Tilting the Federal Balance? Rule of Law Jurisprudence Beyond Crisis Mode Comment on Joined Cases C-554/21, C-622/21 and C-727/21 (Hann-Invest)

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.