EUROPEAN COMMISSION Luxembourg, 13.7.2022 SWD(2022) 511 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2022 Rule of Law Report















Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Croatia Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 2022 Rule of Law Report

















The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2022) 500 final} - {SWD(2022) 501 final} - {SWD(2022) 502 final} - {SWD(2022) 503 final} - {SWD(2022) 504 final} - {SWD(2022) 505 final} - {SWD(2022) 506 final} - {SWD(2022) 507 final} - {SWD(2022) 508 final} - {SWD(2022) 509 final} - {SWD(2022) 510 final} - {SWD(2022) 512 final} - {SWD(2022) 513 final} - {SWD(2022) 514 final} - {SWD(2022) 515 final} - {SWD(2022) 516 final} - {SWD(2022) 517 final} - {SWD(2022) 518 final} - {SWD(2022) 519 final} - {SWD(2022) 520 final} - {SWD(2022) 521 final} - {SWD(2022) 522 final} - {SWD(2022) 523 final} - {SWD(2022) 524 final} - {SWD(2022) 525 final} - {SWD(2022) 526 final} - {SWD(2022) 527 final}



Abstract The process for appointing the President of the Croatian Supreme Court, a challenge raised in the 2021 Rule of Law Report, was concluded. Responding to findings of the past Rule of Law Reports, amendments strengthened the State Judicial Council’s and State Attorney’s Council’s role in the selection of judges and state attorneys, and, as committed in the context of the Croatian Recovery and Resilience Plan, both Councils’ resources are being increased. New laws introducing regular security checks on judges and state attorneys conducted by the National Security Agency raised concerns. Criminal proceedings concerning cases of alleged corruption among judges and disciplinary proceedings are ongoing. The level of perceived judicial independence remains very low. The Supreme Court President disseminated a questionnaire for judges to appeal court presidents, which has raised concerns among judges. The justice system extended electronic communication tools and decreased backlogs at higher court instances, but significant efficiency and quality issues remain. A new Strategy on the Prevention of Corruption for 2021-2030 was adopted in October 2021 to strengthen the prevention of corruption and raise awareness about its harmfulness. While the effective investigation of corruption continued, including on high-level corruption, the number of indictments and final judgments for corruption decreased. The excessive length of criminal proceedings continues to undermine the effectiveness of the anti-corruption framework. The new Law on the Prevention of Conflicts of Interest has strengthened asset declarations and improved the framework on revolving doors. A Code of Ethics was adopted for members of Government, however, a similar one for members of Parliament and detailed rules on lobbying activities remain to be introduced. The new framework on protection of whistleblowers entered into force. On the Government’s proposal, Parliament adopted amendments to remove immunity of members of Government for corruption crimes. The legal framework for media pluralism and freedom guarantees the basic right of freedom of expression and the right to information. There are concerns about the political independence of the Council for Electronic Media and the management of the public service broadcaster HRT. The revised Electronic Media Act updated rules on the transparency of state advertising and media ownership, and on media concentration. However, a need remains to further strengthen the framework on state advertising, including the new public tender procedure, as concerns related to the economic dependence of certain media outlets on state advertising persist. The establishment of an independent, self-regulatory body for the media is being discussed. The professional environment for journalists is impacted by verbal aggressions against journalists, including by politicians. A high number of cases of abusive litigation targeting journalists remains a significant concern. Delays in the processing of requests for information from journalists remain an issue. The number and duration of public consultations increased, which resulted in more participants providing their comments. Parliament further decreased the use of emergency procedures, but the lack of recording of voting in some remote sessions is still problematic. The Constitutional Court reviewed some emergency measures and has accumulated backlog due to lack of resources. A challenge exists regarding the follow-up to and monitoring of the Ombudsperson’s recommendations, and on access to information. While some preparatory steps were taken, the Government has not progressed in adoption of the new National Plan for Creating an Enabling Environment for the Civil Society Development 2021-2027. Recommendations In addition to recalling the commitments made under the national Recovery and Resilience Plan relating to certain aspects of the justice system and the anti-corruption framework, it is recommended to Croatia to: ·Reconsider the newly introduced periodic security checks conducted by the National Security Agency on all judges and state attorneys by ensuring their integrity based on other existing mechanisms, taking into account European standards on judicial independence and autonomy of prosecutors and the opinion of the Venice Commission. ·Introduce comprehensive legislation in the area of lobbying, including on persons with top executive positions, and set up a public register of lobbyists. ·Further strengthen the framework for a fair and transparent allocation of state advertising, by establishing clear criteria, good practices and oversight measures to guarantee the effective functioning of the new public tender procedure for local and regional media. ·Address the issue of strategic lawsuits against public participation targeted at journalists, including by addressing the abuse of legal provisions on defamation and encouraging awareness, taking into account European standards on the protection of journalists. ·Ensure a more systematic follow-up to recommendations and information requests of the Ombudsperson. I.Justice System Croatia has a three-tiered justice system, with courts of general and specialised jurisdiction. The first instance courts of general jurisdiction, dealing with civil and criminal cases, are composed of Municipal courts (34), while the County courts (15) are the second instance courts of general jurisdiction, with some competences as first instance courts. The courts of specialised jurisdiction comprise nine Commercial and four Administrative courts at first instance, and the High Criminal Court, the High Misdemeanour Court, the High Commercial Court and the High Administrative Court at second instance. The Supreme Court deals with all types of cases. The Constitutional Court conducts constitutional review. An independent State Judicial Council ensures the autonomy and independence of the judiciary . The State Attorney’s Office (DO) is an autonomous, independent judicial body, acting as the prosecution service, and undertaking legal actions for protection of state property and applying legal remedies for protection of the Constitution and laws. Each State Attorney’s Office is headed by a State Attorney. The State Attorney General is the head of the State Attorney Office of the Republic of Croatia (DORH), as the highest state attorney office. The powers over appointment and career of state attorneys and deputy state attorneys rest with the State Attorney’s Council, while the powers over representation and management rest with the State Attorney General . The State Attorney’s Council is an independent self-governance body tasked with ensuring the autonomy and independence of the State Attorney’s Office . Croatia participates in the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). The Croatian Bar Association is an independent, self-governing professional organisation, which is in charge of disciplinary proceedings regarding lawyers. Independence The level of perceived judicial independence in Croatia continues to be very low both among the general public and companies. Overall, 20% of the general population and 23% of companies perceive the level of independence of courts and judges to be ‘fairly or very good’ in 2022 . According to data in the 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard, the perceived judicial independence among both the general public and companies has increased in comparison with 2021 (17% for the general public and 16% for companies), inverting a previously decreasing trend. However, both figures are still lower in comparison with 2016 (28% for the general public and 24% for companies). The main reason cited by the general public and companies for the perceived lack of independence of courts and judges is the perception of interference or pressure from the Government and politicians . More detailed surveys could help to address these issues by examining the specific reasons among the different stakeholders in the justice system behind the continuously low level of perceived judicial independence . The process for appointing the Supreme Court President was concluded. The Constitution requires the President of the Supreme Court to be appointed by Parliament upon a proposal from the President of the