Information;Order — ECLI:EU:C:2026:140
Date: 2026-02-26
Language of the case: Croatian
Court formation: Ninth Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Croatia

Summary of the subject matter of the dispute in the main proceedings and the 
relevant facts, content of the national provisions that may be applicable and 
statement of the reasons that led the referring court to enquire as to the 
interpretation of provisions of EU law: 
In the present case, by order of the Trgovački sud u Osijeku (Commercial Court, 
Osijek, Croatia) […] of 15 April 2024, an interim measure was granted to secure a 
non-pecuniary claim seeking security both by withdrawing the request for 
payment of the bank guarantee and refraining from claiming and submitting for 
payment and effecting payment of the bank guarantee in the amount of 
EUR 35 000 000.00 (thirty-five million euros) in favour of Gazprom export LLC, 
[…] pursuant to Articles 346(1), 344(2) and 346(2)(1) of the Ovršni zakon (Law 
on Enforcement) (Narodne novine Nos 112/12, 25/13, 93/14, 55/16, 73/17, 
131/20, 114/22 and 6/24; ‘the OZ’). The parties maintained commercial relations 
under the Ugovor […] o kupoprodaji prirodnog plina (contract for the sale of 
natural gas) concluded on 11 September 2017 for a period of 10 years, with the 
associated annexes (‘the contract’). The established method of payment was 
unilaterally amended by a party opposing security with reference to Presidential 
Decree No. 172 of 31 March 2022 (‘Decree No 172’), which established a 
mandatory system for payment and supply of Russian gas to foreign customers 
throughout Europe such that from 1 April 2022 all supplies of Russian gas are 
payable exclusively in Russian roubles (RUB), therefore payment in Euros for the 
supplied goods was not accepted, as a result of which first party opposing security 
terminated the contract and claimed payment of a bank guarantee, and the parting 
seeking security is claiming damages for the early termination of the contract and 
and points out that the claim in respect of the supplied gas was paid by offsetting 
The parties opposing security lodged appeals against the abovementioned 
decision, which were dismissed by the decision of the referring court of 24 May 
2014 and the decision at first instance was upheld. In accordance with the decision 
taken, a written copy of the decision was drawn up, which was signed and 
transmitted to the Judicial Decisions Registration Service pursuant to 
Article 177(3) of the Sudski poslovnik (Rules of Procedure of the Courts) 
(Narodne novine Nos 37/14, 49/14, 8/15, 35/15, 123/15, 45/16, 29/17, 33/17, 
34/17, 57/17, 101/18, 119/18, 81/19, 128/19, 39/20, 47/20, 138/20, 147/20, 70/21, 
99/21, 145/21, 23/22, 12/23, 122/23 and 55/24; ‘the Rules of Procedure of the 
Courts’). That article provides, in particular: ‘A case before a court of second 
instance shall be deemed to be closed on the date on which the decision is sent 
from the court office, after the case has been returned by the Registration Service. 
The Registration Service shall be required to return the file to the court office as 
promptly as possible after receipt thereof. The decision shall then be notified 
within a further period of eight days’. 
PRVO PLINARSKO DRUŠTVO 
 
3 
It follows from those provisions of Article 177(3) of the Sudski poslovnik that the 
registrations judge does not have the option of not ‘registering’ a case; that is not, 
however, the case because, if it has not been registered, a decision cannot be 
notified to the parties. The registrations judge therefore examines the decision 
taken at second instance and may approve it or refer it back (together with written 
or oral comments) in order for a new decision to be taken. The parties to the 
judicial proceedings are not informed either that the decision has been taken or 
that the registrations judge has referred it back to the chamber for a new decision 
to be adopted, since the name of the registrations judge is not mentioned on the 
copy of the decision notified to the parties. 
In the present case, on 31 [May] 2024, the Judicial Decisions Registration Service 
returned the decision […] without registering it, stating why, in its view, the 
decision at issue cannot be notified to the parties but is returned to the judge (the 
letter in question is attached in the annex). 
The judge, having regard to the applicable rules, reconsidered the appeal and the 
findings of the written opinion of the registrations judge, and an order was made 
that a preliminary reference would be sought, raising the issue of the application 
of the decisions and regulations imposing penalties, and the issue of the power of 
another judge to suspend the notification of the judicial decision adopted. 
In that respect, account was taken of all the circumstances of the present case 
relating to the application of Article 177(3) of the Sudski poslovnik and 
Article 40(2) of the Zakon o sudovima (Law on Judicial Bodies) and Article 19 of 
the Treaty on European Union (‘TEU’), which provides as follows: 
‘The Court of Justice of the European Union shall include the Court of Justice, the 
General Court and specialised courts. It shall ensure that in the interpretation and 
application of the Treaties the law is observed. 
Member States shall provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal 
protection in the fields covered by Union law’. 
and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the 
Charter’) which provides: 
‘Everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are 
violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal in compliance with 
the conditions laid down in this Article. Everyone is entitled to a fair and public 
hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal 
previously established by law. […]’ 
and it was concluded that it is possible that a provision which involves, in the 
adoption of a judicial decision, a registrations judge who is not known to the 
parties, who is not provided for in the Rules of Procedure followed in the 
proceedings leading to the adoption of the decision on the appeal and who, 
without being a higher court, is capable, in the case under examination, of causing 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 31. 5. 2024 – CASE C-403/24 
 
