Decisions: Темелни права - Правда

In a request for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU, the Specialised Criminal Court in Bulgaria asked the ECJ whether a national law, which does not provide for any procedural remedy for errors and omissions in the content of the indictment which prejudice the right of the accused person to know what he or she is accused of, after the end of the first hearing in a criminal case (pre-trial hearing), is compatible with Article 6(3) of Directive 2012/13 on the right to information in criminal proceedings and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and if the answer to that question is in the negative: would an interpretation of the national provisions governing amendment of the charges that allows the prosecution service to rectify those substantive ambiguities and shortcomings in the indictment at the hearing, so as to take proper and effective account of the accused person’s right to be informed of the accusation, be in keeping with the aforesaid provisions and with Article 47 of the Charter, or would it be in keeping with those provisions to refrain from applying national legislation prohibiting the staying of court proceedings and referral of the case back to the public prosecution service with directions to draft a new indictment. ECJ responded that the two aforementioned provisions must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which does not provide for a procedural means of remedying, errors and deficiencies in the indictment which prejudice the right of the accused person to be provided with detailed information about the charges following the pre-trial hearing in a criminal case. Furthermore, they must be interpreted as requiring the referring court to give an interpretation of the national rules on the amendment of the charges, as far as possible in a manner consistent with that law, so as to enable the prosecutor to remedy errors and omissions in the content of the indictment at the trial, while at the same tim

The European Commission initiated proceedings before the ECJ regarding the new disciplinary regime for judges in Poland. This regime subjects judges to disciplinary investigations, proceedings and sanctions based on the content of their rulings. By the judgment in this case, the ECJ reaffirmed that the independence of the judicial system in Poland had deteriorated and the obligations contained in Article 19 (1) TEU had been violated. According to ECJ, Article 47 of the Charter must be duly taken into consideration for the purpose of interpreting Article 19(1) TEU, because it guarantees that everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law.

In a request for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU, the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic asked the ECJ if the phrase “shall relieve the competition authorities of the Member States of their competence to apply Articles 101 and 102 TFEU” in the first sentence of Article 11(6) of Regulation No 1/2003 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 101 and 102 TFEU means that the authorities of the Member States lose their powers to apply Articles 101 and 102 TFEU and if Article 50 (Right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union also applies to administrative offences consisting of the abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU for which the Commission and the authority of a Member State have imposed sanctions separately and independently in the exercise of their competence under Article 11(6) of Regulation No 1/2003. ECJ responded that Article 11(6) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that the competition authorities of the Member States are relieved of their competence to apply Articles 101 and 102 TFEU in the case where the European Commission initiates proceedings for the purposes of adopting a decision finding an infringement of those provisions in so far as that formal act relates to the same alleged infringements of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, committed by the same undertaking or undertakings on the same product market or markets and the same geographical market or markets during the same period or periods as those concerned by the proceeding or proceedings previously brought by those authorities. Furthermore, the principle ne bis in idem, as enshrined in Article 50 of the Charter must be interpreted as meaning that it applies to infringements of competition law, such as the abuse of a dominant position referred to in Article 102 TFEU, and precludes an undertaking

In a request for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU, the Supreme Administrative Court of Portugal asked the CJEU to interpret the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Court declared that the principle of judicial independence does not preclude general salary-reduction measures, such as those at issue in the main proceedings of the case, linked to requirements to eliminate an excessive budget deficit and to an EU financial assistance programme, from being applied to the members of the Court of Auditors of Portugal.