The Court of Justice of the EU: A debate on the conflict of jurisdiction between the EPPO and the Prosecutor General
A debate was held at the European Court of Justice regarding a request by Croatia's Constitutional Court to determine whether a national law allowing the Chief State Prosecutor to resolve jurisdictional conflicts between the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO) and national prosecutors is compatible with EU law. The issue arose from a case involving former Minister of Health Vili Beroš, where the EPPO and the Croatian Prosecution Service (Uskok) disputed jurisdiction over allegations of overpricing medical equipment. The Chief State Prosecutor, Ivan Turudić, ruled in favor of Uskok, prompting EPPO head Laura Kövesi to file objections with the European Commission. Croatian MPs from SDP and Možemo! challenged the constitutionality of the relevant legal provision, arguing that such decisions should be made by a court rather than the Chief State Prosecutor. The Constitutional Court has referred the matter to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling, which will set a precedent not only for Croatia but also for other EU member states with similar systems.
The European Court of Justice held a hearing Tuesday in Luxembourg on a request from Croatia's Constitutional Court regarding whether a legal provision allowing the chief state prosecutor to resolve jurisdictional conflicts between the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO) and national prosecutors is compatible with EU law. This decision will have implications for 14 member states with similar systems for resolving such disputes. The issue arose in the case involving former health minister Vili Beroš, over which EPPO and Croatia’s public prosecution service (Uskok) had conflicting claims. Chief State Prosecutor Ivan Turudić ruled that Uskok was the competent authority for the procurement of overpriced medical devices, not EPPO. Following this ruling, EPPO transferred the relevant documents to Uskok, prompting European Chief Prosecutor Laura Kövesi to file objections and report the matter to the European Commission. Thirty-three members of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) and the "Can We!" movement jointly submitted a request to the Constitutional Court asking it to assess the constitutionality of the legal provision under which the chief state prosecutor resolves jurisdictional conflicts between Uskok and EPPO. They argue that such decisions should not fall solely within the domain of the chief state prosecutor, but instead be made by a court, such as Croatia’s Supreme Court. The Constitutional Court has decided to refer the question to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on whether Article 8 of the Implementing Regulation of the Council (EU) 2017/1939, which allows the chief state prosecutor to decide on jurisdictional conflicts between national prosecutors and EPPO, is compatible with EU law. The European Court of Justice’s ruling will set a precedent not only for Croatia but also for other member states using the same system for resolving jurisdictional conflicts. In 14 EU countries, including Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, and Slovenia, jurisdictional conflicts between national prosecutors and EPPO are resolved by prosecutorial bodies. Following Tuesday’s hearing, the next step in the process is the publication of an independent lawyer’s opinion, expected in the first half of next year. While this opinion is non-binding for the court, it carries significant influence. After this, a final decision would typically take between six and nine months following the hearing.
The European Court of Justice is set to decide on the authority of Croatia's Chief State Prosecutor in resolving jurisdictional conflicts between the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO) and national prosecutors. This issue arose after the Chief State Prosecutor, Ivan Turudić, ruled that the national prosecutor, not EPPO, was responsible for handling cases involving overpriced medical equipment linked to former Health Minister Vili Beroš. The European Public Prosecutor, Laura Kövesi, challenged this decision before the European Commission. Croatia's Constitutional Court has referred the matter to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on whether Article 8 of the implementing regulation of the EPPO is compatible with EU law. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for 14 other EU member states that follow a similar system where a prosecutorial body resolves such conflicts.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the legal dispute objectively, citing both the Croatian Constitutional Court's referral to the European Court of Justice and the positions of various stakeholders including the European Public Prosecutor's Office and the European Commission. It does not exhibit overtly biased ph
A debate was held at the European Court of Justice regarding a request by Croatia's Constitutional Court to determine whether a national law allowing the Chief State Prosecutor to resolve jurisdictional conflicts between the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO) and national prosecutors is compatible with EU law. The issue arose from a case involving former Minister of Health Vili Beroš, where the EPPO and the Croatian Prosecution Service (Uskok) disputed jurisdiction over allegations of overpricing medical equipment. The Chief State Prosecutor, Ivan Turudić, ruled in favor of Uskok, prompting EPPO head Laura Kövesi to file objections with the European Commission. Croatian MPs from SDP and Možemo! challenged the constitutionality of the relevant legal provision, arguing that such decisions should be made by a court rather than the Chief State Prosecutor. The Constitutional Court has referred the matter to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling, which will set a precedent not only for Croatia but also for other EU member states with similar systems.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the legal dispute between national and EU-level prosecutorial authorities in a balanced manner, citing both the Croatian Constitutional Court's concerns and the European Commission's stance. It does not exhibit overtly biased language, one-sided sourcing, or editorializing that傾
How each side covered it
The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.
progressive
center
conservative
★
How each side covered it
Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.
Croatia
