Judgment of the Court of Justice Fifth Chamber, 6 March 2025, D. K. Withdrawal of cases from a judge, C-647/21 and C-648/21

• Date: 06 March 2025
• Year: 2025

3

I. VALUES OF THE UNION: RULE OF LAW – INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY

Judgment of the Court of Justice (Fif th Chamber), 6 Mar ch 2025, D. K. (Wit hdrawal of cases

fr om a j udge), C-647/21 and C-648/21

Link to the full text of the judgment

Reference for a preliminary ruling – R ule of law – Second subparagraph o f Article 19(1) TEU – Principle of

the irremovability of judges and judicial independence – Resolution of the college of a court withdrawing

all cases from a judge – Lack of objective criteria for taking a withdrawal decision – Lack o f obl igatio n to

state reasons for such a d ecision – Primacy of EU law – Obligation to disapply such a decision to withdraw

cases

Hearing two criminal cases which were subsequently withdrawn from the judge who submitted the

present two request s for a preliminary ruling, the Court clarifies the sco pe and practical applicat ion of

the concept of ‘internal’ judicial independence’ as recognised by the second subparagraph of

Article 19(1) TEU.

As regards Case C-647/21, the Sąd Okręgowy w Słupsku (Regional Court, Slupsk, Poland), which is the

referring court, sitting as a single judge, has been seised of an appeal by D.K. against a decision by

which he was sentenced, at first instance, to a term of imprisonment.

As regards Case C-648/21, M.C. and M.F. were convict ed at first instance. Th e court of second instance

hearing their appeal acquitted M.C. and upheld the conviction of M.F. The Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme

Court, Poland), hearing an appeal against the decision at second instance concerning M.C., set aside

that decision and referred the case back to the referring court. In that case, the Court sits in a

formation of three judges, consisting of the President o f the formatio n, the President of the referring

court and a third judge. The request for a preliminary ruling was made by the President of the

formation alone, who is the same judge as in Case 647/21.

In September 2021, in proceedings unrelated to the cases in the main proceedings, the judge who

submitted the present two orders for reference request ed the President o f the appellate division of

the referring court to replace the President of that court in the formation hearing the case in those

proceedings with another judge. She considers that, since that judge was appointed o n the basis of a

resolut ion of the Krajow a Rada Sądownictw a (National Cou ncil of th e Judiciary , Poland; ‘th e KRS’) in it s

new composition, the right to a tribunal previously established by law, within the meaning, inter alia,

of Article 19(1) TEU, is infringed . That request was rejected .

In Octob er 2021, in an other case, th e same judge set aside a jud gment of a lower court that had been

delivered by a judge who had also been appointed on the basis of a resolution of the KRS in its new

composition.

In the same month, the College of the referring court adopted a resolution seeking to withdraw from

that judge approximately 70 cases, including the cases in the main proceedings. According to that

judge, that resolution was not served on her and she was not aware of the reasons for it. The

President of that court also adopted an order transferring her from the appellate division of that

court to the first instance division of that court. That order, which entered into force a few days after

its adopt ion merely refers to the need to ensure the proper functioning of both divisions.

In those circumstances, the referring court, which is uncertain as to whether the abovementioned

measures are compatible with t he second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, asks the Court, in

essence, to clarify whether the ju dge who submitted the present t wo req uests fo r a preliminary ruling

may continue to sit in those two cases. It also asks whether it is required to disregard the College

resolution and other subsequent measures.