Queen Lenaerts pointed to him undermining the role TSU in Poland and Hungary, but also In Germany, where the Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe questioned the purchase of bonds by the European Central Bank, or in FranceSome presidential candidates have declared that domestic law will take precedence over European law.

– The authority of the CJEU and the rule of law of the European Union in some member states have been called into question, not only by politicians, but also by constitutional courts – Koen Lenaerts admitted in an interview with Politico.

Talking about the primacy of EU law always seems effective and some countries criticize this principle, but it’s just nonsense. The only question, he said, was whether the federation had this specific jurisdiction. CJEU Chief.

As emphasized in the article, the Luxembourg-based court is, according to the treaties, the only definitive interpreter of EU law.

Remind the material Punishment of one million euros a day for Poland For failure to implement CJEU’s decision to suspend the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court.

Lennart agreed that the dispute with Poland was not a discussion about the priority of EU law, but was in fact a “problem of judicial independence”.

Of course, every state is free to organize its judicial system as it sees fit. But the CJEU chief said states may not infringe on the independence of judges before the public.

Lehnerts stressed that we are “all bound by Article 2” of the EU treaty, which deals with the rule of law and respect for human rights. He described CJEU’s activities as supporting this provision, and not as an extension of this institution’s mandate.

In the opinion of the CJEU chief, the countries of the group should trust the Polish judiciary because of, among other things: extradition.

Satisfying the minimum requirements for the independence of the national judiciary to ensure mutual trust between these systems. It is a direct result of the 1997 treaty – evaluated Queen Lenaerts.

Finally, the CJEU president emphasized that the court was a “judicial, not political” body.