Gong has addressed the European Parliament's Committee on Petitions, pointing out inconsistencies between Croatian legislation and the Regulation on the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). These inconsistencies allow the General State Attorney to hold exclusive authority over resolving jurisdictional conflicts between the State Attorney's Office (DORH), which they lead, and the EPPO.
General State Attorney Ivan Turudić recently ruled that the USKOK, as part of DORH, rather than the EPPO, has jurisdiction over an investigation into the procurement of medical equipment involving Health Minister Vili Beroš. This decision cannot be challenged. Under Croatia’s Implementation Act for the EPPO Regulation, the General State Attorney is designated as the national authority for resolving jurisdictional conflicts between DORH and EPPO. However, the law does not provide for any Croatian court to review such decisions. If judicial review were possible, the court could refer the matter to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg through a preliminary ruling procedure.
In its submission to the Committee on Petitions, Gong underscored that, according to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), only a "national court or tribunal" can refer matters to the European Court of Justice. As the General State Attorney is not a judicial body, Turudić could not, even if he wished, escalate the jurisdictional conflict between DORH and EPPO to the European Court. Furthermore, no legal remedy exists to challenge Turudić’s decision before the European Court, as the implementation law does not provide for such an option. This issue could have been avoided if the Supreme Court, as Croatia’s highest judicial authority, were assigned the responsibility of deciding jurisdictional conflicts.
In a country where public trust in judicial institutions is critically low—a situation further eroded by Ivan Turudić’s appointment as General State Attorney following the leak of messages involving Josipa Rimac — this arrangement for resolving jurisdictional matters is deeply problematic.
