EN    EN  
 EUROPEAN  
COMMISSION 
Brussels, 18.9.2013  
SEC(2013) 484 final 
  
Communication  to the Commission from Vi ce President Reding in agreement with 
President Barroso and Commissioner Füle 
Measures in application of Article 39 of the Act of Accession of Croatia 
 
 
EN 2   EN Measures in application of Article 39 of the Act of accession of Croatia  
1. T HE FACTS  
The European arrest warrant (“EAW”)1 is the most important EU criminal law judicial co-
operation instrument, agreed by the C ouncil as a Framework Decision in 2002 ( Framework 
Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13.06.2002). 
When monitoring Croatia’s accession prepar ation, the Commission f ound that Croatia had 
correctly transposed the EAW through the Act on Judicial cooperation with  Member States of 
the European Union of 2010. It is on this ba sis that the negotiations on accession were 
concluded and the Accession Treaty was ratifie d by the Member States and their national 
parliaments. 
On 28 June 2013, three days before accession, th e Croatian parliament adopted far-reaching 
changes to its national law implementing the EAW.  
This was done despite warnings from the Commission that such amendments were 
incompatible with EU law2. The amendments limited the temporal application of the EAW 
and were introduced to avoid  surrender under the EAW to othe r Member States of persons 
accused or convicted of crimes committed before 7 August 2002. 
The adoption by Croatia of the law limiting the implementation of the EAW is a clear and 
serious violation of EU law. It further thwart s the legitimate expectations of other Member 
States to be able to request from 1 July  2013 alleged criminals from Croatia under the 
efficient and quick EAW system. 
According to Croatia, they had, by 6 Septem ber 2013, received 121 requests under the EAW, 
23 of them for offences committed before 7 August 2002. There are therefore more than 20 requests under the EAW that Croatia does not inte nd to honour and in particular requests for 
the transfer of alleged criminal s who are accused of the murder of dissidents and persons who 
were critical of the Yugoslav regime in the 1980s. 
The possibility to limit the temporal applicatio n of the EAW was made available for Member 
States at the time of adoption of the Framew ork Decision in 2002. Pursuant to Article 32 of 
the Framework Decision, Member St ates could, at the time of its adoption, make a statement, 
and publish it in the Official Journal, indicatin g that as an executing state they would not 
apply the European arrest warrant retroactively for crimes committed prior to a certain date (7 August 2002). Only three Member States made su ch a declaration (Austria, France and Italy). 
This option is not open to Croatia  (or to any other Member State)  as the declaration had to be 
made, at the time of the adoption of the Fram ework Decision by the Council, in August 2002. 
All other Member States that had initially wrongfully transposed the EAW making use of 
temporal limitations that were not available to them have in the meantime corrected them. 
This was the case of the Czech Republic and Slovenia which had, after accession, initially 
wrongfully transposed the EAW and then corrected their laws after systematic critical reports 
                                                
 
1  The EAW has replaced extradition procedures among Member States by a simplified and sp eedy system of surrender of sentenced 
or suspected persons between judicial authorities. 
2  On 27 June 2013 Vice-President Vi viane Reding wrote to Orsat Miljeni ć, the Croatian Minister of Justice, pointing out the 
incompatibility of the planned Croa tian law amendment with EU law. 
 
