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

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.