THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF CROATIA AND THE CONCEPT OF INHERENT POWERS
Sažetak
The article examines the Croatian Constitutional Court’s interpretive approach to the existence of its own “inherent” powers and their relationship to the powers enumerated in the Constitution. In this context, we analyze the relevant case law of the Constitutional Court through several key questions: does the Court exercise its “inherent” powers through the concept of a descriptive or autonomous norm, does this result in significant changes in the Court’s procedures, does the Court apply measures defined by the Constitution, and does this significantly disrupt the constitutional balance of competences and powers. The findings show that the Court applies the concept of the autonomous norm, thereby significantly altering both its procedures and the measures it is authorized to impose. We conclude that such an approach by the Court significantly undermines the principle of the balance of powers as envisaged in the Constitution.
Reference
Bibliography
Antić, T., 2015, Postupak i uvjeti za izbor sudaca Ustavnog suda Republike Hrvatske, Pravni vjesnik, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 47–83.
Barić, S., 2016, The Transformative Role of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia: From the ex-Yu to the EU, Analitika – Center for Social Research, Working Paper 6/2016.
Beširević, V., 2014, “Governing without judges”: The politics of the Constitutional Court in Serbia, International Journal of Constitutional Law, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 954–979.
Casey, C., 2017, Under-explored Corners: Inherent Executive Power in the Irish Constitutional Order, Dublin University Law Journal, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 1–36.
Chemerinsky, E., 1987, A Paradox Without a Principle: A Comment on the Burger Court’s Jurisprudence in Separation of Powers Cases, Southern California Law Review, Vol. 60, No. 1, pp. 1083–1111.
Chemerinsky, E., 1983, Controlling Inherent Presidential Power: Providing a Framework for Judicial Review, Southern California Law Review, Vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 863–911.
Cohn, M., 2015, Non-Statutory Executive Powers: Assessing Global Constitutionalism in a Structural-Institutional Context, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 64, No. 1, pp. 65–102.
Fisher, L., 2007, Invoking Inherent Powers: A Primer, Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 1–22.
Fisher, L., 2010, The Unitary Executive and Inherent Executive Power, University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 569–591.
Gardašević, Đ., 2016, Constitutional Interpretations of Direct Democracy in Croatia, Iustinianus Primus Law Review, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 1–36.
Gardašević, Đ., Dioba vlasti u Ustavu Sjedinjenih Američkih Država, in: Kost- adinov, B., (ed.), 2022, Poredbeno ustavno pravo – dioba vlasti, Zagreb, Pravni fakultet Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, pp. 11–74.
Ginsburg, T., Elkins, Z., 2009, Ancillary Powers of Constitutional Courts, Texas Law Review, Vol. 87, No. 7, pp. 1431–1462.
Horvat Vuković, A., Referendum narodne inicijative 2013. – Ustavni identitet kao osnova ustavnosudskog aktivizma, in: Podolnjak, R., Smerdel, B., (eds.), 2014, Referendum narodne inicijative u Hrvatskoj i Sloveniji: Ustavnopravno uređenje, iskustva i perspektive, Zagreb, Hrvatska udruga za ustavno pravo, pp. 149–177.
Horvat Vuković, A., 2016, Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske i referendumi narodne inicijative 2013. – 2015.: Analiza i prijedlozi, Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Rijeci, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 805–835.
Kelsen, H., Who Ought to Be the Guardian of the Constitution?, in: Vinx, L., (ed. and trans.), 2015, The Guardian of the Constitution: Hans Kelsen and Carl Schmitt on the Limits of Constitutional Law, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 174–221.
Kelsen, H., 1942, Judicial Review of Legislation: A Comparative Study of the Austrian and the American Constitution, The Journal of Politics, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 183–200.
Kinkopf, N., 2007, Inherent Presidential Power and Constitutional Structure, Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 37–48.
Kostadinov, B., Ustavni identitet, in: Bačić, A., (ed.), 2011, Dvadeseta obljetnica Ustava Republike Hrvatske, Zagreb, Hrvatska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, pp. 305–337.
