Acceso usuarios
En el artículo se analiza el primer caso que ha estudiado el TJUE por violación de la independencia judicial en Croacia. Partiendo de la base que supuso y los principios que estableció el caso de los jueces portugueses en materia de independencia de los jueces, Estado de Derecho y tutela judicial efectiva, el manuscrito introduce la problemática general que envuelve al poder judicial croata, que ni es percibido en las encuestas como confiable, ni tampoco cosecha mucho entusiasmo en el Cuadro de Indicadores de la Justicia que publica anualmente la Comisión Europea. A partir de estos antecedentes, el trabajo entra a analizar la sentencia Hann Invest et al, tres asuntos acumulados de los que conoce el Tribunal Superior de lo Mercantil de Croacia, que generaron a este último tribunal duda sobre su compatibilidad con el Derecho de la Unión Europea y, en concreto, con el artículo 19 TUE y el artículo 47 de la Carta de Derechos Fundamentales. El manuscrito realiza un análisis en paralelo de lo que establecen las Conclusiones del Abogado General y el Tribunal de Justicia en su Sentencia en relación a la competencia del Tribunal de Justicia, la admisibilidad del caso y el fondo del asunto. Del trabajo comparado que se lleva a cabo de Conclusiones y Sentencia se colige que, en esta ocasión, ambos textos no coinciden. Donde el Abogado General no ve razón para la admisión del asunto ni violación del TUE, la Sentencia ve lo contrario. Sin embargo, llama la atención el tono constructivo de la Sentencia que, en un ejemplo de activismo judicial y creación jurídica, indica a las autoridades croatas cómo reformar el mecanismo procesal -cuyo origen está en la Yugoslavia de Tito-, que considera incompatible con el Derecho de la Unión.
Starting from the first ruling that the Court of Justice of the EU dedica-ted to analyzing judicial independence and how Article 19 TEU, and when appli-cable, also Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, require that every EU court complies with the rule of law value stated in Article 2 TEU, this con-tribution reviews the key cases that have reached the Court of Justice in which a violation of judicial independence has been alleged, including effective legal protection and the right to a judge established by law. Following this, the contri-bution focuses on the first case that has affected Croatia in this area. It explains in parallel the legal arguments used by the Advocate General in his Conclusions and those of the Court of Justice in its Judgment, aiming to identify their com-mon points and those in which they diverge. Although both the Conclusions and the Judgment consider the Court of Justice to be competent, they differ in their views on whether the matter is admissible and whether the procedural mechanism in question is compatible with EU Law. The Court of Justice opines that a practice whereby the so-called registration judge —who has not heard the parties— can, in order to unify the case law of a court, block the issuance of the decision made by the corresponding judicial formation —which has heard the parties— is incompatible with EU Law. Similarly, the practice whereby that same registration judge can, if the conflict persists, refer the case to an enlarged section of that court, which in turn can require the judicial formation that dealt with the case to change the outcome of its decision, is also incompatible with EU Law. The contribution contextualizes the existence of this practice, which stems from a judicial hierarchy rooted in Croatia’s communist past when it was part of the SFRY. Additionally, the contribution highlights the pretorian nature of the Judgment, as the Court of Justice allows a certain degree of judicial crea-tivity by indicating how Croatia could amend that procedural practice so as to ensure its compatibility with EU Law.
