The Advocate General of the Court of Justice strikes the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs of the ultimate Court, giving the opinion that ‘the national court is obliged to disregard the ruling’ of that Chamber on the repeal of the judgement concerning unfair competition on the marketplace in crossword magazines. Dean Spielmann stated in his opinion that IKNiSP SN ‘does not meet the requirements of the court’.
The Court of Justice of the European Union addressed the questions referred by the Court of Appeal in Krakow. He asked whether the decision-making composition of the home of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs of the General Court, which repealed the final judgement of the General Court, met the requirements of the court within the meaning of EU law and, if not, whether the general court whose judgement has been repealed could consider specified an ruling of the General Court to be obsolete and disregarded.
The judgement of the Court of Appeal in Krakow, which the ultimate Court repealed in 2021, afraid the prohibition of unfair competition on the marketplace of magazines with crosses and was issued in 2006. After 14 years with an extraordinary complaint, the lawyer General addressed the SN.
Spielmann: ‘National court is obliged to disregard judgment’
The Advocate General of the Court of Justice, Dean Spielmann, in his opinion, recalled that, in accordance with the case law of the Court of Justice of the Court of Justice of the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs, the “all circumstances” relating to the appointment of judges of the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs precludes it from being regarded as an independent and impartial court established previously by the Act.
With respect to the legal destiny of the decision given by that authority, the national court is required to disregard it or, if essential to guarantee the primacy of Union law in a given procedural context, to consider it to be non-existent
He stressed.
The Opinion of the Advocate General does not bind the EU Court of Justice. It is simply a proposal for a ruling for the judges most frequently used, but may besides issue a judgement another than that proposed by the ombudsmen.
Dean Spielmann previously besides struck the Polish Constitutional Court. In its opinion of 11 March, the Constitutional Tribunal judgement of 14 July and 7 October 2021 referred to it as a ‘rebellion’ affecting ‘the primacy, autonomy and effectiveness of EU law’. He besides felt that the TK could not be considered an independent and impartial court. The Polish opposition – among others, the PiS, which formed the government from 2015 to 2023 – stands in the position that in our country the primacy over EU law has the Polish constitution.
Why does the Advocate General of the Court of Justice usage the word ‘the national court IS COMMITED’? Sounds beautiful dangerous.
SEE ALSO:
aja/PAP