Lenaerts, K., Gutiérrez-Fons, J. A., 2014, To Say What the Law of the EU Is: Methods of Interpretation and the European Court of Justice, Columbia Journal of European Law, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 3–61.
Martinez, J. S., 2006, Inherent Executive Power: A Comparative Perspective, The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 115, No. 9, pp. 2480–2511.
Omejec, J., Banić, S., 2012, Diferencijacija propisa i općih akata u budućoj praksi Ustavnog suda i Upravnog suda u povodu Zakona o upravnim sporovima (2010), Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Splitu, Vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 309–324.
Legislative Sources
Opinion on the Fourth Amendment to the Fundamental Law of Hungary, adopted by the Venice Commission at its 95th Plenary Session (Venice, 14–15 June 2013), Opinion 720/2013, CDL-AD(2013)012, Strasbourg, 17 June 2013.
Opinion on certain questions relating to the functioning of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, adopted by the Venice Commission at its 138th Plenary Session (Venice, 15–16 March 2024), Opinion CDLAD(2024)002-e, Venice, 18 March 2024.
The Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia, No. 20/10.
The consolidated text of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia, Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia, Nos. 56/90, 135/97, 113/00, 28/01, 76/10 and 5/14, edited and translated by the Constitutional Court, (https://www.usud.hr/en/ the-constitution, 30. 9. 2025).
The consolidated text of the Constitutional Act on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia, Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia, No. 49/02 of 3 May 2002, (https://www.usud.hr/en/constitutional-act, 30. 9. 2025).
The Law on the Election of Members of the Croatian Parliament, Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia, Nos. 116/99, 109/00, 53/03, 69/03, 44/06, 19/07, 20/09, 145/10, 24/11, 93/11, 120/11, 19/15, 104/15, 98/19.
Case Law (Croatian Constitutional Court)
SuS-1/2013, 14 November 2013.
U-I-659/1994, 15 March 2000.
U-I-745/1999, 8 November 2000.
U-I-3597/2010, U-I-3847/2010, U-I-692/2011, U-I-898/2011, and U-I-994/2011, 29 July 2011.
U-II-5157/2005, 5 March 2012.
U-VIIR-164/2014, 13 January 2014.
U-VIIR-4640/2014, 12 August 2014.
U-VIIR-7346/2014, 10 December 2014.
U-VIIR-1158/2015, 21 April 2015.
U-VIIR-1159/2015, 8 April 2015.
U-II-6111/2013, 10 October 2017.
U-VIIR-343/2020, 19 May 2020
U-VIIR-2180/2022, 16 May 2022.
U-VIIR-2181/2022, 16 May 2022.
U-VII-1263/2024, 18 March 2024.
U-VII-1263/2024-II, 19 April 2024.
U-X-5162/2024, 6 December 2024.
U-II-804/2025, 8 July 2025.
Case Law (Other Courts)
ECtHR, Garaudy v. France, Application No. 65831/01, Decision of 24 June 2003.
US Supreme Court, District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).
US Supreme Court, McCulloh v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819).
Internet Sources
Constitution Annotated, ArtI.S1.3.3 Enumerated, Implied, Resulting, and In- herent Powers, (https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S1-3-3/ ALDE_00013292/, 30. 9. 2025).
Constitution of the Republic of Montenegro (https://www.constituteproject.org/ constitution/Montenegro_2013, 4. 11. 2025).
Law No. 47/1992 – On the Organisation and Operation of the Constitutional Court that regulates the Constitutional Court of Romania (https://www.ccr.ro/ en/legal-basis/, 4. 11. 2025).
Law of 24 October 2018 on the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic (https://codices.coe.int/codices/documents/law/C3723E53-4F16-4D4D-848B- 08DC0D38DFC5, 4. 11. 2025).
Matthias, M., Schrodinger’s Cat, in: Britannica (https://www.britannica.com/sci- ence/Schrodingers-cat, 30. 9. 2025).
Slovenia, Constitutional Court Act (https://www.us-rs.si/en/legal-basis/statutes, 4. 11. 2025).
The Fundamental Law of Hungary (https://www.constituteproject.org/constitu- tion/Hungary_2016, 4. 11. 2025).