Judgment of the General Court Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition of 5 July 2023, Puigdemont i Casamajó and Others v Parliament, T-272/21

• Date: 05 July 2023
• Year: 2023

8

 secondly, the judicial bodies which have power to designate and modify the composition of

the formations of that national court are required, in such a situation, to assign that case back

to the formation initially hearing it.

So far as concerns, in the fourth place, the national provisions and the case -law of a constitutional

court as mentioned by the referring court in Case C-671/20,

15

which would preclude the latter court

from being able to rule on the lack of binding force of an act such as the resolution at issue and, if

necessary, from disapplying it, even though it is required to do so having regard to the answers given

by the Court to its other questions, the Court observes that the fact that a national court performs the

tasks entrusted to it by the Treaties and complies with its obligations thereunder, by giving effect to

provisions such as the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, cannot be prohibited or regarded as

a disciplinary offence on the part of judges sitting in such a court.

16

Likewise, in the light of the direct effect of the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, the principle

of the primacy of EU law requires national courts to disapply any national case-law contrary to that

provision of EU law as interpreted by the Court. Thus, in the event that, following judgments delivered

by the Court, a national court finds that the case-law of a constitutional court is contrary to EU law,

the fact that such a national court disapplies that constitutional case-law, in accordance with the

principle of the primacy of EU law, cannot give rise to its disciplinary liability.

17

Consequently, the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU and the principles of the primacy of EU

law and of sincere cooperation must be interpreted as precluding:

 first, national provisions which prohibit a national court, subject to disciplinary sanctions

being imposed on the judges who make up that court, from examining whether an act

adopted by a body whose independence and impartiality are not guaranteed and which has

authorised the initiation of criminal proceedings against a judge and ordered his or her

suspension from duties and a reduction in his or her remuneration is binding and, if

necessary, from disapplying that act and,

 secondly, case-law of a constitutional court under which the acts appointing judges cannot be

the subject of judicial review, inasmuch as that case-law is liable to preclude that examination.

II. INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS: PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE

EUROPEAN UNION

Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 5 July 2023,

Puigdemont i Casamajó and Others v Parliament, T-272/21

Link to the full text of the judgment

15

Article 42a(1) and (2) of the Law on the ordinary courts of 27 July 2001, as amended by the Law of 20 December 2019, imposes on those

courts prohibitions on calling into question the lawfulness of courts or on assessing the legality of the appointment of a judge or his or her

authority to perform judicial tasks. Point 3 of Article 107(1) of that law makes a disciplinary offence, inter alia, any act of judges of the

ordinary courts which calls into question the effectiveness of the appointment of a judge.

16

See, to that effect, judgment in Commission v Poland (Independence and private life of judges), paragraph 132.

17

See, to that effect, judgment in Commission v Poland (Independence and private life of judges), paragraph 132.