4  
a judge to alter the decision which he has taken, is of such a kind as to have an 
appreciable impact on respect for the rule of law and the independence of the 
judiciary, in particular because it applies in all cases before all the courts of 
second instance in Croatia, irrespective of whether EU law is or is not applied in 
the particular case. 
The fact that the registrations judge, who is not known to the parties, has an 
appreciable impact on decision-making is specifically illustrated by the present 
case, in which one legal view had been taken previously and decisions reflecting 
another legal view were registered subsequently without a section meeting having 
been held. In the present case, the decision was given in accordance with the first 
legal view, but the Registration Service now considers that that view is incorrect 
and that a decision must be given in line with the second legal view, failing which 
a section meeting will have to be convened. It is therefore the Judicial Decisions 
Registration Service, and not a higher court, which had an appreciable impact on 
case-law when it allowed different decisions to be notified without a section 
meeting, including all the judges, having been convened. 
Being of the view that that question is important for the independence of the 
judiciary, and after examining the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European 
Union (Case C-896/19), the referring court decided to submit questions for a 
preliminary ruling so that a definitive decision may be delivered in the present 
case, given that it has also made an order staying the proceedings pursuant to 
Article 213(1)(2) of the Zakon o parničnom postupku (Code of Civil Procedure) 
(Narodne novine, Nos 53/91, 91/92, 112/99, 88/01, 117/03, 88/05, 2/07, 84/08, 
96/08, 123/08, 57/11, 148/11, 25/13, 89/14 and 70/19, ‘the ZPP’) until the Court 
has given its ruling. 
It should also be pointed out that a similar question has already been submitted in 
Case C-361/21 but that the facts of the present case are slightly different, and 
therefore this chamber has decided to submit a similar question for a preliminary 
ruling; given the short period of time [between the two requests], the Court may 
decide to make a single ruling. The existence of such a form of registration of 
judicial decisions has, thus far, been justified by the need to standardise case-law, 
a principle of the highest importance, but the procedure adopted by the 
registration service after a judicial decision has been delivered is contrary, in this 
chamber’s view, to the fundamental legal principle of the independence of the 
judiciary. As the present case demonstrates, the Judicial Decisions Registration 
Services decides which decisions will be notified by a court; it decides when a 
decision departing from existing case-law should be made public and when it 
should not. In that regard, the most significant factor is perhaps the fact that the 
parties have no knowledge of that stage of the proceedings and that the name of 
the registrations judge is not stated, for the purposes of transparency, in the 
decision received by the parties. 
Consequently, a decision by the Court of Justice on that point is necessary in order 
that the Visoki trgovački sud (Commercial Court of Appeal of the Republic of 
PRVO PLINARSKO DRUŠTVO 
 
