(AGENPARL) – Thu 04 September 2025 PRESS RELEASE No 108/25
Luxembourg, 4 September 2025
Judgment of the Court in Case C-225/22 | AW ‘T’
A national court must consider the judgment of a higher court that does
not constitute an independent and impartial tribunal previously
established by law to be null and void
This is the case where such a consequence is necessary to ensure the primacy of EU law
By a judgment of 20 October 2021, the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs of the Polish Supreme
Court set aside a judgment of 2006, which had become final in the intervening period and prohibited the placing on
the market of certain crossword magazines. The case was referred back to a civil court for re-examination.
That court notes that, on account of irregularities vitiating the procedure for appointing judges to the chamber of
the Polish Supreme Court concerned, the panel of judges which delivered the judgment of 20 October 2021 does
not constitute a court within the meaning of EU law. Consequently, there is no need to examine the effects of that
judgment.
However, it remains uncertain as to whether it is entitled to review the composition of a higher court. National
legislation, and the case-law of the Polish Constitutional Court, prohibit it from verifying whether judges were
appointed in a proper manner, so that it must comply with the decision referring the case back to it for reexamination.
Requiring clarification concerning EU law, 1 the national court made a reference to the Court of Justice.
In reply, the Court states that the national court cannot disregard the fact that the Court rejected the status
as a court or tribunal of the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs of the Polish Supreme
Court, 2 because that chamber does not satisfy the conditions of independence, impartiality and previous
establishment by law established by EU law.
It is therefore for the national court to verify the regularity of the appointment of the judges forming part of the
judicial panel that delivered the judgment of 20 October 2021. The presence, on the panel concerned, of a single
judge whose appointment does not satisfy the requirements referred to is sufficient to deprive it of its status as an
independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law, within the meaning of EU law.
The principle of primacy of EU law, and the binding effects of decisions of the Court mean that such verification
cannot be prevented either by national legislation or by the case-law of the Polish Constitutional Court. 3
If the national court found that the decision to refer the case back for re-examination was delivered by a judicial
panel that does not comply with the requirements of EU law, that decision would have to be declared to be null
and void, where this is necessary to ensure the primacy of EU law. No consideration based on the principle of legal
certainty or linked to the alleged finality of the decision can stand in the way of such a consequence.
Communications Directorate
Press and Information Unit
curia.europa.eu
NOTE: A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the Member States, in disputes which
have been brought before them, to refer questions to the Court of Justice about the interpretation of EU law or the
validity of an EU act. The Court of Justice does not decide the dispute itself. It is for the national court or tribunal to
dispose of the case in accordance with the Court’s decision, which is similarly binding on other national courts or
tribunals before which a similar issue is raised.
Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the Court of Justice.
The full text and, as the case may be, an abstract of the judgment is published on the CURIA website on the day of
delivery.
Stay Connected!
Inter alia, concerning the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the
European Union.
Judgment of 21 December 2023, Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa, C-718/21 (see also Press Release No 206/23). The Court held that the panel of judges of
the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs of the Polish Supreme Court hearing that case, did not constitute a court or tribunal within
the meaning of EU law, on account of the conditions under which its judges had been appointed.
In its judgment of 5 June 2023, Commission v Poland (Independence and private life of judges), C-204/21 (See also press release No 89/23), the Court
held that Poland infringed its obligations arising from EU law by adopting laws which prohibit judges from verifying whether they or other judges or
courts satisfy the conditions of independence, impartiality and previous establishment by law, as provided for by EU law.
Communications Directorate