Language of document :

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Piteşti (Romania) lodged on 5 January 2022 – EF, GH, IJ v KL

(Case C-13/22)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Piteşti

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: EF, GH, IJ

Defendant: KL

Questions referred

Does the principle of the independence of the judiciary, enshrined in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 2 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude a provision of national law, such as that contained in Article 148(2) of the Romanian Constitution, as interpreted by the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court, Romania) in Decision No 390/2021, according to which national courts no longer have jurisdiction to examine the conformity with EU law of a provision of national law that has been found to be constitutional by a decision of the Constitutional Court?

Does the principle of the independence of the judiciary, enshrined in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 2 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude a provision of national law, such as that contained in Article 99(ș) of Legea nr. 303/2004 privind statutul judecătorilor și procurorilor (Law No 303/2004 on the rules governing judges and prosecutors), which provides for the initiation of disciplinary proceedings and the application of disciplinary penalties in respect of a judge for failure to comply with a decision of the Constitutional Court, where that judge is called upon to acknowledge the primacy of EU law over the grounds of a decision of the Constitutional Court, that provision of national law depriving him or her of the possibility of applying a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union which he or she regards as taking precedence?

____________