EN 3   EN from the Commission. This systematic criticism and pressure from the Commission resulted 
in the Czech Republic and Slovenia modifying thei r legislation to ensure compliance with the 
European arrest warrant.  
The present situation is different from that of other Member States as Croatia has altered its 
law of 2010 implementing the EAW only three days before accession thereby limiting the 
temporal application.  
During the accession negotiations it was clear that the full and unconditional acceptance by 
Croatia of the EU acquis, including as regards justice and home affairs was a pre-condition for membership. As reflected in Article 36 of the Act of Accession, the monitoring by the 
Commission would focus in particular on commitm ents undertaken by Croa tia in the area of 
the judiciary and fundamental rights, and on the area of freedom, security and justice, 
including the implementation and enforcement of Union requirements with respect to judicial 
cooperation in criminal matters.  
Croatia did not invoke any opt-outs in the fields of justice and ho me affairs or the possibility 
of limiting the implementation of the EAW during the accession negotiations.  
On 1 July 2013, on the occasion of the vis it to Zagreb upon Croatia's EU Accession – 
President Barroso and Vice-President Reding re iterated their concerns to Prime Minister 
Milanović and to Justice Minister Miljeni ć. On 4 July 2013, Justice Minister Miljeni ć wrote to 
Vice-President Reding confirming the legislative change and expressing a willingness “ to 
conduct further consultations with the Euro pean Commission in order to eliminate any 
possibility of incorrect interp retation of the related acquis ”.  
As a result, on 25 July 2013, a technical meet ing took place between the Commission and 
Croatian officials. This meeting failed to solv e the problem as the Croa tian delegation was not 
able to commit to making the necessary corre ctive legislative amendments to bring its 
national legislation back in line with the EU Framework Decision on the EAW. 
On 29 July 2013, Vice-President Reding wrote to Minister Miljeni ć, calling on the Croatian 
authorities to commit by 23 August 2013 to  remedy the breach of EU law.  
On 27 August 2013, Minister Miljeni ć replied stating the government's commitment to 
undertake the appropriate measures to realign th eir transposition of the EAW with the Union 
acquis as adopted during the accession negotia tions. The Croatian authorities did not, 
however, present a timetable for the necessary  legislative action nor did they make any 
concrete move to adopt nationa l legislation to reme dy without undue delay the breach of EU 
law. 
Vice-President Reding therefore wrote to Minister Miljeni ć on 28 August 2013 asking for 
such a timetable, by 30 August 2013.  
On 2 September 2013 Minister Miljeni ć responded that Croatia was committed to amending 
the national law but that this would be coup led with and be conditio nal on changes to the 
Constitution and would therefore only take e ffect on 15 July 2014, i.e. in more than 10 
months.  
In her reply of 4 September 2013 Vice-Pre sident Reding insisted on a prompt and 
unconditional amendment of the national law and that the same speedy legislative procedure 
that was used to amend the Croatian law only three days before the accession should be used 
 
EN 4   EN to realign the Croatian legislation again with the acquis. The Vice-President signalled that 
linkage with a constitutional amendment would constitute an undue delay. These messages 
had already been referred to by President Barroso during a tele phone conversation on 29 
August 2013 with Prime Minister Milanovi ć. 
This request to take the necessary steps to respect the acquis within a reasonable time was 
refused by Minister Miljeni ć. In his letter of 5 September 2013 he  restated that to realign the 
EAW implementing law with Croatia’s comm itments during accession was conditional on 
constitutional amendments. Such amendments have no clear connection with the necessary 
changes required for the transposition of the EAW.  
2.  THE ISSUE  
The modification by Croatia, three days befo re its accession, of its  legislation on the 
implementation of Framework Decision 2002/584 on the EAW limits its scope  of application. 
This is contrary to previous legislation co rrectly transposing the EAW, which was adopted 
during Croatia's accession preparation and which was monitored by the Commission.  
Croatia's unilateral change of the scope of application of the EAW thus alters substantially the 
conditions on the basis of which the Commi ssion and the other Member States had accepted 
this accession. The limitation in the implementi ng law therefore constitutes a clear breach of 
Croatia's obligations under EU law which were accepted during the accession negotiations 
and which formed the basis for welcoming Croatia into the European Union.  
Under Article 10 of Protocol 36 of the Trea ty on the Functioning of the European Union 
(TFEU), it is not possible to launch infringement proceedings for a breach of EU law in the field of police and judicial cooperation in crim inal matters until the end of the transitional 
period on 30 November 2014. For the same reas on, it is not legally po ssible to launch an 
infringement procedure under Ar ticle 4(3) TFEU (principle of sincere cooperation) as it 
would result in circumventing the limitations under Article 10 of Prot ocol 36.This situation 
will change from 1 December 2014. 
Croatia’s action represents a serious shortcoming in the transposition of EU law and thus falls 
under the provisions of Article 39 of the Act of Accession of the Republic of Croatia to the 
European Union. 
This is also the first time that a Member St ate has unilaterally and illegally modified the 
implementation law of an EU instrument shortly  – three days – before accession and after the 
conclusion of the accession negotiations. 
The Commission should react promptly and firmly  to this serious violation of both the text 
and the spirit of EU law. The proper appl ication of the EAW is crucial for the good 
functioning of the area of freed om, security and justice.  
3.
  P ROPOSED ACTION  
In view of these particular circumstances, wh ich indicate that Croatia will not comply 
forthwith with important obligations under EU law which were accepted during accession negotiations, the Commission, as gu ardian of the Treat y, is considering appropriate actions to 
encourage Croatia to remedy the breach as soon as possible. In line with Article 39 of the Act of Accession of Croatia, the Commission may, until the end of a period of up to three years 
 
