When Croatia officially joined the European Union on July 1, 2013, it did so under a framework that included numerous temporary exceptions and transitional arrangements. These provisions meant that Croatia’s status did not equate to that of existing member states. The details of these arrangements are outlined in the Act on the Conditions of Croatia’s Accession and the adjustments made to EU treaties, which encompass 55 members, nine annexes, and various additional protocols and correspondence.
The Accession Treaty, although comprising only four articles, specified Croatia’s political alignment and commitment to adhering to existing EU regulations. As the EU prepares for Montenegro’s potential accession, an examination of Croatia’s accession terms offers insights into the challenges and conditions faced by new members. The treaty, a binding international agreement, set forth the conditions, procedures, and legal implications of Croatia’s entry into the EU. It also had legal ramifications for the EU itself, as it necessitated amendments to existing treaties, including the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community.
Upon its accession, Croatia was required to accept all previously adopted EU decisions and join international agreements established by the Union. This included withdrawing from all free trade agreements with non-EU countries that did not comply with EU law.
Croatia’s membership also entailed a special treatment that allowed for limited transitional arrangements to facilitate its adjustment as a new member. Notably, Croatia had to implement the legal framework related to the Schengen Zone from the moment of accession, although the final decision on abolishing border controls among member states rested with the EU Council following evaluation.
In terms of governance within the EU, Croatia was allocated a predetermined number of additional seats in the European Parliament, which became effective in 2013 and lasted until late 2014. This arrangement also included specific voting rules within the EU Council that were active until the end of that institutional mandate.
The Accession Act mandated a temporary system of enhanced monitoring by the European Commission, particularly during the first three years of membership. During this period, the Commission was authorized to assess Croatia’s fulfillment of obligations undertaken during accession negotiations, focusing on areas such as judiciary independence, fundamental rights, anti-corruption efforts, market competition, and management of external borders.
Economically, Croatia was designated as a “member state with a derogation,” as it did not immediately enter the eurozone. Its financial obligations and rights were, therefore, time-limited. Croatia had the option to contribute nearly €450 million towards its capital obligations to the European Investment Bank over a five-year span. The deadline for obligations pertaining to the Coal and Steel Research Fund was set for four years, beginning in 2015.
Support from the EU was most substantial in the first year following accession, with funding levels decreasing significantly in subsequent years. Conversely, Croatia gained access to the Cohesion Fund and other vital financial resources, which have gradually increased since 2013, particularly in sectors such as fisheries and rural development.
Transitional provisions allowed Croatia to gradually align with EU law under carefully defined circumstances, with timelines extending up to seven years, all under the supervision of the European Commission. This alignment covered essential market sectors, including pharmaceuticals, labor rights, agricultural land ownership, wine and olive oil labeling, sugar imports, and more.
Protective clauses included in the accession provisions provided a temporary safeguard mechanism, allowing the EU to impose measures if serious disruptions arose in the internal market or if Croatia failed to meet its obligations. However, these protective measures were limited to three years, after which Croatia’s membership status would become full and irrevocable.
EU institutions have consistently emphasized that these mechanisms ensured a stable and controlled integration of Croatia into the legal, institutional, and financial frameworks of the EU while maintaining legal certainty and functionality within this economic-political community.
As Montenegro approaches its own accession negotiations, it may face similar provisions, which could continue for years before achieving full membership. Given the ongoing discord within the EU, it is likely that future agreements will introduce additional measures to satisfy the concerns of the most vocal opponents of EU enlargement.
Moreover, Croatia’s accession included binding commitments that have no specified deadlines. The country pledged to advance its Justice Reform Strategy and its corresponding Action Plan, strengthen judicial independence, accountability, impartiality, and professionalism, and enhance efficiency in handling domestic war crimes cases.
The commitment extends to ensuring meaningful outcomes in the effective, efficient, and impartial investigation, prosecution, and judicial decisions in cases of organized crime and corruption across all levels, including high-profile corruption and sensitive sectors like public procurement.
In summary, as Croatia navigates its post-accession landscape, it serves as a case study for Montenegro and potential future members, highlighting the complexities of EU integration and the enduring obligations that accompany full membership.
