Hotărârea preliminară în dreptul Uniunii Europene. Studiu de caz [Hotărârea Curții de Justiție a Uniunii Europene în cauza C-282/2020 (ZX)]
Preliminary ruling in the European Union Law. Case study [Judgment of the European Union Court of Justice in the case C-282/2020 (ZX)]

Summary/Abstract: Only the national court can be the subject of a preliminary ruling. The object of a preliminary ruling is the interpretation of the EU primary law, as well as the interpretation or the verification of the validity of the EU secondary law. As a rule, the formulation of a preliminary ruling is left to the discretion of the national court (in general, the national court may formulate a preliminary ruling). By exception, the formulation of a preliminary ruling is mandatory when, in a specific case, the national court delivers a judgment that is not subject to any appeal (in this exceptional situation, the national court must formulate a preliminary ruling). The preliminary ruling procedure consists of two stages. The first stage takes place before the national court, and the second stage takes place before the CJEU. The second stage is divided in two stages, one written and one oral. The judicial act by which the preliminary ruling is resolved may be a judgment or a reasoned order. The CJEU delivers a judgment, when it provides a solution to the EU law issue referred to it by the national court, and a reasoned order, when it chooses not to provide a solution to that issue.By its judgment in the case C-282/2020 (ZX), delivered in the preliminary ruling procedure, the CJEU ruled that the impossibility of rectifying the indictment act during the trial phase infringes the right to be informed about the accusation. Regarding the possibility of rectifying the indictment act during the trial phase, there are two ways. The first way is that in which the prosecutor intervenes directly during the trial phase and rectifies the indictment act. Under this first approach, the defendant is informed about the rectified indictment act and is given the opportunity to effectively exercise his rights to defend himself in relation to the rectified indictment act. This first approach assumes that national law can be interpreted in accordance with the EU law. The second approach is that in which the court applies in the trial phase the procedure for rectifying the indictment act provided for the preliminary chamber. This second approach assumes that the national law cannot be interpreted in accordance with the EU law.

• Details
• Contents