Link: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2024-07/cp240110en.pdf

Languages available: bg es cs da de et el en fr hr ga it lv lt hu mt nl pl pt ro sk sl fi sv

PRESS RELEASE No 110/24

Luxembourg, 11 July 2024

Judgment of the Court in Joined Cases C-554/21 | HANN-INVEST, C-622/21 | MINERAL-SEKULINE and C-727/21 | UDRUGA KHL MEDVEŠČAK ZAGREB

Rule of law: only the judicial panel responsible for a case can decide its outcome Any undue interference by persons from outside the judicial panel must be precluded A procedural mechanism internal to a court or tribunal intended to avoid or resolve conflicts in case-law and thus to ensure the legal certainty inherent in the principle of the rule of law must itself comply with the requirements linked to the independence of the judiciary. In particular, it is only the judicial panel responsible for a case that is to take the decision closing the proceedings. Any undue interference by persons from outside the judicial panel must be precluded. In the Croatian courts of second instance, all decisions adopted by a judicial panel must be forwarded to the registrations judge of the relevant court before the decision is considered formally delivered and may be sent to the parties. The registrations judge is designated by the president of the relevant court. In practice, the registrations judge has the power to stay the delivery of a judgment and to give instructions to the judicial panel. The parties have no knowledge of the involvement or name of the registrations judge. If the judicial panel does not comply with the instructions of the registration judge, that judge may request that a section meeting be convened. The section meeting is able to put forward a 'legal position' that is binding on all judicial panels belonging to the section. The judicial panel concerned, which will already have concluded its deliberations, must, if necessary, alter the judicial decision previously adopted. According to the Croatian Commercial Court of Appeal, this procedural mechanism has thus far been justified by the need to ensure consistency of case-law. Having doubts as to its compatibility with EU law and, in particular, with the principle of the rule of law 1 , it referred questions to the Court of Justice on the issue.

(...)