State Attorney-General Ivan Turudic responded on Tuesday to European Public Prosecutor Laura Kövesi's letter to the European Commission, reiterating that his decision to transfer jurisdiction in the "microscopes case" to the Croatian anti-corruption office USKOK and not the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO) was made in accordance with the regulations.

In her letter, Kövesi said that Turudic’s decision had “further aggravated the situation”. She added that Turudic had based his decision solely on USKOK’s interpretation without giving EPPO the opportunity to state its position, thereby undermining impartiality.

She also claimed that USKOK had failed to inform EPPO about the investigation involving EU funds and had thus breached its obligations under the EPPO Regulation. In addition, Kövesi argued that it is against EU law to give the State Attorney-General the power to resolve jurisdictional disputes.

“No EU findings indicate serious or systematic violations of the rule of law in Croatia”

Turudic pointed out that the three-member Permanent Chamber No. 6 at the EPPO headquarters supported his decision as compliant with the EPPO Regulation. He referred to the Croatian Constitution, which provides for the State Attorney’s office as an independent judicial body responsible for the prosecution of criminal offences, the protection of state property and the safeguarding of constitutional and legal rights.

He explained that in Croatia, prosecutors, not judges or administrative bodies such as the police, initiate and lead investigations. This system, according to Turudic, logically authorises the Attorney- General to assign cases during the investigation phase. He pointed out that this arrangement is standard in 14 EU countries where EPPO operates, so the Croatian framework is in line with EU norms.

Turudic questioned Kövesi’s claims about systemic problems with the rule of law in Croatia, stating that these claims were neither substantiated nor detailed in her letter. He questioned the source of such allegations and pointed out that no EU findings indicate serious or systematic violations of the rule of law in Croatia.

“Ironic” claim

Turudic also accused EPPO of exceeding its regulatory powers and failing to adhere to the principle of sincere cooperation laid down in the EPPO regulation.

He criticised the delay with which EPPO informed Croatian prosecutors about the case and argued that this approach contradicted the regulation’s requirements for mutual assistance and information exchange.

The claim of the Permanent Chamber, which in its decision expresses regret that the Croatian State Attorney-General, in deciding on the conflict of jurisdiction, did not take into account the principle of loyal cooperation, which requires EPPO and the competent national authorities to assist and inform each other in order to effectively prosecute crimes falling within EPPO’s jurisdiction, is ironic, Turudic concluded.