Lex Perković. Croatian problems with the implementation of the European arrest warrant

The European arrest warrant established in 2002 is an important tool in prosecuting perpetrators of crimes committed within the European Union. It can, however, be considered as some interference in state sovereignty. Such a situation took place in 2013 when Croatia joined the EU. Just before the date of accession the parliament changed the law, significantly limiting the possibility of extraditing the citizens of that country to the other EU countries. The unofficial, but actual reason for this decision was the desire to protect the former high-rank representative of the Yugoslavian secret services, Josip Perkovic, accused of participating in the assassination of a Croatian dissident in Germany in 1983. This risky step by the Croatian authorities has led to a serious crisis in relations with the German government and the European Commission, including the threat of EU funds being withheld. He even got a separate treatment in the literature on the subject (lex Perković, Croat slučaj Perković). The main purpose of the article is to present and discuss political events that accompany this case, as well as to analyze legal steps taken by all interested parties.

Poland’s membership in the European Union as a premise for possible changes to the Constitution of the Republic of Poland

The analysis addresses the problem of the extent to which the consequences of Poland’s membership in the European Union should be reflected in the Constitution of the Republic of Poland. The Polish Basic Law, in Art. 90, anticipated Poland’s membership in the EU. However, despite the attempts made, it was not possible – apart from the constitutionalization of the European Arrest Warrant – to introduce changes to the constitution resulting from EU membership. There are a number of regulatory gaps that deserve to be filled even if it is not possible to reach an agreement at the level of 2/3 of the support in the Sejm on the issue of a comprehensive „European clause”. The jurisprudence of the Constitutional Tribunal should not replace the constitution-maker. It is necessary for the constitution to fulfill its legal, political and educational function.