Zvonimir Jelinić

JUDICIAL LAW-MAKING AND THE UNIFORM APPLICATION OF LAW AFTER ECJ’S JUDGMENT IN THE HANN INVEST CASE – A MISSION FOR CROATIA AND THE LESSON FOR OTHER MEMBER STATES

Introduction

Judicial law-making and the uniform application of law after ecj’s judgment in the hann invest case – a mission for croatia and the lesson for other member states. Explore ECJ's Hann Invest ruling impact on Croatia's uniform law application. Learn how judicial independence and binding legal positions are challenged, affecting EU integration.

Abstract

The Member States of the European Union employ various mechanisms to ensure the uniform application of law. While appeals and supreme court precedents are regarded as the common methods for resolving case law conflicts, other procedures like preliminary rulings and pilot judgments also play a role. In Croatia, the adoption of binding legal positions at higher courts’ and the Supreme Court’s sectional meetings has historically been a significant tool for maintaining jurisprudential consistency. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) in the Hann Invest case challenged this system. The ECJ’s Grand Chamber ruled that internal judicial procedures requiring a registration judge’s approval violate the right to effective judicial protection and undermine judicial independence, the core principle of the rule of law. This ruling presents a significant challenge for Croatia, which has long struggled with conflicting court decisions and inconsistent application of the law. This paper explores the implications of the Hann Invest case for Croatia, and possibly for some other states, particularly those with legacies of socialist and communist pasts. It questions whether binding legal positions should in any event be prohibited under European law and examines the underlying issues contributing to the problem of ensuring consistency in case law. Ultimately, this analysis seeks to understand how these challenges can be resolved to facilitate further integration of Croatia’s legal system within the EU framework.

Review

This paper addresses a highly pertinent and complex issue at the intersection of national judicial traditions and European Union law: the uniform application of law and the implications of judicial law-making after a pivotal ECJ judgment. Focusing on the *Hann Invest* case, the author critically examines how the European Court of Justice's ruling challenges established national mechanisms for ensuring jurisprudential consistency, specifically Croatia's system of binding legal positions. The abstract clearly sets out the core tension between national courts' efforts to resolve case law conflicts and fundamental EU principles like the right to effective judicial protection and judicial independence, which the ECJ found to be undermined by certain internal judicial procedures. While centered on Croatia, the paper wisely extends its scope to offer lessons for other Member States, particularly those sharing similar post-socialist/communist legal legacies. The strength of this proposed work lies in its timely engagement with a significant ECJ ruling that has direct and substantial implications for the functioning of national legal systems within the EU framework. By questioning the outright prohibition of binding legal positions under European law, the paper promises a nuanced exploration of a deeply entrenched practice versus evolving EU legal standards. Its commitment to examining the "underlying issues contributing to the problem of ensuring consistency in case law" suggests a commendable depth of analysis, moving beyond a mere description of the *Hann Invest* judgment to delve into the systemic challenges faced by countries like Croatia. The inclusion of a comparative perspective, acknowledging the relevance for states with socialist and communist pasts, significantly broadens the paper's analytical contribution and potential impact. Ultimately, this paper appears poised to make a valuable contribution to the ongoing discourse on legal integration, judicial independence, and the rule of law within the European Union. While the abstract effectively outlines the problem, an ideal development would be for the paper to not only explore how challenges can be resolved but perhaps also to propose specific, practically implementable solutions or alternative mechanisms that respect both national traditions and EU principles. Its exploration of historical legacies provides a critical context for understanding current difficulties and navigating future paths. This work promises to be an essential read for legal scholars, policymakers, and practitioners interested in European law, comparative judicial studies, and the challenges of legal harmonization in a diverse Union.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.