This case comment
analyses the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU’s) judgment in
Hann-Invest (Joined Cases C-554/21, C-622/21, and C-727/21), which found Croatia’s
judicial harmonization mechanism incompatible with the principle of effective
judicial protection under Article 19(1) TEU. While grounded in the Court’s
established rule of law jurisprudence, the ruling extends its reach into the
domain of ordinary judicial organization, even absent systemic deficiencies.
The judgment both introduces more specific procedural standards for judicial
panels and reaffirms a broad in limine litis admissibility threshold for
preliminary references.
This comment argues
that Hann-Invest signals a potential recalibration of the EU’s federal balance.
By imposing more far-reaching obligations with structural implications for
domestic court systems, the decision may narrow the space for institutional
diversity and raises important questions about the limits of constitutional
pluralism. Although the ruling reinforces judicial independence, it arguably
marks a shift from minimum guarantees toward more prescriptive standards. The
analysis reflects on the broader implications of this development and advocates
for a more nuanced and context-sensitive application of Article 19(1) TEU, one
that safeguards effective judicial protection while preserving Member States’
autonomy regarding court organization.