Republic. The 2021 Rule of Law Report mentioned that the then on-going process for appointing the new Supreme Court President led to an intense exchange between highest representatives of state authorities, which included repeated negative statements about Supreme Court and other judges. Seized in this appointment process, the Constitutional Court on 23 March 2021 rendered a judgment stressing the importance of cooperation between state authorities. In July 2021, the State Judicial Council published the third public call for candidacies for the position, which successfully led to Parliament’s appointment of a new Supreme Court President on 15 October 2021. Informed, in part, by the difficulties in the last appointment procedure, on 11 February 2022, the procedure governing the selection procedure for the Supreme Court President was amended, to clarify procedural steps in order to avoid a future deadlock in the appointment process. Amendments strengthened the State Judicial Council’s and State Attorney’s Council’s role in the selection of judges and state attorneys. As a follow up to the findings of the 2020 Rule of law Report, in March 2021, the State Judicial Council prepared an analysis of the law on the selection of judges and proposed changes. Informed on this aspect by the Council’s analysis, on the Government’s proposal, Parliament on 1 July 2022 adopted amendments to the Laws on State Judicial Council and State Attorney’s Council. These amendments increase the number of points that candidates can achieve in the interview with the respective Council and thus expand the Councils’ power to select candidates. Other amendments equalise the requirements for all judges applying to become members of the Council, extend the time for temporary secondment of judges (with their consent), harmonise procedural provisions on disciplinary proceedings on the dismissal of judges, introduce a more consistent distinction between appointment and transfer of judges including more regulated transfer process, oblige the tax authority to provide to the Councils the data on judges’/state attorneys’ wealth without delay (in view of checking asset declarations), and revise the conditions for the appointment of court presidents by requiring that the candidate is not subject to disciplinary proceedings and lift the existing limitation of two possible appointments (to a maximum of two in a row). Criminal proceedings concerning cases of alleged corruption among judges reported in the 2021 Report and disciplinary proceedings are ongoing. Following allegations of violations by judges of the obligation of impartiality and their acceptance of improper gifts from the suspect in a criminal case before them, the State Judicial Council initiated and concluded several disciplinary proceedings. The State Attorney’s Office launched criminal investigations, and the State Judicial Council approved pre-trial detention regarding the judges under investigation. In 2021, the State Judicial Council initiated nearly twice the number of disciplinary proceedings regarding judges compared to 2020, and, in its role acting as a legal safeguard for judicial independence, approved four requests from the State Attorney’s Office for pre-trial detentions regarding judges (compared to none approved in 2020), which shows the increased activity of the Council with regard to integrity in the judiciary. By February 2022, the State Judicial Council and State Attorney’s Council concluded agreements and was granted access to 14 online registers in order to make verification of assets of judges more efficient. In 2021, the two Councils have not progressed on verification of asset declarations of judges and state attorneys. The IT tools have become operational and the human resources are in place, and the State Judicial Council is planning to conduct both regular verification of asset declarations, covering all judges in one court, and individual checks, in case specific information comes to its knowledge. The same IT tools are also available for use by the State Attorney’s Council for verification of asset declarations of state attorneys.

New laws introducing regular security checks on judges and state attorneys raised concerns. On 11 February 2022, Parliament adopted amendments to the Law on Courts and the Law on the State Attorney’s Office empowering the National Security Agency to conduct security checks on all judges and state attorneys. The laws’ explanatory memorandums justified the reform to be ‘inextricably linked to the conditions for the proper exercise of judicial function/state attorney function’ and stated the reason for reform were high levels of perception of corruption in the judiciary and some individual cases of inappropriate behaviour of judges. The security checks will be conducted every five years, unlike before, when they were only conducted once – before the first appointment of a candidate judge or before a judge was allocated organised crime and corruption cases. The amended laws provide for several procedural safeguards, amongst which that a special panel composed of Supreme Court judges decides on the existence of security obstacles based on the report from the National Security Agency. The introduction of security checks drew criticism from the European Commission stating that the measure could raise concerns in the light of European standards on judicial independence and autonomy of prosecutors. Further criticism was raised by the Supreme Court, the Association of Croatian Judges, and the European Association of Judges. Both the Supreme Court and the Association of Judges seized the Constitutional Court for a constitutional review of the amendments to the Law on Courts, and on 16 May 2022, the Constitutional Court temporarily suspended the application of the amended law pending its final decision on constitutionality. In an Opinion dated 21 March 2022, the Venice Commission expressed regret that amendments were adopted before this opinion was published, and recommended Croatia to reconsider its approach and develop an alternative strategy to ensure judges’ integrity, based on existing mechanisms. While conducting regular security checks on all judges and state attorneys, sensitive personal information will be collected by the National Security Agency outside the regular disciplinary or criminal proceedings and without the safeguards contained therein. It is important that the regime on security checks takes into account European standards regarding judicial independence and autonomy of prosecutors, which provide that ‘independence means that the judiciary is free from external pressure, and is not subject to political influence or manipulation, in particular by the executive branch’ . Security checks on judges, especially when carried out by an executive body, may constitute such an external pressure . When security/integrity checks are not carried out by self-governing bodies of the judiciary themselves but by an external body, utmost consideration must be given to respecting the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances . The amendments raise concern, since the security checks would be conducted by the National Security Agency, a body under the control of the executive, and because they would be regular and conducted for all existing judges and state attorneys, not only for candidates before their appointment. On 1 July 2022, Parliament adopted amendments that introduced a new disciplinary offence or a ground for dismissal, in case an existing judge or state attorney would refuse to give consent for the National Security Agency to conduct a security check, respectively. A questionnaire for judges disseminated by the Supreme Court President to presidents of all second instance courts raised concerns among judges. On 9 February 2022, the President of the Supreme Court sent a letter to the presidents of the 20 second instance courts requesting information on the external activities of the court’s judges (and their income), their membership in associations, public appearances, the employment at courts of their family members/relatives, and any lawsuits brought by them. The stated reason for the questionnaire was to collect information on the situation on the ground and dispel doubts in the public about the judges’ focus of activities. Some of this information is already covered by the State Judicial Council’s competences regarding asset declarations. While most addressed judges provided a summary of replies, others publicly objected and contested the competence of the Supreme Court President to ask these questions, of which some interfered with the judges’ right to privacy, freedom of association and freedom of expression. The Supreme Court President summarised the results of the survey, and called for developing more precise ethical and legal rules, and for organising a public discussion involving all main judicial stakeholders. It is important that any data collection regarding judges takes into account Council of Europe recommendations regarding judicial independence in relation to external activities and ethics, which provide that judges may engage in other activities but should be guided by ethical principles. Quality Administrative courts were integrated into the unified ICT system and the use of