Case C-506/25, Raukar-Gamulin and Others: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Ustavni sud (Croatia) lodged on 21 July 2025 – Urša Raukar-Gamulin and Others v Hrvatski sabor and Others
Date: 2025-07-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Croatia, European Public Prosecutor's Office, conflict of powers, courts and tribunals, independence of the judiciary, judicial review, primacy of EU law, right to justice








C_202600436EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/436


2.2.2026






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Ustavni sud (Croatia) lodged on 21 July 2025 – Urša Raukar-Gamulin and Others v Hrvatski sabor and Others


(Case C-506/25, Raukar-Gamulin and Others)

(C/2026/436)
Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Ustavni sud

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Urša Raukar Gamulin, Marin Živković, Dubravka Novak, Sandra Benčić, Rada Borić, Jelena Miloš, Ivana Kekin, Dušica Radojčić, Boška Ban, Sanja Bježančević, Siniša Hajdaš Dončić, Tonči Restović, Željko Jovanović, Kristina Ikić Baniček, Sandra Krpan, Mario Milinković, Mihael Zmajlović, Tomislav Golubić, Boris Piližota, Ivana Ribarić Majanović, Dalibor Domitrović, Arsen Bauk, Ivana Marković, Marija Lugarić, Ranko Ostojić, Anita Curiš Krok, Miroslav Marković, Šaša Đujić, Tanja Sokolić, Ivica Lukanović, Sabina Glasovac, Draženka Polović, Damir Bakić

Oher parties to the proceedings: Hrvatski sabor, Vlada Republike Hrvatske, Ministarstvo pravosuđa, uprave i digitalne transformacije, European Public Prosecutor’s Office, Državno odvjetništvo Republike Hrvatske

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (‘the EPPO’) (OJ 2017 L 283, p. 1, corrigendum, OJ 2020 L 433, p. 80), which guarantees the principle of the independence of the EPPO, preclude a national provision under which the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Croatia – who is part of the same national public prosecution service as the national prosecution authorities involved in a conflict of competence with the EPPO, which are subordinate to the Prosecutor General – is competent to decide on a conflict of competence for the purposes of Article 25(6) of Regulation 2017/1939, without any provision in national legislation for judicial review of a decision on a conflict of competence?










2.


Should the expression ‘the national authorities competent to decide on the attribution of competences concerning prosecution at national level’ used in Article 25(6) of Regulation 2017/1939 be interpreted as meaning that those national authorities must fall under the autonomous concept of ‘court or tribunal’ within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU in order for the Court of Justice of the European Union to have jurisdiction, in accordance with Article 42(2)(c) of Regulation 2017/1939, to give rulings concerning ‘any conflict of competence between the EPPO and the competent national authorities’?










3.


If question II is answered in the affirmative, does a non-judicial authority like the Prosecutor General, with his or her status and competences as regulated by Croatian law, fall under the concept of ‘court or tribunal’ within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU and Article 42(2)(c) of Regulation 2017/1939? If that is not the case, may the Prosecutor General nevertheless decide on conflicts of competence pursuant to Article 25(6) of Regulation 2017/1939?










4.


Do Article 25(6) and Article 42(2)(c) of Regulation 2017/1939 preclude a national provision under which a non-judicial authority like the Prosecutor General is competent to decide on a conflict of competence pursuant to Article 25(6) of that regulation, without providing for any specific remedy by which the EPPO, a national public prosecutor or the lawyer of the accused person can challenge the decision thus taken by the Prosecutor General before a criminal court having jurisdiction, which could then, under Article 42(2)(c) of Regulation 2017/1939, request a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the interpretation of Articles 22 and 25 of that regulation or, if appropriate, Articles 2 to 5 of Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2017 on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law (OJ 2017 L 198, p. 29)?






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/436/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)