In the context of the discourse on constitutional identities, national constitutional courts enter into various forms of dialogue with the Court of Justice of the EU. After having engaged for an extended period of time in exclusively indirect dialogues that were more or less successful and were realised through their own practices, national constitutional courts started making use of the possibility offered to them pursuant to Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, i.e., the preliminary ruling procedure. The paper aims to prove that the dialogues which constitutional courts engage in with the Court of Justice of the EU are the most successful forms of their communication. For that purpose the paper compares these dialogues with indirect forms of communication between constitutional courts and the Court of Justice of the EU. It is in this context that the paper, following introductory considerations in the second part, considers the concept of constitutional identity from the viewpoint of the Court of Justice of the EU and the viewpoint of national constitutional courts. The third part of the paper analyses different forms of indirect dialogue between constitutional courts and the Court of Justice of the EU and draws conclusions about their effectiveness. The fourth part analyses particular procedures instituted before the Court of Justice of the EU by constitutional courts and points out the pros and cons of these procedures. Finally, the paper concludes that the procedures instituted by national constitutional courts pursuant to Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union are the most direct and the most efficient forms of their communication with this Court.

U svojem mišljenju u predmetu Congregación de Escuelas Pías Provincia Betania nezavisna odvjetnica Juliane Kokott zaključila je kako bi Kraljevina Španjolska morala poduzeti sve odgovarajuće korake za otklanjanje neusklađenosti Sporazuma o gospodarskim pitanjima sklopljenog između Kraljevine Španjolske i Svete Stolice s pravom Europske unije. Pritom, kao krajnju opciju, predlaže otkaz Sporazuma koji bi pokrenula Španjolska. Cilj ovog rada je istražiti pravnu provedivost ovog prijedloga kao i druge načine prestanka važenja toga sporazuma s aspekta međunarodnog prava, ali i s aspekta prava Europske unije. Štoviše, u radu će se pokazati zašto ta opcija ne bi bila prihvatljiva niti za Ugovore koje je Republika Hrvatska sklopila sa Svetom Stolicom. Ovakva neprovedivost proizlazi iz relevantnih odredaba Bečke konvencije o pravu međunarodnih ugovora kao i Ugovora o funkcioniranju Europske unije.

Praksa Suda EU-a nije pratila normativnu izdvojenost koncepta nacionalne sigurnosti u odnosu na pravo Europske unije. Sud EU-a tim se pitanjem bavio prvo posredno, a zatim izravno, balansirajući interese nacionalnih sigurnosti država članica s jedne strane te prava koja jamči pravni sustav Europske unije s druge. Važan je zaključak prakse Suda EU-a u takvim slučajevima bio da činjenica da se neka odluka tiče nacionalne sigurnosti države članice ne dovodi sama po sebi do neprimjene prava Europske unije. Najnovijom praksom Sud EU-a prekoračio je dodijeljene mu ovlasti te lišio učinka treću rečenicu čl. 4/2. UEU-a prema kojoj nacionalna sigurnost posebice ostaje isključiva odgovornost svake države članice. Umjesto da se vodio praksom ESLJP-a i postavio određene uvjete nacionalnim zakonodavstvima koja uređuju prikupljanje podataka i postupanja sigurnosnih služba, Sud EU-a praktički je onemogućio učinkovito izvršavanje obveza država članica u vezi s očuvanjem nacionalne sigurnosti.

This paper aims at exploring the decisions of the highest national courts that had declared the decisions of the CJEU ultra vires, without binding effect in their countries. The same as the Czech, Danish and German courts, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia (CCRC) could deliver such a decision according to Article 129 of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia (CRC) and Article 104 of the Constitutional Act on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia (CACC). In the procedure, the CCRC should not only respect relevant provisions of CRC and CACC, but also the procedural rules of the CJEU, ensuring that the decision are indeed well founded and genuine. Although the CJEU’s reaction could easily be launching an infringement action against a member state whose court has delivered such a decision, the Union’s acceptance of these decisions seems to be a much more appropriate solution. Following the introductory considerations, the second part of the paper deals with the cases of the Czech Republic, Denmark and Germany, where the highest national courts have delivered such decisions. The third part of the paper researches into the CCRC’s possibilities for delivering such decisions. The research into possible reactions of the CJEU to decisions of the highest national courts declaring the CJEU decisions ultra vires is the subject of the fourth part of the paper emphasizing the decision that stands out as the most adequate in the context of constitutional dialogues between these courts and CJEU. Concluding remarks are given in the final part of the paper.

Ovaj rad bavi se nadzorom Suda Europske unije nad primjenom mjera ograničavanja odnosno sankcija protiv pojedinih fizičkih odnosno pravnih osoba, i to kako nadzorom nad sankcijama Vijeća sigurnosti Ujedinjenih naroda koje su implementirane u pravni poredak Unije tako i nad autonomnim mjerama ograničavanja Unije. Taj se nadzor odnosi na zaštitu temeljnih prava osoba prema kojima se sankcije primjenjuju zbog povezanosti s terorizmom odnosno financiranjem terorizma, proliferacijom nuklearnog oružja odnosno provođenja nasilne represije nad civilnim stanovništvom. Proučavat će se, u pravilu, zaštita prava vlasništva s jedne i zaštita procesnih prava s druge strane. U radu će se analizirati sadržaj tog nadzora Suda EU-a, ali i posljedice toga nadzora u smislu konkretne zaštite navedenih prava.