electronic communication increased, but room for improvement remains. Despite some improvement, considerable room for improvement of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) for case management and the electronic communication between courts and parties remains. As regards the use of ICT in case management, the first and second instance administrative courts were integrated into the unified ‘e-File’ case management system already used by all other courts. In addition, the ‘e-Communication’ system, which allows the electronic exchange of documents with courts, has been integrated in nearly all courts, except for the criminal department of the Supreme Court, three Municipal Courts, the High Misdemeanor Court, the High Criminal Court, and the criminal and misdemeanor departments of the courts. In 2021, the use of e-Communication with courts further increased, between two and seven-fold (compared to 2020) in some cases . The number of documents sent and received by individual claimants in Commercial and Municipal Court remained low, at around 10 500 in total in 2021. However, while procedural rules have partially been amended to allow for electronic communication, room for improvement remains for communication of courts and prosecution, particularly in criminal proceedings. The publication of first and second instance court judgments, which could contribute to increasing transparency and consistency of case-law, remains very limited. Resources of the State Judicial Council and the State Attorney’s Council are being increased. The 2021 Rule of Law Report found that the State Judicial Council and the State Attorney’s Council had received some temporary reinforcements, but a shortage in human resources remained. The milestone under the Recovery and Resilience Plan required Croatia to increase the human resources of both Councils by the end of March 2022. In February 2022, the State Judicial Council functioned with five permanent officials (the State Attorney’s Council with four) and two temporary secondments transferred from the Ministry of Justice and Public Administration (one transferred to the State Attorney’s Council), and was preparing vacancies for permanent employment of two additional officials (one for the State Attorney’s Council), to replace the secondments. These improvements are a step in the right direction to address the administrative capacity of the two independent Councils and ensure their effective functioning, including on verification of asset declarations. Efficiency The backlogs and length of proceedings continued to decrease at second instance and in the Supreme Court, and mostly increased or stagnated at first instance courts. The backlogs and length of proceedings remain among the most considerable in the EU . The COVID-19 pandemic adversely affected the efficiency of first instance courts, while second instance and Supreme Court mostly showed improved efficiency. In 2021, the average length of proceedings in the first instance courts remained among the longest in the EU and mostly increased or stagnated, with 1 000 days in litigious commercial cases (the same as in 2020), 982 days in criminal cases at County courts (804 in 2020) and 765 days in criminal cases at Municipal courts (705 in 2020) . The average length of proceedings mostly decreased before the County courts, where litigious civil cases at second instance took only 166 days (233 in 2020), and criminal cases at second instance took 91 days (112 in 2020). At first instance courts, backlogs decreased by 12% in commercial and by 4% in administrative cases (compared to 2020), but continued to increase by 22% in 2021 in litigious civil cases, and by 6% in criminal cases (before Municipal courts). Before County courts, backlogs stagnated in appeal in litigious civil cases and in first instance criminal cases, and but increased by 25% in appeal in criminal cases. Before second instance High Commercial Court and High Administrative Court, the average length of proceedings decreased (from 558 to 363 days, and from 223 to 190 days, respectively), and so did the backlog (by about 25% in both courts). In the Supreme Court, the backlogs decreased by about 8% in civil and 60% in criminal cases. At the end of 2021, the backlog of court cases older than 7 years further decreased (by about 12% compared to end 2020). II.Anti-Corruption Framework The Ministry of Justice and Public Administration is the central corruption prevention body, with a dedicated unit for the coordination and the implementation of the anti-corruption strategy and related action plans. The Ministry of Justice and Public Administration is also the central body for exchanging data on the suppression of corruption. The Council for the Prevention of Corruption and the National Council for Monitoring the Implementation of the Strategy for Combating Corruption, report to the Parliament twice a year. The Office for the Suppression of Corruption and Organised Crime (USKOK) is the specialised prosecutor’s office in charge of corruption offences, and the National Police Office for the Suppression of Corruption and Organised Crime (PNUSKOK) is the specialised police department in charge of detecting, and investigating complex corruption-related crimes. The new High Criminal Court began its operation in 2021 as a second instance court in corruption cases prosecuted by the USKOK. The State Commission on Control of Public Procurement Procedures is an independent tribunal responsible for reviewing appeals regarding public procurements. The Ombudsperson’s office is managing reports made by whistleblowers. The perception among experts and business executives is that the level of corruption in the public sector remains high. In the 2021 Corruption Perceptions Index by Transparency International, Croatia scores 47/100, ranks 24th in the European Union and 63th globally. This perception remained relatively stable over the past five years. The 2022 Special Eurobarometer on Corruption shows that 94% of respondents consider corruption widespread in their country (EU average 68%) and 60% of respondents feel personally affected by corruption in their daily lives (EU average 24%). As regards businesses, 93% of companies consider that corruption is widespread (EU average 63%) and 66% consider that that corruption is a problem when doing business (EU average 34%). Furthermore, 31% of respondents find that there are enough successful prosecutions to deter people from corrupt practices (EU average 34%), while 16% of companies believe that people and businesses caught for bribing a senior official are appropriately punished (EU average 29%). The new 2021-2030 Anti-Corruption Strategy aims to strengthen the prevention of corruption and raise awareness on the harmfulness of corruption, while the first implementation plan is in preparation. The Croatian Recovery and Resilience Plan contains a milestone which required Croatia to adopt a new anti-corruption strategic framework by the end of 2021 and to manage corruption risks in priority areas. On 29 October 2021, the Parliament adopted the new Strategy for the Prevention of Corruption 2021-2030. The strategy lists 95 measures to achieve five objectives and will be complemented by three-year implementation plans. The first implementation plan, covering the period 2022-2024 is expected to be adopted in the summer 2022and includes first steps to start implementing most of the measures listed in the Strategy. The Council for the Prevention of Corruption will monitor the triennial implementation plans on the side of the executive branch. This monitoring will be complemented on the parliamentary side through the work of the National Council for Monitoring the Implementation of the Anti-Corruption Strategy. While the effective investigation of corruption continued, including in high-level cases, the number of indictments and final judgments for corruption decreased. Both the specialised police (PNUSKOK) and prosecution (USKOK) report that the cooperation in investigating and prosecuting corruption offences is working well. During the last twelve months, eight financial investigators have been recruited to assist prosecutors with economic and financial crimes. National authorities reported that available resources are considered sufficient and specialised anti-corruption trainings are available online. There are numerous cases reported of high-level corruption cases being taken forward. The 2021 annual report of the State Attorney’s Office shows that the number of criminal notifications on corruption slightly increased, as well as the number of investigations. However, in 2021, the State Attorney’s Office initiated fewer indictments (69) for corruption than in 2020 (84) and in 2019 (109). In the same period, the Courts delivered judgments regarding 67 persons, compared to 92 persons in 2020. The excessive length of criminal proceedings has increased and continued to undermine the effectiveness of the anti-corruption system. As noted in past Rule of Law Reports, Courts continued to experience efficiency challenges in adjudicating corruption-related cases. In 2021, criminal cases on average took 982 days before County courts (804 in 2020) and 765 days before Municipal courts (705 in 2020). In 2021, the length of investigations