Constitutional Court requests EU Court decision on jurisdiction of DORH and EPPO

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia has decided to request a so-called preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union on whether the legal solution, by which the Chief State Attorney resolves a conflict of jurisdiction between the EPPO (European Public Prosecutor’s Office) and national state attorneys' offices, is in accordance with EU law.

The Constitutional Court has sent a request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the EU in the procedure for reviewing the constitutionality of Article 8 of the Act on the Implementation of EU Council Regulation 2017/1939 on the implementation of enhanced cooperation in relation to the establishment of the EPPO at the request of 33 members of parliament who consider this provision to be contrary to the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia and Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU.

“The Constitutional Court made this decision because the issue of whether the Act is in accordance with EU law is in dispute, and in order to be able to decide whether it is in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia, we first need a decision from the European Court, which is the only one competent for this,” explained the President of the Constitutional Court, Miroslav Šeparović.

“According to the majority opinion of the judges of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia, the problem lies in the EU Regulation itself, which in our opinion is partly contradictory, and that is why we are asking the European Court to rule on it,” said Šeparović.

He also emphasized that, given some objections to the manner in which this decision was made, and objections to the transparency of the procedure itself, the Constitutional Court decided to publish the entire case file, which was sent to the Court of Justice of the EU, on the Constitutional Court's website.

Only after the decision of the European Court, will the Constitutional Court assess whether Article 8 of the Act on the Implementation of EU Council Regulation 2017/1939, according to which the Chief State Attorney decides on a conflict of jurisdiction between the State Attorney's Office and the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO), is in accordance with the Constitution.

The Constitutional Court concluded that it cannot decide on the disputed issues itself without jeopardizing the unity of the EU legal order, so it decided to refer the matter to the Court of Justice of the EU.

Of the 13 judges of the Constitutional Court, 11 voted "for" the aforementioned decision, while judge Miroslav Šumanović and judge Sanja Bezbradica Jelavić voted "against" and separated their opinions and explained them in writing, while eleven judges who voted "for" wrote and explained separate supporting opinions.

After the issue of the conflict of jurisdiction between the State Attorney’s Office and the EPPO came into the focus of the political public last year, opposition members of parliament insisted that the Supreme Court, and not the Attorney General, should have the final say in the event of a conflict of jurisdiction.

According to the Act Implementing the EU Council Regulation on the Implementation of Enhanced Cooperation in Relation to the Establishment of the EPPO, the Attorney General now decides on a conflict of jurisdiction.

Source: HRT