EN 5   EN after accession, adopt appropriate measures if  there are serious s hortcomings in the 
transposition of acts adopted in the ar ea of justice, freedom and security.  
The appropriate measures referred to in Article 39 may take the form of  temporary suspension 
of the application of relevant provisions and decisions in the relati ons between Croatia and 
any other Member State or Member States, w ithout prejudice to the continuation of close 
judicial cooperation. The measures shall be ma intained no longer than necessary, and in any 
case, lifted as soon as the shortcomings are re medied. Those measures can take the form of 
the suspension of provisions or decisions where there is a sufficient link between the 
achievement of the objectives of the underlying  policy and the EU interest affected by the 
failure of the Member State to comply with its obligations.  
Other options have been discussed but they do not meet the legal requirements under Article 
39, which explicitly requires measures that are “ without prejudice to the continuation of close 
judicial cooperation ”. Since Croatia refuses to execute requests for judicial cooperation in 
criminal matters issued by othe r Member States, the first opti on would have been that other 
Member States should do the same for request s issued by Croatia; however, this would be 
counterproductive in view of the general interest in the EU in ensuring th at justice is done 
throughout Europe. The second option considered was the suspension of financing decisions 
in relation to the DG JUSTICE action grants fo r projects in the criminal justice and/or 
fundamental rights area. However, since these gr ants provide funding to civil society projects 
which aim at implementing EU law, such ac tion would also be counterproductive and be 
incompatible with the limits contained in Article 39 of the Act of Accession. Regarding 
suspension of funding from pre-acc ession instruments or structur al funds or the cash-flow 
facility, the link with Title V required by Article 39 also ca nnot be established. 
Therefore the most appropriate op tion in terms of links with the breach and of impact relates 
to the Schengen Facility created by Article 31 of the Act of Accession in Croatia, used in 
practice mainly for expenditure on border infr astructure and survei llance equipment, the 
objective of which is to support Croatia in the implementation of the Schengen acquis, 
including all its provisions rela ted to judicial cooperation in criminal matters, and external 
border control.  
Police and judicial cooperation measures were originally designed as “compensatory 
measures” corollary to the removal of controls on persons at internal borders.  The objectives 
of the Schengen acquis are to ensure a space where free movement of persons is guaranteed 
by abolishing internal borders in favour of a single external border and simultaneously, to 
guarantee security within the area, without contro ls at internal borders, cooperation and 
coordination between police services and judicial  authorities, in particular, mutual legal 
assistance to investigate and fight crime. Notably, the European arrest warrant also 
contributes to this objective by helping to en sure that the freedom of movement and the 
removal of borders do not lead to a situation where crimes re main unpunished. It is for the 
same overarching objective that the EAW replac ed all the previous instruments concerning 
extradition, in relations between  Member States, including the provisions of Title III of the 
Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement which concern extradition. Moreover, EAW requests are currently disseminated vi a the Schengen Information System (SIS)
3.  
                                                 
3  The SIS is the largest shared database on maintaining pub lic security, supporting police and judicial cooperation on criminal  
matters. 
 
EN 6   EN The attainment of the objectives of the Facility is dependent on Croatia respecting the rules of 
EU decisions, notably the EAW and its underly ing objectives, which are precisely to create 
the area of freedom, security and justice. As this Facility was specifi cally designed to support 
Member States' obligation to properly implem ent the decisions and actions of the Union 
intended to create the area of freedom, security and justice,  the action taken by Croatia 
seriously compromises its obj ectives and good functioning, undermining the mutual trust and 
confidence that is necessary to make judicial cooperation work smoothly and efficiently in the 
EU area of Justice. In the light of this bre ach of mutual trust and confidence, and in the 
framework of its financial re sponsibility regarding the imple mentation of the European 
Budget, the Commission will also pay particular  attention to the use of the amount already 
paid under the Temporary Schengen Facility. 
Consequently the Commission will, in accordance with Article 39 of the Act of Accession of 
the Republic of Croatia to the European Uni on, consult Member States on the suspension of 
the application of the Schengen Facility unt il the Commission decides that the Framework 
Decision on the European arrest  warrant is completely and correctly transposed and applied 
by Croatia. Member States will be re quested to respond within 10 days.  
The Commission is invited to take note: 
–  of the line to take as explained in the text,  
–  of Vice-President Reding’s intention to la unch the appropriate procedure with Member 
States.  
 