led by the state attorneys in USKOK slightly increased (also due to complexity of cases and COVID-19 pandemic). In only about 35% of USKOK cases, the investigation was finished within six months or sooner (28% in 2020). In about 40% of cases, the investigation lasted up to one year (35% in 2020), while in the remaining 25% of cases, the investigation lasted up to 18 month or above (35% in 2020). The Anti-Corruption Strategy envisages that the Criminal Procedure Code and the Law on the Office for the Suppression of Corruption and Organised Crime (USKOK) will be amended, and that the capacity of USKOK will be increased to ensure the completion of proceedings within a reasonable time. On the Government’s proposal, Parliament adopted amendments to remove immunity of the members of the Government for corruption crimes. The abolishment of political immunities of Government members was announced in the Government’s Programme 2020-2024. The law foresees immunity for all crimes punishable with up to five year imprisonment. On 1 July 2022, Parliament, on the Government’s proposal, adopted amendments to remove immunity of members of Government for all corruption offences that are prosecuted ex officio, i.e. independent of a complaint. The Anti-Corruption Strategy 2021-2030 foresees an assessment of the existing framework with a view to improve the legislation to fight bribery in international business transactions, which concluded that improvements can be made as to the definition, the liability of legal persons, sanctions and enforcement. The rules on asset declarations and on revolving doors have been strengthened in the new Law on the Prevention of Conflicts of Interest. The 2021 Rule of Law Report found that limited progress had been made on the strengthening of the legal framework on prevention of conflict of interest. Croatia’s Recovery and Resilience Plan contains a milestone which required Croatia to revise the conflict of interest legislation by the end of 2021. Accordingly, the new Law on the Prevention of Conflict of Interest entered into force on 25 December 2021. The law further clarified the procedures before the Commission for the Resolution of Conflicts of Interests. Asset declarations have to be submitted once a year by a greater number of obliged entities and certain definitions have been expanded, such as the concept of private gain, which now includes not only material, but also non-material gain. The law introduced a previously missing obligation to declare a conflict of interest. It obliges a person to either remove the conflict of interest or remove themselves from decision-making. The Commission for the Resolution of Conflicts of Interest can now impose higher minimum fines and a new fine has been envisaged for the heads of public bodies who do not submit the required public information, both of which could contribute to more effective investigations. Court judgments clarified that the Commission’s sanctioning powers do not extend to violation of “principles of public office”, which is notably broader than a conflict of interests. The new law also did not introduce sanctions for such violations, which, according to the Government, are envisaged to be addressed by new ethical bodies. The cooling-off period is extended from 12 to 18 months. Following a first assessment of the draft law before the adoption, GRECO concluded that it appeared to go in the right direction as intended by its recommendations. The Government committed to increasing the resources of the Commission for the Resolution of Conflicts of Interest. The Government stated that in 2022 the administrative and technical capacities of the Commission for the Resolution of Conflicts of Interest, currently consisting of five members and 14 employees, will be strengthened with five additional employees (nine altogether in next three years). Furthermore, due to the lack of space for new employees, funds are provided for accommodation and equipment for new employees. While its budget increased in 2020, the budget decreased in 2021 to a level comparable to that of 2019. So far, the Commission was able to deliver on instructions and opinions on conflict of interests. With the enlarged circle of officials that have to make asset declarations, the Commission will now have to process nearly the double number of declarations. The Commission reported that, due to a lack of resources, it is only able to do a preliminary, administrative check for all of the asset declarations received. However, it is unable to perform the regular checks required by law, which consist of collecting and sharing data, and comparing the reported data on the assets from the official's submitted declarations with the data acquired from the Tax Administration and other competent bodies in Croatia. A corresponding milestone under the Recovery and Resilience Plan sets out that Croatia will improve the asset declaration information systems by the end of June 2024. A project to improve the application for filling and checking asset declarations, as well as the process of filling in asset declarations itself, is planned. GRECO considers that capacity-strengthening efforts need to continue. A Code of Conduct was adopted for members of the Government, but one for members of Parliament is still missing. A Code of Ethics for state level civil servants is in place since 2011, and Commissioners are appointed in all state and judicial bodies with the task of monitoring the implementation of this Code of Ethics and resolving complaints of unethical behaviour. The Ministry of Interior is developing a new Code of Ethics for Police Officers to replace the existing Code from 2012. Ethics and integrity for state civil servants are embedded as a mandatory subject into various stages of initial and in-service police training. The corresponding milestone under the Recovery and Resilience Plan requires Croatia to adopt Codes of Conduct for parliamentarians and for officials in the executive bodies by the end of 2023. In May 2022, the Government adopted a Code of Conduct for members of the Government and certain officials in top executive functions. It remains to be seen, however, how this Code will be applied. The Code of Conduct is to be enforced by a specific Council, of which only two out of five members are external experts. The Council can also only express itself on compliance with the Code at the request of the official, its immediate superior, or at the request of the Office of the Prime Minister. No developments have been made regarding a code of ethics for members of Parliament. An obligation for the local and regional authorities to adopt ethics codes was introduced in the new Law on the Prevention of Conflicts of Interest. According to Anti-Corruption Strategy 2021-2030, there are 142 Code of Ethics in force in the administrative bodies at local and regional government level, representing only 25% out of 576 local and regional units. The new Strategy aims at improving the situation by 2030. The new Law on the Prevention of Conflict of Interests imposes an obligation on local and regional representative bodies to adopt codes of conducts. It also provides that the local and regional representative bodies need to specify the body to decide on ethical violations at second instance, implying that the first instance decisions should be made by municipal councils. The national authorities are supporting local authorities, including by developing guidelines. Comprehensive legislation remains to be introduced in the area of lobbying activities. The Ministry of Justice and Public Administration set up a working group for that purpose in 2021, which held one meeting so far. The finalisation of the draft new legal act is foreseen by end of 2022 . In its latest assessment, GRECO concludes that the recommendation to regulate how persons entrusted with top executive functions engage in contacts with lobbyists and to disclose sufficient information about the purpose of these contacts has not been implemented yet . The milestone under the Recovery and Resilience Plan approved in July 2021 requires Croatia to set up an information system to monitor the implementation of national anti-corruption measures by the end of 2025, and the Government also aims to ensure public access to a future register of lobbyists. The State Audit Office continued to perform audits on political party financing. Political actors are obliged to use the Financial Control Information System, an internet-based platform, to submit their financial reports, which are, once submitted, available online on the web page of the State Electoral Commission without restrictions, including names of private and corporate donors. The amounts of annual donations are capped, as are the amounts that can be spent for campaigning, depending on the type of elections. In 2021, the Office carried out a financial audit of six independent Members of Parliament and found one irregularity. It also audited 45 political parties, where most irregularities related to financial statements and accounting operations. Overall, the Office issued 278 recommendations. Of the 178 recommendations given in previous audits, 50% had been implemented. The Office informs the State Attorney's Office on all established violations of the law.

