Responsibility for war crimes before national courts in Croatia

2006 ◽  
Vol 88 (861) ◽  
pp. 145-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivo Josipović
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Ethical Standards ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Historical Truth

This article analyses problems with which the Republic of Croatia, as a country in transition, has to contend during war crimes proceedings. A major characteristic of the recent wars waged on the territory of the former Yugoslavia is that war crimes were committed, though on a different scale, by all parties involved, irrespective of the political and other motives that prompted them to engage in armed conflict. Political unwillingness is the principal reason why national courts, including those in the Republic of Croatia, did not prosecute war crimes in accordance with internationally acceptable standards. The international community responded by setting up the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the main objectives of which are to establish justice, render justice to victims and determine the historical truth. Implicitly, despite political and other opposition to its work, the ICTY is helping to define legal and ethical standards appropriate for a democratic society in the countries established on the territory of the former Yugoslavia. This is particularly important for the reason that all these countries aspire to membership of the European Union. The work of the ICTY, as well as proceedings before domestic courts, is therefore an important legal, political and moral catalyst on their way towards accession to the European Union. This is fully confirmed by the example of the Republic of Croatia.

Making Complementarity a Reality

2020 ◽  
pp. 31-47
Author(s):  
Serge Brammertz
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Essential Element ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
New Techniques ◽  
New Model ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Domestic Courts

This chapter presents a prosecutorial perspective on the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia’s (ICTY) legacies. It traces the evolution of the Office of the Prosecutor from a service that is grounded in primacy of jurisdiction into a more complementarity-oriented actor, in which interaction with domestic systems is an essential element to achieving justice for serious international crimes. The author argues that the support provided to national justice sectors in the countries of the former Yugoslavia is one of the most important legacies of the ICTY. The Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) started to engage with new techniques—including establishing the Transition Team—when the ICTY Completion Strategy was put into force. The OTP referred cases to national judiciaries, which improved in their capacities to process war crimes cases. The chapter concludes that the OTP’s cooperation with national courts establishes a new model of collaboration between international and domestic courts.

Kadi and the Role of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the International Legal Order

2013 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 587-617
Author(s):  
Veronika Fikfak
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Active Role ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
International Legal Order

AbstractThis chapter investigates the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the international legal order in light of its decision in Kadi and the forthcoming Kadi II. It focuses on establishing how the Court perceives its relationship with the UN Security Council and its position in the international legal order. The CJEU’s approach is analysed by identifying the characteristics of review adopted by it as a ‘constitutional court of a municipal legal order’. In this context, the chapter reveals how the CJEU’s review resembles that employed by domestic courts seeking to give force to the same or similar actions of international institutions and shows which motives may have led the CJEU to follow the practice of national courts in constructing its relationship with the international organs. This practice is contrasted with Advocate General Bot’s desire to depart from the image of an all-powerful but isolated CJEU, a court ignorant of other legal orders. Bot insists that what the CJEU ought to do in Kadi II is adopt both a more modest, deferential role in reviewing international sanctions and a rather more active role as a participant in the international legal order.

scholarly journals Croatian and Serbian War Crimes, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, and the Judicial Systems of Serbia and Croatia

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wiktor Hebda
Keyword(s):  
Social Relations ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Negative Influence ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Political Relations ◽  
War Criminals ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Judicial Systems