Annexes: 
1.  Draft decision 
2.  Article 39 of the Act of Acce ssion of the Republic of Croatia  
 
EN 7   EN Annex 1: 
 
COMMISSION DECISION 
of XXX  
on measures in application of Article 39 of the Act of accession of Croatia  
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION, 
Having regard to the Treaty on European Unio n and the Treaty on the Functioning of the 
European Union, 
Having regard to the Act of Accession of Croa tia, and in particular Article 39 thereof, 
Having consulted the Member States, Whereas: 
(1) Before its accession to the Union, Croatia had to adopt legislatio n to transpose 
Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA
4. 
(2) When monitoring Croatia’s accession preparation, the Commission found that 
Croatia had correctly transposed Fr amework Decision 2002/584/JHA through the 
2010 Act on Judicial cooperation with Member  States of the European Union. On 
that basis, the Accession Treaty was ratified by the Member States. On 28 June 
2013, only three days before accession to the Union, the Croatian Parliament 
adopted amendments to the national legi slation transposing Framework Decision 
2002/584/JHA limiting its application by Croatia  as an executing State to crimes 
committed only after 7 August 2002, despite  the fact that the Commission had 
signalled the incompatibility of the planned amendments with Union law. That legislation constitutes a failure of Croatia  to comply with its obligations under 
Union law since Framework Decision 2002/584 /JHA, in particular Article 32, does 
not give the Croatia the possibility as an executing Member State of excluding 
European arrest warrants received from other Member States for crimes committed before 7 August 2002 from the Eur opean arrest warrant system. 
(3) The effect of this failure to comply w ith its obligations is significant as on 6 
September 2013 there were, according to Cr oatia, already 23 out of 121 European 
arrest warrants addressed to the competent Croatian authorities that concern criminal offences committed before 7 August 2002, including serious crime such as 
                                                
 
4  Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the 
surrender procedures between Member States (OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, p. 1). 
 
EN 8   EN murder. Following the adopted amendments to the national legislation transposing 
Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA these Euro pean arrest warrants are not covered 
by the obligations of Framework Deci sion 2002/584/JHA. Thus other Member 
States cannot pursue criminal proceedings related to the most severe offences, 
which may result in impunity for the pers ons concerned. The consequences of the 
failure to comply with its obligations ar e contrary to the objective of ensuring a 
high level of security in the area of freedom, security and justice, and more 
specifically to the Union's objective of combatting particularly serious crime 
affecting basic values on which the Union is built. 
(4) This failure to comply with its obligations  indicates that Croatia is not yet applying 
relevant standards of close police and j udicial cooperation whic h are essential for 
moving towards the realisation of the fr ee movement of persons in an area of 
freedom, security and justice, where inte rnal border controls no longer exist. 
Indeed, certain police and judicial coope ration measures have originally been 
designed as “compensatory measures” coroll ary to the removal of border controls. 
(5) This failure to comply with its obligations , because of its gravity and significance, 
undermines the trust between Croatia and the other Member States and institutions 
of the Union and calls into question the justification for proceeding at a normal 
pace with the instrument of the Schengen F acility aiming to help Croatia to finance 
actions at the new external borders of the Union for the implementation of the Schengen acquis and external border c ontrols, actions whic h contribute to 
preparations for, and are th erefore connected with, the fu ture abolition of internal 
border controls. 
(6) Article 3 of the Treaty on European Uni on defines as a key Union objective to offer 
its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is en sured in conjuncti on with appropriate 
measures with respect to external borde r controls, asylum, immigration and the 
prevention and combating of crime. 
(7) Article 67 of the Treaty on the Functioning of  the European Union states that the 
Union should constitute an area of freedom, security and justice, with respect for 
fundamental rights and the different lega l systems and traditions of the Member 
States. 
(8) In order to attain this objective, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European 
Union clarifies that the Union aims to ensu re a high level of security in particular 
through measures for coordination and c ooperation between police and judicial 
authorities and other competent author ities, as well as through the mutual 
recognition of judgments in criminal matters. It also specifies th at to attain this 
objective the Union should ensure the abse nce of internal border controls for 
persons and should frame a common policy on asylum, immigration and external 
border control, based on solidarity between  Member States, which is fair towards 
third-country nationals. 
(9) It is stated in Framework Decision 2002/ 584/JHA, and emphasised by the Court of 
Justice in several judgments related to its  interpretation, that the objective of the 
Union to become such an area of freedom, security and justice has led to replacing the system of formal extradition betw een Member States by a new simplified 
 
