Hearing in joint Case: Commission v Poland
The Commission is requesting the Court to declare that:
– by allowing the content of judicial decisions to be treated as a disciplinary offence so far as concerns judges of the ordinary courts),
– by failing to guarantee the independence and impartiality of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court,
– by conferring on the President of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court the discretionary power to designate the competent disciplinary court of first instance in cases concerning judges of the ordinary courts and, therefore, by failing to guarantee that disciplinary cases are adjudicated on by a court ‘established by law’, and
– by conferring on the Minister for Justice the power to appoint a Disciplinary Representative of the Minister for Justice and, therefore, by failing to guarantee that disciplinary cases against judges of the ordinary courts are heard within a reasonable period, and in providing that: acts connected with the designation of counsel for the defence and that counsel’s conduct of the defence do not have a suspensory effect on the course of the disciplinary proceedings and that the disciplinary court is to conduct the proceedings despite the justified absence of the notified accused or his defence counsel and, therefore, by failing to guarantee the rights of the defence of accused judges of the ordinary courts,
the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU; and that
– by allowing the right of courts to refer questions for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice to be limited by the possibility of the initiation of disciplinary proceedings,
the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second and third paragraphs of Article 26
Judgment in case:Lintner
This case is based on a reference for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Budapest High Court, Hungary) concerning the interpretation of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts. It is part of a series of cases which have come before the Court relating to the Hungarian framework on consumer credit agreements denominated in a foreign currency.
Judgment in case :Commission v. Italy
n this infringement procedure, the Commission requests that the Court condemn Italy for failing to implement the judgment of 29th March 2012 (C-243/10) by which Italy had been found guilty of a failure to recover illegal aid to the hotel sector in Sardegna.
Hearing in joined cases: Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság Dél-alföldi Regionális Igazgatóság
Hearing concerning asylum policy in Hungary.
The applicants are a married couple of Afghan nationality. On 5 February 2019, they submitted an application for recognition of refugee status in the Röszke transit zone (Hungary). According to their own declarations, they had not applied for refugee status in any other country nor had they been mistreated or harmed in the countries through which they had transited before their arrival in Hungary (Turkey, Bulgaria and Serbia). They left Afghanistan for political reasons.
By its decision of 25 April 2019, the competent asylum authority declared the applicants’ application inadmissible and ordered their return to the territory of the Republic of Serbia. The authority justified its decision of inadmissibility on Article 51(2) of the Law on the right to asylum, relying on the fact that the applicants had reached Hungary via countries where they were not exposed to a risk of persecution justifying the recognition of refugee status or to a risk of serious harm which could serve as a ground for granting subsidiary protection or they were guaranteed an adequate level of protection in the countries via which they transited to reach Hungary.
The action brought by the applicants was dismissed by the competent court without any examination of the merits of the case.
Subsequently, by its decisions of 17 May 2019, the Aliens Policing Authority ordered the applicants to stay at a designated place, namely the Aliens Police sector in the Röszke transit zone.
After Serbia refused to readmit the applicants, the Aliens Policing Authority adopted a decision on 3 June 2019 amending the decision of 25 April 2019 and designated Afghanistan as country of return. The objection to that amending decision was rejected without judicial review.
The applicants currently stay in the Röszke transit zone, which is an area surrounded by a high wall with barbed wire and in which metal containers are located. The applicants can leave their sector only exceptionally (for example for medical check-ups or when their presence is required for the purposes of procedural acts) and are therefore almost isolated from the outside world. Asylum applicants accommodated in other sectors are also not allowed to visit them and contact with the outside world, including their legal representative, is only possible with prior authorisation and under police escort, in a container provided for that purpose in the transit zone. On 20 May 2019, at the applicants’ request, the ECtHR adopted an interim measure requiring Hungary to provide them with food in the transit zone.
The applicants filed two applications. In the first, they seek the annulment of the decision concerning the objection to the enforcement of the decision amending the country of return and the conduct of a new procedure. In the second application, they seek a declaration that the competent asylum authority failed to act in that it did not designate a place of stay located outside the transit zone. Those two sets of proceedings have been joined.
Opinion in case:
(Motor vehicles – pollutants – diesel engines)
Three diesel vehicles from a sample of the vehicle manufacturer which the present request concerns were subjected to tests carried out by the Union Technique de l’Automobile, du motocycle et du Cycle (UTAC), then to further tests by French Institute of Petroleum New Energies (IFPEN). These tests revealed irregularities for one model of the marque of the vehicle manufacturer concerned, a Euro 6 generation vehicle fitted with a certain type of diesel engine.
The legal mechanism of deception in this case would consist in having deceived purchasers of vehicles of the marques concerned fitted with Euro 6 and Euro 5 generation diesel engines as to the essential qualities of their vehicles. The non-conformity with the relevant regulation would be characterised by the presence in the vehicle of a defeat device prohibited by the regulation.
The referring court seeks clarification of the terms ‘element of design’, ‘emissions control system’ and ‘defeat device’ as found in the relevant regulation as well as an interpretation of the exceptions provided in the same regulation.