5 
Croatia) may adjudicate in the present case and the reference for a preliminary 
ruling is in the general interest consisting in the uniform application of EU law, 
the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary of a Member State and effective 
judicial protection. 
Although they have no legal basis, the Sudski poslovnik does state, under the 
provisions of Article 177(3) at issue, that, in a case at second instance, the court’s 
task is to be deemed to be completed only when the case is returned by the 
Registration Service, that is to say ‘registered’. Therefore, the judicial decision is 
not finalised, despite the fact that it has been delivered collectively by a judicial 
panel; that decision must in fact be confirmed by a registrations judge, appointed 
by the President of the court as the body responsible for judicial administration 
under the annual schedule for the assignment of judges. The name of the 
registrations judge is not known to the parties. No law requires this as a condition 
for the adoption of a judicial decision, but this exists in the practice of the courts 
of second instance of the Republic of Croatia under the Rules of Procedure of the 
Courts. 
Examination of the practice and functioning of other courts in the European Union 
does not reveal the existence of similar laws or practices requiring a decision 
delivered to be approved by a judge who is not part of the chamber and which 
make notification (by the first-instance court) of the decision (judgment or order) 
to the parties to the proceedings conditional on countersignature by that judge. 
Therefore the question arises: 
as to whether the rule laid down in the second part of the first sentence and in the 
second sentence of Article 177(3) of the Sudski poslovnik (Rules of Procedure of 
the Courts), which provides that ‘a case before a court of second instance shall be 
deemed to be closed on the date on which the decision is sent from the court 
office, after the case has been returned by the Registration Service. The 
Registration Service shall be required to return the file to the court office as 
promptly as possible after receipt thereof. The decision shall then be notified 
within a further period of eight days’ can be considered compatible with 
Article 19(1) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter. 
In addition, given that in the present case the decision adopted prevents payment 
of the bank guarantee, which was granted under the contract between the parties to 
pay for the goods supplied. The dispute arose as a result of political events related 
to the war in Ukraine, in a situation where, as a result of measures taken by the 
European Union, Putin issued Presidential Decree No 172 […], in which he 
ordered that payment for the gas supplied must be made in roubles 
notwithstanding the contract between the parties. There is a similar situation in 
other contracts, as well as in this one, since payment in Euros was attempted but 
rejected, leading to the termination of the contract between the parties. Following 
the termination of the contract, a new Decree No 992 of 30 December 2022, […] 
was issued, which temporarily allowed foreign customers to pay in EUR only in 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 31. 5. 2024 – CASE C-403/24 
 
6  
the case of payable debts, whilst in respect of all other gas supplies Russian 
suppliers continue to impose the obligation to pay in RUB on pain of suspension 
of supplies. On the basis of that power, payment was requested under the bank 
guarantee, claiming security in the amount of EUR 35 000 000.00, although a 
party opposing security noted that the claim had been extinguished as a result 
offsetting and arbitration proceedings between the parties relating to the above 
contractual relationship were also ongoing. In view of the specific nature of the 
present contractual relationship and those rules and the payment, the question 
arises as to whether courts in civil proceedings must take account of Council 
Decision (CFSP) 2020/1999 of 7 December 2020 concerning restrictive measures 
against serious human rights violations and abuses, with all annexes, and Council 
Regulation (EU) 2020/1998 of 7 December 2020 concerning restrictive measures 
against serious human rights violations and abuses, with all annexes, having 
regard to all the circumstances of the specific case in which, in the absence of this 
decision, there would have been a transfer of EUR 35 000 000.00 from the 
account of a commercial company in a Member State of the European Union to 
the account of a commercial company in the Russian Federation, it being almost 
impossible, as things stand at present, for a commercial company from the 
European Union to obtain compensation for the termination of a contractual 
relationship by a commercial company in the Russian Federation. 
The questions referred are worded as follows: 
1. Can the rule laid down in the second part of the first sentence and in the 
second sentence of Article 177(3) of the Sudski poslovnik (Rules of Procedure of 
the Courts), which provides that ‘a case before a court of second instance shall be 
deemed to be closed on the date on which the decision is sent from the court 
office, after the case has been returned by the Registration Service. The 
Registration Service shall be required to return the file to the court office as 
promptly as possible after receipt thereof. The decision shall then be notified 
within a further period of eight days’ be considered compatible with Article 19(1) 
TEU and Article 47 of the Charter? 
2. Must the courts in civil proceedings, when adopting decisions, take account 
of Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/1999 of 7 December 2020 concerning 
restrictive measures against serious human rights violations and abuses, with all 
annexes, and Council Regulation (EU) 2020/1998 of 7 December 2020 
concerning restrictive measures against serious human rights violations and 
abuses, with all annexes, having regard to all the circumstances of the specific 
case in which, in the absence of this decision, there would have been a transfer of 
EUR 35 000 000.00 from the account of a commercial company in a Member 
State of the European Union to the account of a commercial company in the 
Russian Federation, it being almost impossible, as things stand at present, for a 
commercial company from the European Union to obtain compensation for the 
termination of a contractual relationship by a commercial company in the Russian 
Federation? 
PRVO PLINARSKO DRUŠTVO 
 
7 
Together with this application, the referring court submits copies of the order of 
the Trgovački sud u Osijeku (Commercial Court, Osijek, Croatia) […], the appeal 
lodged by Gazprom export LLC, the appeal lodged by Privredna banka Zagreb 
d.d., the response to the appeal lodged by Prvo plinarsko društvo d.d., the decision 
of the referring court […] of 24 May 2024, the letter of the Judicial Decisions 
Registration Service of 31 May 2024, and the order of 31 May 2024 suspending 
the proceedings. 
Zagreb, 31 May 2024. 
[…]