ZAGREB, May 2, 2018 – The outstanding border issue between Croatia and Slovenia should finally start to be dealt with expertly and with arguments, and not political statements, the state secretary at the Croatian Foreign Ministry Andreja Metelko Zgombić said in Brussels on Wednesday.
“Croatia is looking at this issue as an expert issue which should finally no longer be dealt with through political statements,” she told reporters after an oral hearing at the European Commission after Slovenia’s complaint that Croatia is in breach of European Union law by not recognising a border arbitration ruling.
She said she did not attend the hearing in her capacity as state secretary because it was held at expert level, but as a legal expert who has been dealing with the border issue a long time. “You can’t hear statements on the Croatian side that would lead to any straining of relations. I didn’t want to say so explicitly, but I think one can conclude from which side statements are coming that unnecessarily raise tensions and aren’t constructive,” said Metelko Zgombić.
She called the hearing successful and said the Commission had a chance to better see what this issue was about. “There were no new positions and both sides continued to present their familiar positions.”
She reiterated Croatia’s position that there was no breach of European law here, which Slovenia claims, and that Croatia expected to resume talks on the border issue with a new Slovenian government after next month’s election.
She said Slovenia’s main argument was that there was a new border now and that Croatia was not applying EU law. “Slovenia thinks the border has suddenly, by itself, moved to a different place from where it was in 1991 and is now. Croatia replied that the border remained there where we confirmed that it was in our constitutional decisions on sovereignty and independence, that it was the border of the former republic. This position was confirmed by the two states in 2005, in a statement on the avoidance of incidents.”
She said Croatia saw in that a solution to the current situation. “If that regime of not punishing fishermen has been good from 2005 until now, we don’t see why it can’t remain in force until Slovenia and Croatia resolve the border issue within the framework of international law.”
She said she regretted that Slovenia had gone after Croatian fishermen, adding that Croatia had been forced to retaliate. “It is very important that Croatia knew how to respond properly to Slovenia’s complaint and that the Commission has enough information and arguments to make its own opinion.”
Slovenia brought the case before the Commission in mid-March in accordance with Article 259 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, claiming that, by not recognising and not implementing the arbitration ruling of June 29, 2017, Croatia is in breach of EU law. The proceedings before the Commission last three months during which both parties are to exchange written submissions and hold an oral hearing in the Commission.
Zagreb submitted its written response to the complaint to the Commission on April 17, concluding that it is not in breach of EU law. Under Article 259, the Commission can but does not have to give its opinion on the case. The deadline is June 18. If it does not, Slovenia can, and has announced that it will, take the case to the Court of Justice of the EU.
Asked if Croatia was willing, in agreement with Slovenia, to go to the Court of Justice, Metelko Zgombić said Slovenia had not made such a proposal.
The president of the Court, Koen Lenaerts, recently expressed doubts about the legal path Slovenia had chosen, saying the best solution for Slovenia and Croatia is to present the case to the Court in agreement. If a dispute between two member states does not directly refer to EU law, the Court of Justice cannot voice its opinion about it, unless the member states in question reach an agreement to jointly present the case to the Court under Article 273 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, Lenaerts said, adding that it would be better to refer to Article 273, rather than 259.
