- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-16/24, Sinalov: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 February 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad – Bulgaria) – Criminal proceedings against YR, WV, AN, WY (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU – Effective judicial protection – National rules on how cases are allocated among the judges of a given court – Allocation of cases by the head of court management – Power of the judge assigned to verify the lawfulness of the allocation)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62024CA0016
62024CA0016
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Official Journal of the European Union
C series
—
C/2025/2169
22.4.2025
(Case C-16/24,
Sinalov)
(2)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU - Effective judicial protection - National rules on how cases are allocated among the judges of a given court - Allocation of cases by the head of court management - Power of the judge assigned to verify the lawfulness of the allocation)
(C/2025/2169)
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Referring court
Parties in the main proceedings
other party: Sofiyska gradska prokuratura
Operative part of the judgment
The second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State has established a system for allocating cases within courts which is based on the principle of the random selection of the formation of the court, with certain exceptions, and is subject to the involvement of the head of court management of each court, it does not preclude, where a judge to whom a case has been allocated has doubts as to the lawfulness of that allocation, that judge from being prevented from ruling himself or herself on that question and, if necessary, from referring that case to another judge in the same court on the ground that it should have been allocated to that judge, while the first judge must refer the case concerned back to the head of court management of that court, so that he or she may verify the lawfulness of the initial allocation of that case and possibly proceed to the reallocation of that case. However, the lawfulness of an allocation made by that head of court management must be subject to judicial review in accordance with the rules of national law.
—
(1) OJ C C/2024/2590.
(2) The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any of the parties to the proceedings.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2169/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—