Croatia / Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia / U-III-5394/2021

Mila Mikecin Mišetić
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia
Type
Decision
Decision date
23/05/2023
  • Croatia / Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia / U-III-5394/2021

    Key facts of the case:

    A candidate in procedure for the election of judges of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia filed a constitutional complaint by claiming that the Croatian Parliament’s decision on the election of ten judges in 2016 as well as actions and omissions before and during the candidacy procedure violated her constitutional rights and fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and the ECHR. The Committee of the Croatian Parliament for the Constitution initiates the procedure for the election of judges of the Constitutional Court by and publishes an invitation in the Official Gazette for proposalsproposal of candidates for the election of one or more judges of the Constitutional Court, under the Rules of Procedure and Political System. The Committee interviews publicly each candidate who complies with the conditions and makes a short list of candidates. The representatives of the Croatian Parliament subsequently elect the judges by voting for each individual candidate. The applicant complained that the proposal of the decision for the selection of judges lacked a valid explanation why exactly these candidates were proposed and other candidates who applied, including herself, were not nominated. According to her complaint, the composition of the Croatian Parliament Committee for the Constitution, Rules of Procedure and Political System, which proposed and de facto elected the judges of the Constitutional Court was biased as three candidates for judges were at the same time members of the respective Committee that carried out the candidate selection procedure, thereby combining two incompatible functions. After conducting a thorough analysis of relevant law and case law, the Constitutional Court dismissed the complaint considering that in the independence and impartiality had not been endangered to the extent that would result in an unconstitutional election of the appointed judges.

    Key legal question raised by the Court:

    The applicant claimed that violations of her constitutional rights manifested in actions and omissions before and during the candidacy and election procedure in a way that denied her equal position in the election process before the Croatian Parliament. This allegedly affected the very outcome of the proceedings to her detriment, thus violating her constitutional right to equal access to performing public duties concerning the guarantee of equality before the law. The Court conducted an assessment of whether the facts of the case could have contributed to the breach of impartiality and independence of the process of election of judges.

    Outcome of the case:

    The Constitutional Court took into consideration the relevant case law of both the CJEU and the ECtHR when conducting its thorough analysis of the protection of independence and impartiality of the judiciary as an essential component of the rule of law. The Constitutional Court held that the disputed facts, including the fact that three judges were present at the plenary session where the election proposal was discussed and decided upon, did not allow the conclusion that the constitutionality of the entire process of appointing constitutional judges was threatened. In the context of the alleged violation of the constitutional guarantee of equal access to performing public service, the Constitutional Court assessed that the mere fact that the Croatian Parliament did not adopt precise written rules regulating the process of candidacy for Constitutional Court judges cannot justify the conclusion that this led to the violation of fundamental rights of the applicant in the respective situation.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    30. As the contested procedure for appointing judges of the Constitutional Court is the first such procedure conducted after the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union, the Constitutional Court also took into account Article 141.c of the Constitution. In accordance with Article 141.c of the Constitution, through its decisions the Constitutional Court is obliged to ensure that in cases belonging to the regulatory jurisdiction of the European Union regarding the protection of citizens’ rights and freedoms, decisions are made in accordance with the acquis of the European Union. Consequently, it is indisputable that the Constitutional Court represents a judicial body that can also decide on issues regulated by the European Union law. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Official Journal of the European Union No. 216/C 202/02) is of particular importance here, as it contains a number of guarantees that are also protected by the Constitution.

    55. The Constitutional Court again points out that the legal order of the Republic of Croatia is an integral part of the common legal order of the European Union. ... In this case, the Constitutional Court was therefore guided by and relied on constitutional legal positions expressed through the practice of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the ECtHR. In this context, the Constitutional Court recognized the fact that the independence of judges of Member States is of fundamental importance for legal order of the European Union for various reasons (judgment of 9 July 2020, Land Hessen, C‑272/19, EU:C:2020:535, p. 45.). On one hand, it is necessary for proper functioning of the system of judicial cooperation, embodied in the mechanism of requests for a preliminary ruling prescribed by Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 2010/C 83/01 ("Official Journal of the European Union" C 202/2016), because this mechanism can only be initiated by a specific body whose task is to apply the European Union law and which meets, among other things, the constitutional criteria of independence and impartiality. On the other hand, just as the condition of independence and impartiality is the backbone of the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial, it is also the backbone of the essential content of the fundamental right to effective judicial protection and a fair trial from Article 47 of the Charter, which is of key importance as a guarantee of protection of all the rights deriving from the European Union law as well as of preservation of common values of Member States specified in Article 2 of the Treaty on the European Union (Official Journal of the European Union No. C 202/27), especially the values of the rule of law.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    30. S obzirom na to da je osporavani postupak imenovanja sudaca i sutkinja Ustavnog suda prvi takav postupak proveden nakon stupanja Republike Hrvatske u članstvo Europske unije, Ustavni sud uzeo je u obzir i članak 141.c Ustava. U skladu s člankom 141.c Ustava Ustavni sud dužan je kroz svoje odluke brinuti da se u predmetima koji pripadaju regulatornoj nadležnosti Europske unije o zaštiti prava i sloboda građana i građanki odlučuje u skladu s pravnom stečevinom Europske unije. Posljedično, nesporno je da Ustavni sud predstavlja sudsko tijelo koje može odlučivati i o pitanjima koja su uređena pravom Europske unije. Tu posebnu važnost zauzima Povelja Europske unije o temeljnim pravima (Službeni list Europske unije broj 216/C 202/02) koja sadrži niz jamstava koja istovremeno štiti i Ustav.

    55. Ustavni sud ponovno ističe da je pravni poredak Republike Hrvatske sastavni dio zajedničkog pravnog poretka Europske unije. (...) Ustavni sud se stoga tijekom ovog predmeta vodio i oslanjao na ustavnopravna stajališta izražena kroz praksu Suda Europske unije i ESLJP-a. U tom kontekstu, Ustavni sud uvažio je činjenicu da je neovisnost sudaca država članica od temeljne važnosti za pravni poredak Europske unije zbog različitih razloga (presuda od 9. srpnja 2020., Land Hessen, C‑272/19, EU:C:2020:535, t. 45.). S jedne strane ona je nužna za dobro funkcioniranje sustava pravosudne suradnje, utjelovljenog u mehanizmu zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku, propisanom člankom 267. Ugovora o funkcioniranju Europske unije 2010/C 83/01 ("Službeni list Europske unije" C 202/2016), jer taj mehanizam može pokrenuti samo određeno tijelo čija je zadaća primijeniti pravo Europske unije, a koje ispunjava, među ostalim, ustavni kriterij neovisnosti i nepristranosti. S druge strane, kao što je uvjet neovisnosti i nepristranosti kičma ustavnog jamstva na pravično suđenje tako je ujedno i bitnog sadržaja temeljnog prava na djelotvornu sudsku zaštitu i pošteno suđenje iz članka 47. Povelje, koje je od ključne važnosti kao jamstvo zaštite svih prava koja osobe izvode iz prava Europske unije i očuvanja zajedničkih vrijednosti država članica navedenih u članku 2. Ugovora o Europskoj uniji (Službeni list EU broj C 202/27), osobito vrijednosti vladavine prava.