Croatian and Serbian War Crimes, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, and the Judicial Systems of Serbia and CroatiaThe war in former Yugoslavia (1991–1995) was marked by war crimes which still affect Serbian–Croatian political relations. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), which operated between 1993–2017, was supposed to pass fair verdicts on those responsible for war crimes, but its verdicts have been surrounded by controversy in Post-Yugoslav states. The article analyzes Serbian and Croatian war crimes in Croatian territory between 1991–1995 as well as the verdicts passed by the ICTY against the most prominent war criminals. The actions taken by the Serbian and Croatian judicial systems are also discussed. The analysis presented in the article indicates that the verdicts delivered by the ICTY were selective and difficult to accept for both sides of the conflict. Unfortunately, Serbo-Croatian cooperation on war crimes has been developing for only a few years and has not produced the expected results. For these reasons, war crimes and war criminals still have a negative influence on political and social relations between the Republic of Croatia and the Republic of Serbia. Chorwackie i serbskie zbrodnie wojenne, Międzynarodowy Trybunał Karny da Byłej Jugosławii oraz serbski i chorwacki wymiar sprawiedliwościKwestia zbrodni wojennych i obiektywnego osądzenia zbrodniarzy wojennych jest wysoce problematyczna. Bezspornie wojna w byłej Jugosławii z lat 1991-1995 była tragiczna w skutkach i naznaczona wydarzeniami, którym można nadać miano zbrodni wojennych. Międzynarodowy Trybunał Karny dla Byłej Jugosławii (MTKJ) funkcjonujący w latach 1993-2017 miał w założeniu sprawiedliwie osądzić osoby odpowiedzialne za zbrodnie wojenne. Niemniej jego działalność (orzeczone kary) wzbudza pewne kontrowersje, a co za tym idzie może być i jest krytycznie oceniana. W artykule przedstawiono syntetyczną analizę serbskich oraz chorwackich zbrodni wojennych mających miejsce na terytorium Chorwacji w latach 1991-1995. Następnie odniesiono się do kar orzeczonych przez MTKJ wobec najważniejszych zbrodniarzy wojennych. W tym też aspekcie zwrócono uwagę na aktywność serbskiego i chorwackiego wymiaru sprawiedliwości. Analiza zawarta w artykule potwierdza tezę że wydawane wyroki przez MTKJ odznaczały się selektywnością, dlatego też w niektórych przypadkach były one trudne do zaakceptowania przez obie strony konfliktu. Niestety serbsko-chorwacka współpraca w zakresie zbrodni wojennych rozwija się dopiero od kilku lat i nie przyniosła oczekiwanych rezultatów. Z tych też powodów zbrodnie wojenne i zbrodniarze wojenni nadal mają negatywny wpływ na stosunki polityczne i społeczne między Republiką Chorwacji a Republiką Serbii.

scholarly journals JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE EU'S COMMON FOREIGN AND SECURITY POLICY

2017 ◽  
Vol 67 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Panos Koutrakos
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Recent Case ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy

AbstractThe EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) was conceived of as an area ill-suited for full judicial review by the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Lisbon Treaty confers on the Court limited jurisdiction which the recent case law has interpreted in broad terms. This article will place this case law in the broader constitutional setting of the EU legal order and will provide a critical analysis of its implications for both the EU's and domestic courts. The analysis is structured on the basis of three main themes. The first is about the position of CFSP in the EU's constitutional architecture: the article will analyse the constitutional ambivalence that characterizes this position and how it is conveyed by the provisions of the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union governing the Court's jurisdiction. The second theme is about the recent case law, and the integrationist approach that the Court of Justice has adopted to the scope of its jurisdiction. The third theme is about national courts: the article will argue that recent case law has been too quick to dismiss them, and that primary law renders them an essential part of the judicial review system governing CFSP.

Kadi and the Role of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the International Legal Order

2013 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 587-617
Author(s):  
Veronika Fikfak
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Active Role ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
International Legal Order

AbstractThis chapter investigates the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the international legal order in light of its decision inKadiand the forthcomingKadi II. It focuses on establishing how the Court perceives its relationship with the UN Security Council and its position in the international legal order. The CJEU’s approach is analysed by identifying the characteristics of review adopted by it as a ‘constitutional court of a municipal legal order’. In this context, the chapter reveals how the CJEU’s review resembles that employed by domestic courts seeking to give force to the same or similar actions of international institutions and shows which motives may have led the CJEU to follow the practice of national courts in constructing its relationship with the international organs. This practice is contrasted with Advocate General Bot’s desire to depart from the image of an all-powerful but isolated CJEU, a court ignorant of other legal orders. Bot insists that what the CJEU ought to do inKadi IIis adopt both a more modest, deferential role in reviewing international sanctions and a rather more active role as a participant in the international legal order.

scholarly journals Unification of Judicial Practice Concerning Parental Responsibility in the European Union – Challenges Applying Regulation Brussels II Bis

2014 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-127
Author(s):  
Kristina Pranevičienė
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Hague Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Parental Responsibility ◽  
Child Abduction ◽  
National Courts ◽  
International Child ◽  
Special Cases ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Council Regulation

Abstract The article briefly describes international legislation in parental responsibility matters and focuses on the Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (in practice called Brussels II a or Brussels II bis). The essay reveals and analyses the difficulties which occur while hearing parental responsibility cases within the European Union. Particular attention is given to special cases which were difficult to resolve for the national courts of the Republic of Lithuania. Also, the practice of the Court of Justice of the European Union is examined. The guidelines on how to avoid the problems of establishing jurisdiction are given. The relations of 1980 Hague Convention on international child abduction and Regulations Brussels II bis are revealed and the reasons for adoption of the Regulation are highlighted. The article also proposes improvements for Article 15 of the Regulation and the effective application of a modified forum non conveniens doctrine in parental responsibility cases.

