Communication: judgment No. 0055 of 2020

IDENTIFIER
62020CA0055
LANGUAGE
English
COURT
Court of Justice of the European Union
AG OPINION
NO
REFERENCES MADE
3
REFERENCED
1
DOCUMENT TYPE
Communication: judgment

Judgment



7.3.2022   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/5


Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Dyscyplinarny Izby Adwokackiej w Warszawie — Poland) — Proceedings initiated by the Minister Sprawiedliwości

(Case C-55/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Admissibility - Article 267 TFEU - Definition of ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ - Bar Association Disciplinary Court - Disciplinary investigation initiated against a lawyer - Decision of the Disciplinary Agent finding that there was no disciplinary offence and terminating the investigation - Appeal by the Minister for Justice to the Bar Association Disciplinary Court - Directive 2006/123/EC - Services in the internal market - Article 4, point (6), and Article 10(6) - Authorisation scheme - Withdrawal of authorisation - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Not applicable)

(2022/C 109/06)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Dyscyplinarny Izby Adwokackiej w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Minister Sprawiedliwości

Intervening parties: Prokurator Krajowy — Pierwszy Zastępca Prokuratora Generalnego, Rzecznik Dyscyplinarny Izby Adwokackiej w Warszawie

Operative part of the judgment

Article 10(6) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market must be interpreted as not having the effect of rendering Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union applicable to appeal proceedings brought by a State authority before a Bar Association Disciplinary Court and seeking annulment of a decision by which a Disciplinary Agent closed an investigation into a lawyer after finding that there was no disciplinary offence attributable to that lawyer and, should that decision be annulled, to the referral back of the file to that disciplinary agent.


(1)  OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.



Citations

Sign up for a free moonlit.ai™ account to access all citing documents.