Legislative amendments entered into force to ensure better protection of whistleblowers. The new Law on protection of reporters of irregularities was adopted in Parliament on 8 April 2022 and it entered into force on 23 April 2022,. According to the proposal for this law, the key changes compared to the previous law relate to the whistleblowers’ option to choose between internal and external reporting channels, the explicit prohibition of retaliation against whistleblowers, including sanctioning for such acts, the obligation to provide feedback to the whistleblower on the status of their report, sanctioning of unlawfully revealing the identity of whistleblowers and oversight over implementation by the competent inspectorate. The Ombudsperson is the designated external reporting authority and is envisaged to hire five new people in 2022 for the purpose of implementation of this law. Appeals in public procurement procedures, a high-risk area for corruption, remained at a high level. No new measures were taken in 2021 to mitigate corruption risk in procurement during the COVID-19 pandemic . In 2021, the State Commission for the Supervision of Public Procurement Procedures received 1 157 appeals (requests for review before the State Commission), a slight increase compared to 2020. Improvements to its internal organisation processes have further expanded its administrative capacity, which led to a shortening of review procedures. The State Commission is only competent to check the public procedure starting from publication of tender documentation until the award decision becomes final. According to the State Commission, most of the corruption activities occur before the procurement procedure starts and after the contract has been awarded. In some cases, the State Commission can detect certain misconduct during the procedure, connected to corruption risks. In order to improve the detection of corruption in public procurement, the State Commission envisages closer cooperation with the State Attorney’s Office. The safeguards for the State Commission’s independence, particularly regarding the appointment and discipline of the members of the State Commission, could be further improved . III.Media Pluralism And Media Freedom The Croatian legal framework on media freedom and pluralism is based on the Constitution and sectoral legislation. The legal framework guarantees the basic right for information and the access to public documents. The revised Electronic Media Act was adopted in October 2021, transposing the Audiovisual Media Services Directive, and updating, amongst others, provisions on the transparency of state advertising and media ownership as well as making changes to the rules on media concentration. Preparations to revise the Media Act, the second pillar of the legal framework concerning media and in particular the press, continue. The revision of the Media Act is also expected to improve the framework for the access to information for journalists. The revised Electronic Media Act has brought some changes with regard to qualification requirements for the members of the Council for Electronic Media. The Council is the governing body of the Agency for Electronic Media, the media regulatory authority. While the revision of the Electronic Media Act expanded the tasks of the authority, there have been no major changes regarding its structure or resources. However, the revision includes new professional qualification requirements for members of the Council for Electronic Media. The appointment procedure remains unchanged. Following a proposal by the Government (based on a public call for nominations), the Council members are appointed by simple majority in Parliament for a renewable five-year mandate. This appointment of the body under the control of the parliamentary majority continues to be raised as potentially compromising the political independence of the regulator. The financial independence of the Agency for Electronic Media remains ensured. The establishment of an independent, self-regulatory body for the media is being discussed, but lacks consensus among media stakeholders on the way forward. As described in the 2021 Rule of Law Report, there is currently no independent, self-regulatory media council representing both journalists and the press and news media publishers. The self-regulatory Code of Ethics and the relevant Ethics Council of the Journalists’ Association remain limited to the journalists represented and do not include news media publishers. While the Government refers to the establishment of a self-regulatory body for the media as one of the main issues for the revision of the Media Act, there does not yet seem to be agreement on the way forward among concerned stakeholders. Should media stakeholders find consensus, such a body could serve a valuable role in addressing concerns of both journalists and publishers and give a strong, independent representation to the media sector. Improvements were implemented regarding the transparency of media ownership. With the revised Electronic Media Act, the ownership information for audiovisual and digital media on the website of the Agency for Electronic Media now needs to be supported by an extract from the register of ultimate beneficial ownership. Moreover, the revised law requires media service providers to publish information on their ownership structure on their website. Ownership information on print media continues to be collected by the Chamber of Commerce and is published in the Official Journal. Croatia’s Recovery and Resilience Plan requires the Government to set up an information system to publish information on ownership of media by the end of June 2026. To follow-up on this milestone, the Government envisages the development of a single public database for all types of media. Stakeholders claim that in certain cases underlying ownership structures remain hidden, as evidenced by reports pointing to issues around the question of ownership in the allocation of radio frequencies. It will still need to be seen whether the changes in the revised Electronic Media Act will be able to ensure full transparency on media ownership. The 2022 Media Pluralism Monitor indicates a medium risk for the transparency of media ownership. The reform of the Electronic Media Act includes changes in the framework for media concentration. The Electronic Media Act lays down detailed rules on the granting of licences and concessions to media service providers. Media service providers are required to notify relevant changes in their shareholder structure (above 1% of the value of share capital). The revision of the Electronic Media Act has ended the prohibition of vertical concentration between broadcasters and operators. A provider of media services and electronic publications whose total annual revenue has reached 40% of all providers is considered to have reached a dominant role in the market, and is then prohibited amongst others from acquiring new licences or concessions and launching new electronic publications. Moreover, the Electronic Media Act continues to set thresholds for cross-media concentration (for example for national broadcasting concessions and publishers of daily newspapers). The Media Act contains further rules for the written press. Rules on state advertising in local and regional media were revised, but a need remains to further strengthen the framework, including on the new public tender procedure. As mentioned in the 2021 Rule of Law Report, stakeholders report that state advertising often undermines the political independence of media outlets, notably at local level. The Electronic Media Act continues to require public authorities and institutions as well as predominately state-owned companies to spend 15% of their annual funds earmarked for the promotion of their services or activities, for advertising in regional or local television or radio programmes or electronic publications. Such entities need to report to the Council for Electronic Media and publish relevant data on advertising on their websites. With the revised Electronic Media Act, funds for promotion by public institutions and state-owned companies need to be distributed based on a public call listing criteria. However, the law does not contain any details regarding these criteria or the related procedure. In particular, there appear to be no safeguards regarding the authority that adopts and implements these criteria. In this regard, it will be important to establish good practices and effective oversight measures to ensure the well-functioning of the new public tender procedure. As highlighted in the 2021 Rule of Law Report, in particular regional and local media outlets are often considered heavily dependent on the advertising from local authorities, creating potential to undermine editorial independence. Some stakeholders reported that state advertising (e.g. in the form of sponsoring for conferences or events) may also undermine the political independence of media outlets at national level. The 2022 Media Pluralism Monitor indicates a medium risk regarding the state regulation of resources and support to media sector, stating that “[r]ules on the distribution of state advertising to media outlets are unclear”. The framework on public service media contains independence safeguards, but some concerns exist regarding the management of the public service broadcaster. The public service broadcaster HRT is governed by the Law on the Croatian Radio and Television, which guarantees the independence of HRT from political interference. The law lays down programme principles for the public service broadcaster. HRT and the government sign recurring five-year contracts on the programming of the broadcaster. HRT is managed by a Director General with a five-year term who is accountable to the Supervisory Board. Following a public call by the Supervisory Board, the Director General is appointed by simple majority by the Parliament. Four out of the five members of the Supervisory Board are equally appointed by the Parliament, with an employee representative as the fifth member. Additionally, the Programme Council (consisting of nine members appointed by Parliament and two employee representatives) represents the public interest and monitors the programming activities of HRT. The Supervisory Board reports annually to Parliament on the legality of HRT's activities and financial operation, while the Programme Council reports annually on implementation of the programme. The system gives the parliamentary majority a decisive influence over the public service media which could be a factor potentially compromising the political independence of HRT. In 2021, the then Director General of HRT was dismissed following a corruption investigation, raising questions regarding the effectiveness of safeguards in place regarding the supervision of HRT management. The independent financing of HRT is guaranteed by a monthly fee collected from households, set by the Supervisory Board. The relevant indicator of the 2022 Media Pluralism Monitor on the independence of public service media flags a high risk. The legal framework guarantees access to information, but delays in the processing of requests from journalists by public authorities remain an issue. The Information Commissioner ensures the implementation of the Right of Access to Information Act. Its Office continues to be active to follow-up on access to information requests by journalists. According to the Office of the Information Commissioner, the institution received over 43 complaints from journalists in 2021 (27 of these cases related to failures to resolve requests for access to information within the legal deadline). Journalist stakeholders flag considerable delays in their requests for access to information. The 2022 Media Pluralism Monitor indicates a medium risk regarding the protection of right to information. The planned revision of the Media Act could provide an opportunity to improve the legal framework for access to information for journalists. While physical aggressions remain limited,ases of verbal attacks against journalists, including by prominent politicians. Since the last report, the Council of Europe’s Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists has registered eight alerts relating to events in Croatia. For the same period, the Mapping Media Freedom project lists 15 incidents in Croatia. There have been a limited number of physical attacks against journalists covering protests against COVID-19 pandemic measures. Stakeholders indicate that police authorities generally follow-up on cases of violence against journalists. Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP) targeting journalists remains a significant concern. SLAPP continue to pose a significant financial risk to journalists and have an important intimidating effect on media. A survey by the Croatian Journalists’ Association in March 2022 counted 951 active lawsuits against journalists and the media in Croatia (compared to 924 in 2021 and 905 in 2020). These lawsuits, which often target the journalist personally (not the media outlet), continue to have a strong impact on the concerned media outlets, threatening the existence of smaller, local media outlets and freelance journalists. There continue to be a number of examples of such lawsuits against journalists by politicians or public officials, including judges. Many of the SLAPP cases against journalists are based on charges of defamation, shaming or insult. Stakeholders have repeatedly called upon the Government to address this issue. The expert working group set up by Croatian authorities on SLAPPs held first meetings and a workshop. While involved journalist representatives generally appreciate the setup of this group, more concrete action by the Government seems to be required to address this serious concern, both in the legal framework and the practical application. For example, stakeholders propose to decriminalise defamation and to increase the awareness of judges on issues concerning SLAPP. As stated in the Commission Recommendation on SLAPP, changes to the framework should ensure procedural safeguards to grant an early dismissal of manifestly unfounded court proceedings are in place, and that rules applicable to defamation do not have an unjustified impact on the work of journalists and the existence of an open, free and plural media environment. IV.Other Institutional Issues related to Checks and Balances Croatia has a unicameral parliamentary system of government, in which the Constitutional Court can carry out ex-post constitutional reviews, including in concrete cases based on a constitutional complaint. Draft laws can be tabled by any member of the Parliament or the Government. The People’s Ombudsperson, with A-status, who is responsible for the promotion and protection of human rights and freedoms and fulfills the role of the National Human Rights Institution, the Information Commissioner, and the Ombudsperson for Gender Equality, which fulfils the role of the equality body, are all independent bodies that play a role in the system of checks and balances. The number and duration of public consultations increased, which resulted in more participants providing their comments. In 2021, public consultation conducted through the central state consultations portal ‘e-Consultations’ and coordinated by the Government Legislation Office, returned to the usual pre-pandemic level. The average length of consultation also increased to 21 days (17 days in 2020); however, only about 10% lasted more than 30 days. The number of participants and comments increased and more observations were fully/partially accepted. After warnings by the Information Commissioner, the number of comments that remained unanswered dropped to the lowest level since 2018. In August 2021, a two-year project started to bring procedural and functional improvements to the e-Consultations portal, as well as its expansion to local and regional self-government units. The stakeholders consider that online public consultations should not be conducted at the expense of face-to-face discussions on drafts, which have an added value compared to online comments. For business stakeholders, the quality of law-making in general is an important factor for investor confidence and a reason for concern about effectiveness of investment protection for 32% of companies in Croatia. Parliament further decreased the use of emergency procedures, but the lack of recording of voting in some remote sessions remains problematic. In 2021, the Parliament adopted 31% of laws using the urgent procedure, a decrease compared to previous years (51% in 2020, 47% in 2019). The 2021 Rule of Law Report found that the IT system does not allow for the recording of the votes cast by individual members of Parliament when exercising their duties in parliamentary sessions organised through remote access. The recording of votes cast in remote sessions, publishing of which is important for transparency of the democratic process and accountability of the members of Parliament, remains limited to situations when the parliamentary staff can count the votes manually by counting the hands of deputies participating remotely. As stated in the 2021 Rule of Law Report, Parliament requested the Government to submit to it, three times per year, a report on the effects of the implementation of the Act on the Protection of the Population against Contagious Diseases, as long as the decision on the proclamation of the epidemic remains in force. In 2021, the Government submitted such reports in January, July and September, and in 2022 in February. They were discussed before the Parliament and were adopted by a majority vote. The Constitutional Court reviewed certain COVID-19 emergency measures and accumulated backlog due to lack of resources. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Constitutional Court delivered 80 judgments relating to the emergency measures, in which it reviewed five laws and 26 decisions of the Civil Protection Authority, which was empowered by law to issue restrictive measures. For example, on 21 December 2021 the Constitutional Court rejected the proposal for a constitutional review of the Law on Protection of the Population from the Contagious Diseases and the Law on the System of Civil Protection. In its judgment, the Constitutional Court expressed the expectation that in the future the measures taken in this context would contain a written explanation so that the addressees of such measures, as well as the public, are informed of the reasons for adopting a particular measure, and which demonstrate that the constitutional principle of proportionality has been respected. The Court has been addressing its efficiency challenges, and has reduced its backlog compared to 2009. However, at the end of 2021, the backlog still amounted to more than 6 000 cases, most of them constitutional complaints. While the Court resolved more cases in 2021 (compared to 2020), incoming cases increased 30% in the same period. The Court currently employs about 40 advisers, and seeks additional financial resources to employ more in order to tackle the backlog. On 1 January 2022, Croatia had 25 leading judgments of the European Court of Human Rights pending implementation . At that time, Croatia’s rate of leading judgments from the past 10 years that remained pending was at 25% and the average time that the judgments had been pending implementation was 4 years and 3 months . This figure takes into account the oldest leading judgment, pending implementation for 14 years, which concerns the failure to carry out an effective investigation into a racist attack and was pending as of 1 January 2022 but has since been implemented . On 1 July 2022, the number of leading judgments pending implementation has decreased to 21. Challenges exist regarding the follow-up to and monitoring of the People’s Ombudsperson’s recommendations, and on access to information. In 2021, a new People’s Ombudsperson was elected, alongside with three Deputies. Given her expanded tasks regarding the protection of whistleblowers, financial resources were increased. According to the Ombudsperson, despite some positive steps in 2021 regarding access to information on the treatment of irregular migrants, the Ministry of the Interior continues to deny the Ombudsperson direct access to information in their information system. The law gives the Ombudsperson access to all such types of information and officials employed in the Ombudsperson’s Office have the necessary clearance for handling secret data. The Ombudsperson takes also part in advisory role of the Independent Monitoring Mechanism . According to the Ministry of the Interior, its rules prescribe that police officers cannot provide unauthorised persons with access to the Information System of the Ministry (which would represent a serious breach of official duty) and that the Ombudsperson can request a printout of data from the Information System. Regarding recommendations issued in Ombudsperson’s annual reports, the Governmental Office for Human Rights and Rights of National Minorities was formally tasked with systematic monitoring of their implementation and is currently collecting data from a range of government bodies for the purpose of preparing a comprehensive response to Ombudsperson’s 2021 Report. According to the Ombudsperson, the Governmental Office was not fulfilling this obligation in the past. In December 2021, the Government established the Council for Human Rights, a new consultative body, which held a first session on Government’s response to Ombudsperson’s recommendations. In past years, the national authorities, according to the Ombudsperson, fulfilled 26% of recommendations given in the 2018 Report and only 20% of those given in the 2019 Report, a share that increased to 43% of recommendation given in the 2020 Report . Furthermore, the Government did not reply in about 50% of the recommendations given by the Ombudsperson in the 2020 Report (60% of those given in the 2019 Report) . In 2021, the newly elected Ombudsperson had to present before Parliament three annual reports at once, which had not been discussed until then (for 2018-2020) and which, in her view, makes the findings less relevant, and impacts negatively on the implementation of the recommendations.

