1.

Must EU law, including Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the value of the rule of law enshrined therein, as well as the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) thereof, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, be interpreted as precluding provisions of national law such as:

2.

Must EU law, including the provisions indicated in Question 1, be interpreted as meaning that the retirement by operation of law of a national military court judge, in the circumstances referred to in that question, is ineffective, as a result of which that judge may continue to sit on the panel of the referring court, and all state bodies, including judicial bodies, are obliged to enable him or her to continue to sit on that panel in accordance with the previously existing rules?

3.

Must EU law — including (i) Article 2 TEU and the value of the rule of law enshrined therein, Article 4(3) TEU and the principle of sincere cooperation enshrined therein, the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, Article 267 TFEU, and the principles of effectiveness and primacy, and (ii) Article 2 TEU and the value of democracy enshrined therein, Article 4(2) TEU, and the principle of the separation of powers — be interpreted as meaning that the power, or obligation, of a national court to suspend the application of provisions of national law, including statutory provisions, which are the subject of the reference for a preliminary ruling derives directly from EU law?

Is the fact that national law does not provide for the possibility of suspension of the application of provisions of national law by the court which has made a reference for a preliminary ruling, and that a ruling ordering such suspension, until the referring court has taken into account the points of interpretation of EU law contained in the Court’s response to that reference, is necessary in the circumstances of the case in the main proceedings, relevant to the answer to be given to this question?