After several legal and constitutional experts confirmed to N1 that the Constitutional Court could get involved in the jurisdictional dispute over the investigation against Vili Beros and others, the Constitutional Court itself has issued a statement.

The experts agree that the law regulating decisions on jurisdiction is flawed. As is known, this law gives the State Attorney-General the power to decide whether a case falls under the jurisdiction of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) or the anti-corruption office USKOK or another department of the State Attorney’s Office.

In the most recent case, State Attorney-General Ivan Turudic decided that the USKOK has jurisdiction and thus withdrew the investigations against Beros and others from the EPPO. This decision cannot be appealed, and legal and constitutional experts argue that this is not in line with the Croatian constitution.

They emphasise that any decision by public bodies must be subject to judicial review.

The warning from Laura Kövesi

In an open letter on Thursday, European Chief Prosecutor Laura Kövesi pointed out that this legislation is inconsistent with the EU Council Regulation on the activities of the EPPO. She informed the European Commission of Turudic’s decision.

Kövesi not only pointed out the legal provision, which is not in line with the regulation, but also criticised the fact that the State Attorney-General did not consult the EPPO before making his decision. The European Commission has yet to respond.

The Constitutional Court’s Move

N1 asked the Constitutional Court whether it would initiate a review of the constitutionality of the law implementing Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 on enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), given that the State Attorney-General’s decision on jurisdiction cannot be challenged in court. Here is their response:

“Article 35 of the Constitutional Act on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia stipulates who may file a motion to initiate proceedings before the Constitutional Court, while Article 38 states that every natural and legal person has the right to propose the initiation of proceedings to examine the compatibility of laws with the Constitution and the conformity of other regulations with the Constitution and the law.

According to paragraph 2 of the same article, the Constitutional Court may also initiate such proceedings on its own initiative, with the decision being taken at a session of the Constitutional Court. At this stage, we can only confirm that no session of the Constitutional Court has been convened on the matter you have raised,” the Constitutional Court stated.