EN 9   EN system of surrender of sentenced or su spected persons for the purposes of 
prosecution or execution of criminal se ntences. The introduction of rules on 
surrender made it possible to remove th e complexity and potential for delay 
inherent in extradition procedures. 
(10) The objectives of Framework Decision 2002/ 584/JHA are thus closely linked with 
the objective laid down in Article 3 of th e Treaty on European Un ion and Article 67 
of the Treaty of the Functioning of the Eu ropean Union. The proper application of 
that Framework Decision is crucial to the good functioning of the area of freedom, 
security and justice. 
(11) The decision taken on 28 June 2013 by the Croatian Parliament to change their 
legislation transposing Framework Deci sion 2002/584/JHA undermines, because of 
its particular gravity and significance,  the objectives of the area of freedom, 
security and justice. Cr oatia has not changed it s legislation although the 
Commission invited Croatia to respect Union law. 
(12) Article 39 of the Act of Accession of Cr oatia empowers the Commission to adopt 
appropriate measures in the event of se rious shortcomings in Croatia in the 
transposition or stat e of implementation of acts adopt ed under Title V of the Treaty 
on the Functioning of the European Union, as well as of acts adopted by the 
institutions before the entry into force of  the Treaty of Lisbon pursuant to Title VI 
of the Treaty on European Union or pursuant to Title IV of the Treaty establishing the European Community. 
(13) Three days before its accession Croatia changed its legislation on the 
implementation of Framework Decision 2002/ 584/JHA with the effect of reducing 
significantly its scope of applic ation, in contrast to prev ious legislation adopted in 
the course of Croatia's accession prepara tion, which correctly transposed the 
Framework Decision. In this way Croati a altered the conditions upon which other 
Member States accepted its accession to th e Union. That change  of legislation 
should be considered a serious shortcomi ng pursuant to Article 39 of the Act of 
Accession of Croatia. 
(14) The appropriate measures referred to in  Article 39 of the Act of Accession of 
Croatia may take different forms, includi ng that of a temporary suspension of the 
application of relevant provisions and d ecisions in the relations between Croatia 
and any other Member State or Member  States, without prejudice to the 
continuation of close judicial cooper ation. The measures adopted should be 
maintained no longer than necessary, and in any case should be lifted when the 
shortcomings are remedied.  
(15) These measures should display a sufficient link with the Union in terest affected by 
the failure of the Member State to comply with its obligations, whilst not causing prejudice to the continuation of  close judicial cooperation. 
(16) The objective of Article 31 of the Act of  Accession of Croatia is to create a 
temporary instrument (the "Schengen Facility") to suppor t Croatia in the 
implementation of the Schengen acqui s and external border control. 
 
EN 10   EN (17) The objectives of the Schengen acquis are to ensure a space where free movement 
of persons is guaranteed by abolishing internal borde rs in favour of a single 
external border and simultaneously, in order to guarantee security within the 
Schengen area, to foster cooperation and coordination between police services and 
judicial authorities, and in particular, to fight organised crime. Notably, the 
European arrest warrant also contributes  to this objective by ensuring that the 
freedom of movement and the removal of borders do not lead to  a situation where 
crimes remain unpunished. This is why, in  relations between Member States, the 
European arrest warrant replaced all the previous instruments concerning 
extradition, including the provisions of Title III of the Convention implementing 
the Schengen Agreement which concern extr adition, to which reference is made in 
paragraph 2 of Annex II to the Act of  Accession of the Republic of Croatia. 
(18) The future lifting of the internal border co ntrols in accordance with Article 4 of the 
Act of Accession of Croatia, which is  supported by the Schengen Facility, is 
dependent on Croatia respecting the Schengen acquis  and the agreed common 
standards and fundamental principl es underlying Framework Decision 
2002/584/JHA, and underpinning the area of freedom, security and justice. The 
decision of Croatia of 28 June 2013 to un lawfully amend its legislation transposing 
Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA seriously  breaches the mutual trust and 
confidence that is necessary to make judicial cooperation work smoothly and 
efficiently in the area of security, free dom and justice and accordingly removes the 
justification for providing Union financia l support facilitating Croatia's future 
accession to the area without controls at internal borders. 
(19) Consequently, the significant fa ilure of Croatia to comply  with its obligations under 
Union law, the circumstances surrounding the adoption and subsequent amendment 
of Croatia’s national legislation transposi ng the European arrest  warrant and, the 
importance attached to the monitoring of the Croatia’s obligations under the Act of 
Accession justify the adoption of appropria te measures related to the Schengen 
Facility on the basis of the specific pow ers given to the Commission to take 
appropriate measures in this regard. 
(20) In the light of this breach of mutual trust and confidence and in view of its 
responsibility to implement the budget in acco rdance with Article 317 of the TFEU, 
the Commission should, for the amount  already paid under the Temporary 
Schengen Facility, make full use of its  control powers laid down in Council 
Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial 
Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, in 
particular Articles 53(b) and 53b, in Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 
2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 and in its Decision C(2013) 2159 of 22 April 
2013.  
(21) For the same reasons and in view of th e nature of advance payment which the 
lump-sum character confers upon the disburse ments of the Schengen Facility, it is 
necessary to temporarily su spend the payment of the s econd annual amount of 80 
million euro foreseen by Article 31 of the Act of Accession of Croatia. 
(22) Those two measures, consisting in contro ls of the implementation of the first 
instalment, and in the suspension of the payment of the second instalment of the 
 
