości UE w praktyce polskich sądów administracyjnych [Preliminary references to the CJEU in the practice of Polish administrative courts]. Studia Europejskie, 4, 91-115.
Tridimas, T. (2006). The general principles of EU law (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Treaty on European Union and Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated versions). (2010). Official Journal of the European Union, C 83, 1-388.
Wróbel, W. (2021). Skutki rozstrzygnięcia w sprawie K 3/21 w perspektywie Sądu Najwyższego i sądów powszechnych [Effects of the judgment in Case K 3/21 from the perspective of the Supreme Court and ordinary courts]. Europejski Przegląd Sądowy, 12, 19-26.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
1. The Author declares that he or she has created the written work and holds exclusive and unlimited copyright /both moral and property rights/ and guarantees that no third parties have rights to the work.
2. In the view of the Copyright and Related Rights Act, a work must fulfill the following criterion:
a) be a manifestation of creative work,
b) have an individual character („author’s personal stamp”),
c) have a set form.
3. The Author declares that the text has not been previously published (under the same or different title, or as a part of another publication).
4. The Author allows (grants a non-exclusive license) the publishing house of University of Białystok to use the scholarly text to:
- preserve and multiply by means of any technique; save in a digital form with no limitations as to the manner and form of digital preservation;
- upload online with no limitations as to the place and time of access.
5. The Author grants consent for editorial changes made in the work.
6. The Author grants the University of Białystok rights free of charge for the duration of property copyright with no territory limits. The University has the right to grant sublicenses in the acquired rights.
7. Granting a non-exclusive license allows the Author to preserve their rights and allows other parties to make use of the work according to sublicensing agreement with provisions identical as those of Attribution 4.0 Internacional License (CC BY 4.0), available online at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
8. The Agreement has been concluded for an indefinite period of time.
9. Because of costs born in preparation of the work for publishing, the Parties oblige themselves to act in good faith and refrain from declining to grant licenses.
10. To all matters not settled herein, provisions of the Civil Code and Copyright and Related Rights Act of 1994, February 4 shall apply.
11. All disputes shall be resolved by a court of local jurisdiction for the place of seat of University of Białystok.
