This master’s thesis explores the conflicting relationship between Article 19(1) TEU and Article 267 TFEU in the Court of Justice’s case-law, particularly in the context of the ongoing rule of law crisis in Poland and Hungary. Judges of courts captive by executive and legislative frequently submit references questioning the independence of their colleagues, and the question arises whether this practice is allowed. The simultaneous application of Article 19(1) TEU and Article 267 TFEU in assessing the admissibility of requests for preliminary ruling can lead to a paradox: courts that are not independent may not submit references questioning the independence of their judges precisely because they lack independence. This was the result of the Banco de Santander judgement, which was partially corrected by subsequent cases. However, the following case-law has opened a possibility of excluding large parts of a Member State’s judiciary from the preliminary reference procedure. This master thesis first analyses two strands of case-law: case-law under Article 19(1) TEU and case-law under Article 267 TFEU. In that light, it turns to the assessment of three cases in which the Court has decided on this particular issue: Banco de Santander, Getin Noble Bank, and L.G. The paper concludes by emphasising the importance of the preliminary ruling procedure in order to maintain dialogue with the Polish judiciary.