EN 11   EN Temporary Schengen facility, therefore disp lay a clear link with the Union interest 
affected by Croatia’s failure to comply with its obligations under Union law. 
(23) This Decision should be repealed as soon as the Croatian legislation transposing 
Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA fully co mplies with Union law by removing 
the time-limitation preventing its applicati on to crimes committed before 7 August 
2002, 
 
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:  
Article 1 
The payment of the second annual amount of 80 million euro for 2014 of the Temporary 
Schengen Facility provided for by Article 31 (2) of the Act of A ccession of Croatia is 
suspended. 
Article 2 
The Commission shall make full use of its powers  for the control of the implementation of 
actions financed by the first annual amount of 40 million euro for 2013 of the Temporary 
Schengen Facility provided pursuant to Article 31 of the Act of Accession of Croatia to the 
European Union. 
Article 3 
Croatia shall inform the Commission on the steps taken to ensure the complete transposition 
of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA. 
The Commission shall provide the information gi ven by Croatia to the European Parliament 
and the Council. 
Article 4 
The measures referred to in Articles 1 to 3 shall be maintained until the Commission 
establishes that the Croatian legislation fully complies with Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA. 
 
Article 5 
This Decision is addressed to the Republic of Croatia. 
 
EN 12   EN Done at Brussels, 
 For the Commission 
 […]  
 
EN 13   EN ANNEX 2 
ACT concerning the conditions of accession of th e Republic of Croatia and the adjustments to 
the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the 
Treaty establishing the Europ ean Atomic Energy Community 
 
OJ L 112 of 24.4.2012 
Article 39  
If there are serious shortcomings or any imminent  risk of such shortcomings in Croatia in the 
transposition or state of implem entation of acts adopted by the institutions pursuant to Part 
Three, Title V of the TFEU as well as of acts adopted by the institution s before the entry into 
force of the Treaty of Lisbon pursuant to Title VI  of the TEU or pursuant to Part Three, Title 
IV of the Treaty establishing the European Community, the Commission may, until the end of 
a period of up to three years af ter accession, upon the reasoned request of a Member State or 
on its own initiative and after consulting the Member States, adopt appropriate measures and 
specify the conditions and arr angements applicable thereto.  
 
These measures may take the form of a temporar y suspension of the app lication of relevant 
provisions and decisions in the relations be tween Croatia and any other Member State or 
Member States, without prejudice to the cont inuation of close judicial cooperation. The 
safeguard clause may be invoked even before accession on the basis of the monitoring findings and the measures adopted shall enter into for ce on the date of a ccession unless they 
provide for a later date. The measures shall be  maintained no longer than strictly necessary 
and, in any case, shall be lifted when the shortcomings are reme died. They may, however, be 
applied beyond the period referred to in the fir st paragraph as long as these shortcomings 
persist. In response to progress made by Croatia in rectifying the identified shortcomings, the Commission may adapt the measures as appropriate after consulting the Member States. The Commission shall inform the Coun cil in good time before r evoking the safeguard measures, 
and it shall take duly into account any observa tions of the Council in this respect.