While some preparatory steps have been taken, the Government has not progressed in drafting and adopting the new National Plan for Creating an Enabling Environment for the Civil Society Development 2021-2027. The 2021 Rule of Law Report found that the National Plan, intended to further improve the legal, financial and institutional support system for the activities of civil society organisations, was still under preparation. On 4 February 2022, the Government Office for Cooperation with NGOs took steps to appoint members of the expert working group to draft the National Plan, who are expected to start work in the autumn. In 2021, the Government Office contracted 94 projects worth approximately EUR 5.7 million from the European Social Fund. The civic space in Croatia is considered to be narrowed . In May 2021, during the campaign for local elections in capital Zagreb, elements of a smear and disinformation campaign against civil society organisations (CSOs) were carried out by certain political parties. According to a stakeholder, the administrative burdens in public tenders and lengthy funding processes put in danger the financial viability of the CSOs sector. Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order* * The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2022 Rule of Law report can be found at https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/2022-rule-law-report-targeted-stakeholder-consultation_en . Article 19 (2022), SLAPPs against journalists across Europe https://www.article19.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/A19-SLAPPs-against-journalists-across-Europe-Regional-Report.pdf . Association of Judges (2022), Statement: initiative for constitutional review of security checks http://uhs.hr/archives/1747 . Association of Judges (2022) Statement of the President http://uhs.hr/archives/1602 . Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (2021), Media pluralism monitor 2021 – country report on Croatia. Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (2022), Media pluralism monitor 2022 – country report on Croatia. Civicus, Monitor tracking civic space – Croatia https://monitor.civicus.org/country/croatia/ . Commission for the Resolution of Conflicts of Interest (2022), Written contribution from the Commission for the Resolution of Conflicts of Interest in the context of the country visit. Commission Recommendation (EU) 2022/758 on protecting journalists and human rights defenders who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings (‘Strategic lawsuits against public participation’) Commissioner Didier Reynders (2021), Letter of 1 December 2021 to Minister of Justice Mr Malenica. Constitutional Court (2018), judgment of 18 December 2018, U-III-1709/2018 https://sljeme.usud.hr/usud/praksaw.nsf/fOdluka.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=C12570D30061CE54C1258376002E2768 . Constitutional Court (2018), judgment of 22 May 2018, U-I-3684/2015 https://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2018_06_57_1183.html?msclkid=fd344382a63611eca4ecb0179b8f761b . Constitutional Court (2020), judgment of 17 September 2020, U-III-2390/2019 https://sljeme.usud.hr/usud/praksaw.nsf/fOdluka.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=C12570D30061CE54C12585E60041C6A0 . Constitutional Court (2022), decision of 16 May 2022, U-I-2215/2022, U-I-2751/2022 and U-I-2875/2022 https://sljeme.usud.hr/Usud/Praksaw.nsf/C12570D30061CE54C1258844003DCA0C/%24FILE/U-I-2215-2022%20i%20dr.pdf . Council of Europe, Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists, Croatia https://fom.coe.int/en/alerte?years=2022&typeData=1&time=1653914309287 . Council of Europe, Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists (2022), Deputy Mayor of Split Threatens Nikolina Lulic, Editor and Journalist of Slobodna Dalmacija, no. 77/2022 https://fom.coe.int/alerte/detail/107637182 . Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers (2000), Recommendation CM/Rec(2000)19 of the Committee of Ministers on the role of public prosecution in the criminal justice system. Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers (2010), Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities.

Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2016), Rule of Law Checklist (CDL-AD(2016)007rev). Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2021), Moldova – Joint Opinion of the Venice Commission and the Directorate General of Human Rights and the Rule of Law (DGI) of the Council of Europe on some measures related to the selection of candidates for administrative positions in bodies of self-administration of judges and prosecutors and the amendment of some normative acts (CDL-AD(2021)046). Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2022), Croatia - Opinion no. 1073/2021 on the Introduction of the procedure of renewal of security vetting through amendments to the Courts Act, CDL(2022)005. Council of the European Union (2021), Council Implementing Decision of 16 July 2021 on the approval of the assessment of the recovery and resilience plan for Croatia with Annex, https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-10687-2021-INIT/EN/pdf and https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CONSIL:ST_10680_2021_ADD_1&qid=1648472422094&from=EN . Croatian Government (2022), Input from Croatia for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. Croatian Government (2022), Press release: Government establishes the Council for Human Rights https://vlada.gov.hr/vijesti/vlada-imenovala-savjet-za-ljudska-prava/33780 . Croatian Government (2022), Press release: Second session of the Council for Human Rights held https://ljudskaprava.gov.hr/vijesti/odrzana-2-sjednica-savjeta-za-ljudska-prava/1069 . Croatian Parliament (2021), Press release: Croatian Parliament appoints Robert Šveb as new HRT director-general https://www.sabor.hr/en/press/news/croatian-parliament-appoints-robert-sveb-new-hrt-director-general . Croatian Parliament (2021), Strategy for the Prevention of Corruption for 2021-2030 https://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2021_11_120_2069.html?msclkid=d70f04b9ae9411ecb759e10e3dee3f1c Croatian Parliament (2022), Written contribution from the Croatian Parliament in the context of the country visit. Directive (EU) 2018/1808 amending Directive 2010/13/EU on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) in view of changing market realities. Directive (EU) 2019/1937 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law. Directorate-General for Communication (2019), Flash Eurobarometer 482: businesses’ attitudes towards corruption in the EU. Directorate-General for Communication (2020), Special Eurobarometer 502: corruption. Directorate-General for Communication (2022), Flash Eurobarometer 507: businesses’ attitudes towards corruption in the EU. Directorate-General for Communication (2022), Special Eurobarometer 523: corruption. ENNHRI (2022), Contribution from ENNHRI for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. European Association of Judges (2022), Opinion on security checks on judges, 7 February 2022 http://uhs.hr/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/EAJ_Opinion-for-The-Association-of-Croation-Judges-on-repeated-security-checks.pdf . European Civic Forum (2022), Contribution from European Civic Forum for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. European Commission (2020), 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Croatia.

