Const. Court Decides High Criminal Court to Start Working on 1 Jan 2021

Total Croatia News

Pixabay
Pixabay

Pixabay

ZAGREB, Nov 3, 2020 – The Constitutional Court on Tuesday dismissed objections that the High Criminal Court is unconstitutional, ruling that the new court, which should deal with appeals against first-instance county court rulings, will start operating on 1 January 2021.

The motion to assess if the High Criminal Court, whose establishment former Justice Minister Drazen Bosnjakovic entrusted to Zagreb County Court president Ivan Turudic, is in line with the Constitution had been submitted by former Social Democrat Justice Minister Orsat Miljenic and his party colleague, MP Pedja Grbin.

The Constitutional Court does not believe that the establishment of the High Criminal Court would bring into question the constitutional status of the Supreme Court as the highest court ensuring administration of justice and the equality of all in its administration, the court said.

It noted that it did not rule on whether the High Criminal Court should be established, since the establishment, scope, composition and structure of courts was within the remit of lawmakers.

Nine Constitutional Court judges voted for this ruling, two were against and announced dissenting opinions, and two abstained from the vote as they had been involved in the adoption of the contested laws, the court said in a statement.

The High Criminal Court was to have been established at the start of this year but its inauguration was postponed due to the complaint of unconstitutionality, and its 11 judges, elected in November 2019, were not invited to the oath-taking ceremony.

The Constitutional Court today also quashed a law on the invalidity of loan contracts with international characteristics signed in Croatia with an unauthorised creditor.

The court made the decision based on a ruling of the Court of the European Union whereby the court decided that the contested law was contrary to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

The decision was supported by nine judges, four voted against and two announced dissenting opinions.

 

Subscribe to our newsletter

the fields marked with * are required
Email: *
First name:
Last name:
Gender: Male Female
Country:
Birthday:
Please don't insert text in the box below!

Leave a Comment