Odesłanie prejudycjalne Sądu Najwyższego dotyczące wieku emerytalnego sędziów ? ocena z perspektywy prawa Unii Europejskiej

Słowa kluczowe

reference for a preliminary ruling
Court of Justice of the European Union
the retirement age of judges
independence of the judiciary
the irremovability of judges
effective judicial protection
rule of law
interim measures

Jak cytować

Kawczyńska, M. (2018). Odesłanie prejudycjalne Sądu Najwyższego dotyczące wieku emerytalnego sędziów ? ocena z perspektywy prawa Unii Europejskiej. Przegląd Konstytucyjny, (3), 86–117. Pobrano z https://journals.law.uj.edu.pl/przeglad_konstytucyjny/article/view/51


On 2 August 2018, the Supreme Court has referred questions to the European Court of Justice about whether the forced retirement of most of its senior judges and other infringements of judicial independence are compatible with EU law. That decision is a landmark step in the serious constitutional crisis in Poland that has been going on for several years. The Supreme Court attempts to defend itself against its subordination to the legislative and executive authorities, requesting that the CJEU express its view on the EU standards of irremovability of judges as an element of the independence of the judiciary. The article analyses the reference for a preliminary ruling from the perspective of EU law, especially the latest judgments of the CJEU concerning the rule of law and effective legal protection. Among many problems arising in connection with the discussed matter is the admissibility of the preliminary reference and the application of the interim measures by the Supreme Court. The article also examines the motion of the Prosecutor General to the Constitutional Court concerning the validity of art. 267 TFEU and the right to apply the interim measures suspending the statute on the Supreme Court.



Bebr G., The existence of a genuine dispute: An indispensable precondition for the jurisdiction of the court under Article 177 EEC Treaty?, „Common Market Law Review” 1980, t. 17, nr 7.

Biernat S., Kawczyńska M., Czy pytanie prejudycjalne Sądu Najwyższego jest (nie)dopuszczalne? „Rzeczpospolita” z dn. 4 IX 2018 r., nr 205.

Biernat S., Kawczyńska M., Prokurator generalny (udaje?) że nie zna prawa unijnego, „Rzeczpospolita” z dn. 27 VIII 2018 r., nr 199.

Biernat S., Kawczyńska M., Why the Polish Supreme Court’s reference on judicial independence to the CJEU is admissible after all, „VerfBlog” z dn. 23 VIII 2018 r., < https://verfassungsblog.de/why-the-polish-supreme-courts-reference-on-judicial-independence-to-the-cjeu-is-admissible-after-all >.

Broberg M., Fenger N., Preliminary references to the European Court of Justice, Oksford 2014.

Gyulavári T., Hós N., Retirement of Hungarian judges, age discrimination and judicial independence: a tale of two courts, „Industrial Law Journal” 2013, t. 42, nr 3.

Kastelik-Smaza A., Pytania prejudycjalne do Trybunału Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej a ochrona praw jednostki, Kraków 2007.

Lacchi C., Review by constitutional courts of the obligation of national courts of last instance to refer a preliminary question to the Court of Justice of the EU, „German Law Journal” 2015, t. 16, nr 6.

Lenaerts K., Gutman K., Maselis I., EU procedural law, Oksford 2014.

Stosowanie prawa Unii Europejskiej przez sądy, red. A. Wróbel, Warszawa 2010.

Wahl N., Prete L., The gatekeepers of article 267 TFUE: On jurisdiction and admissibility of references for preliminary rulings, „Common Market Law Review” 2018, t. 55, nr 2.