European Commission (2020), 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. European Commission (2021), 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Croatia. European Commission (2021), 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. European Commission (2022), 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. European Implementation Network (2022), Contribution from the European Implementation Network for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. Franet, Centre for Peace studies, Human Rights House Zagreb (2022), Country research - Legal environment and space of civil society organisations in supporting fundamental rights – Croatia, Vienna, EU Agency for Fundamental Rights https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2022/civic-space-2022-update#country-related . GONG (2022), Contribution from GONG for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. GRECO (2019), Fifth Evaluation Round – Compliance Report on Croatia on preventing corruption and promoting integrity in central governments (top executive functions) and law enforcement agencies. Information Commissioner (2022), Written contribution from the Information Commissioner in the context of the country visit. Ministry of Justice and Public Administration (2022), Written contribution from the Ministry of Justice and Public Administration in the context of the country visit. OECD (2002), Fighting Transnational Bribery in Croatia, Assessment of Legal and Policy Frameworks https://doi.org/10.1787/90d486ae-en . People’s Ombudsperson (2020), 2019 Report https://www.ombudsman.hr/hr/download/izvjesce-pucke-pravobraniteljice-za-2019-godinu/?wpdmdl=7580&refresh=6283951a220471652790554 . People’s Ombudsperson (2021), 2020 Report https://www.ombudsman.hr/hr/download/izvjesce-pucke-pravobraniteljice-za-2020-godinu/?wpdmdl=10845&refresh=623b449e210741648051358 . People’s Ombudsperson (2022), 2021 Report https://www.ombudsman.hr/hr/download/izvjesce-pucke-pravobraniteljice-za-2021-godinu/?wpdmdl=13454&refresh=628394b9bf4e41652790457 . Reporters without Borders (2022), World Press Freedom Index – Croatia https://rsf.org/en/country/croatia . State Attorney’s Office (2022), 2021 Report https://dorh.hr/sites/default/files/dokumenti/2022-04/DORH_IZVJESCE_2021.pdf . State Attorney’s Office (2022), Written contribution from the State Attorney’s Office in the context of the country visit. State Audit Office (2022), Written contribution from the State Audit Office in the context of the country visit. State Commission for the Control of Public Procurement Procedures (2022), Written contribution from the State Commission for the Control of Public Procurement Procedures in the context of the country visit.

State Judicial Council (2021), 2020 Report on the work of the State Judicial Council https://drzavnosudbenovijece.hr/hr/izvjesca-o-radu . State Judicial Council (2022), 2021 Report on the work of the State Judicial Council https://drzavnosudbenovijece.hr/hr/izvjesca-o-radu . Supreme Court (2022), 2021 Report http://www.vsrh.hr/custompages/static/HRV/files/2022dok/Izvjestaji/Izvje%C5%A1%C4%87e%20za%202021.pdf . Supreme Court (2022), 2021 Report http://www.vsrh.hr/custompages/static/HRV/files/2022dok/Izvjestaji/Izvje%C5%A1%C4%87e%20za%202021.pdf . Supreme Court: General Assembly (2021), Opinion on candidates for Supreme Court President http://www.vsrh.hr/CustomPages/Static/HRV/Files/Sjednice/Misljene-opca%20sjednica%202021.pdf . Supreme Court: General Assembly (2021), Statement: regular security checks on judges are unacceptable http://www.vsrh.hr/CustomPages/Static/HRV/Files/2021dok/Priopcenja/O%C4%8CITOVANJE%20na%20nacrt%20Kona%C4%8Dnog%20prijedloga%20ZID-a%20Zakona%20o%20sudovima.pdf . Supreme Court: General Assembly (2022), Statement: initiative for constitutional review of security checks http://www.vsrh.hr/EasyWeb.asp?pcpid=564 . Supreme Court: President (2022), Letter on external activities of judges to the State Judicial Council, Association of Judges, Ministry of Justice and Public Administration, Parliament, Association of Journalists and NGO Miko Tripalo http://www.vsrh.hr/CustomPages/Static/HRV/Files/2022dok/Priopcenja/IZVANSUDSKE%20AKTIVNOSTI%20SUDACA%20-%20prijedlog.pdf . Trade Union of Journalists (2022), Statement: Support on independence of local media https://www.snh.hr/en/izjava-o-podrsci-neovisnosti-lokalnih-medija-skupstine-efj-a/ . Transparency International (2022), Corruption Perceptions Index 2021. Annex II: Country visit to Croatia The Commission services held virtual meetings in February 2022 with: ·Agency for Electronic Media ·Association of Judges (Judge Damir Kontrec) ·Bar Association ·Centre for Peace Studies ·Commission for the Resolution of Conflicts of Interest ·Constitutional Court ·Croatian Journalists' Association ·Croatian Newspaper Publishers' Association

·Crosol ·GONG ·Government Legislation Office ·Government Office for Cooperation with NGOs ·HRT – Croatian Radio and Television (General Director and Programme Director) ·Human Rights House ·Ministry of Culture and Media ·Ministry of Justice and Administration ·Office of the Information Commissioner ·Office of the Public Ombudsperson ·Parliamentary National Council for Monitoring Anti-Corruption Strategy Implementation ·PNUSKOK - specialised anti-corruption police ·Secretariat of the Parliament ·State Attorney’s Council ·State Attorney’s Office (including USKOK-specialised anti-corruption prosecution) ·State Audit Office ·State Commission for Supervision of Public Procurement Procedures ·State Judicial Council ·Supreme Court ·Trade Union of Croatian Journalists

* The Commission also met the following organisations in a number of horizontal meetings: ·Amnesty International ·Article 19 ·Civil Liberties Union for Europe ·Civil Society Europe ·European Centre for Press and Media Freedom ·European Civic Forum ·European Federation of Journalists ·European Partnership for Democracy ·European Youth Forum ·Free Press Unlimited ·Human Rights Watch ·ILGA Europe ·International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) ·International Press Institute ·Open Society European Policy Institute ( OSEPI) ·Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa ·Philea