scholarly journals Uniformity of Application of the EU Customs Law: Problematic Aspects in the Baltic States

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 21-38
Author(s):  
Gediminas Valantiejus ◽  
Saulius Katuoka
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Trade ◽  
Legal Regulations ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Baltic States ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Baltic ◽  
The Eu

Abstract Research purpose. The EU Customs Law is a significant branch of the EU substantive law. On the basis of the Union Customs Code (UCC; Regulation [EU] No. 952/2013) and the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union (Regulation [EU] No. 2658/87 and its Annexes), it regulates the international trade of the European Union and its Member States with the third countries, in particular the taxation of the international trade operations by applying the customs duties/tariffs. However, after the adoption of the UCC, which imperatively requires all the customs administrations of the EU Member States to work as one, the problem of the uniform application of the EU customs law remains very important. Therefore, the authors analyse the practice of the Baltic States (i.e. Republics of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) in this area, based on the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in cases involving references to the CJEU by the national courts of different Baltic States. Design/Methodology/Approach. The authors used the thematic analysis method and the method of generalisation of professional (judicial) practice as the basis of the chosen methodology and its design. Therefore, first of all, the authors have selected the judicial cases of the CJEU (in the period from 2010 to 2018) related to a certain theme – customs duties. Second, the authors compared the practice of the CJEU in such cases, which are attributable to the relevant EU Member State in order to identify the problems of uniformity in the application of the EU customs law (specific to the different Baltic States). Finally, by using comparative insights and comparative method, the authors present proposals for the improvement of legal regulation to ensure the compatibility of national rules and practices with the EU law. Findings. During the investigation, the authors established that the problems of the uniform application of the EU customs law in the Baltic States arose in specific areas. Such areas were tariff classification of goods, determination of the origin and value of goods (in the case of Latvia), regulation of customs procedures (in the case of Estonia), customs duties and other import taxes preferences (in the case of Lithuania). At the same time, it was established that the national courts of the Republic of Lithuania were the least active in ensuring co-operation with the CJEU this area, which could have been caused by the improper national legal regulations. Originality/Value/Practical implications. The authors present (after the assessment of the experience of the Baltic States) the proposals for the improvement of both the legal regulations of the EU customs law as well as national legal regulations (in particular – in the Republic of Lithuania) to improve the areas that cause systemic irregularities of the uniform regulation of the international trade regulatory measures of the European Union. Whilst some of the similar studies were completed in the recent years (e.g. Limbach 2015), they do not provide a detailed comparative analysis of the issues that were investigated, specifically considering the situation in the Baltic States.

scholarly journals Conditions and Circumstances which Lead to Application to the Court of Justice of the European Union and Adoption of a Preliminary Ruling

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 130-149
Author(s):  
Albertas Milinis ◽  
Kristina Pranevičienė
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Union Member ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Republic ◽  
European Union Member States

Abstract This article deals with the issues concerning the communication between the national courts of the European Union Member States and the Court of Justice of the European Union via the preliminary ruling procedure. The doctrines of acte clair and acte éclairé are described briefly in the article. The authors explicitly investigate the national court’s right to apply to the Court of Justice of the European Union and the obligation to apply to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling. The recent tendencies in the jurisprudence of the national courts of the Republic of Lithuania while applying for preliminary rulings are revealed.

Review by Constitutional Courts of the Obligation of National Courts of Last Instance to Refer a Preliminary Question to the Court of Justice of the EU

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 1663-1700 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clelia Lacchi
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Member States ◽  
Constitutional Review ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Judicial Remedy ◽  
The Eu

The Constitutional Courts of a number of Member States exert a constitutional review on the obligation of national courts of last instance to make a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).Pursuant to Article 267(3) TFEU, national courts of last instance, namely courts or tribunals against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, are required to refer to the CJEU for a preliminary question related to the interpretation of the Treaties or the validity and interpretation of acts of European Union (EU) institutions. The CJEU specified the exceptions to this obligation inCILFIT. Indeed, national courts of last instance have a crucial role according to the devolution to national judges of the task of ensuring, in collaboration with the CJEU, the full application of EU law in all Member States and the judicial protection of individuals’ rights under EU law. With preliminary references as the keystone of the EU judicial system, the cooperation of national judges with the CJEU forms part of the EU constitutional structure in accordance with Article 19(1) TEU.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document