EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 20.7.2021 SWD(2021) 713 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2021 Rule of Law Report







Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Croatia Accompanying the COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 2021 Rule of Law Report







The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2021) 700 final} - {SWD(2021) 701 final} - {SWD(2021) 702 final} - {SWD(2021) 703 final} - {SWD(2021) 704 final} - {SWD(2021) 705 final} - {SWD(2021) 706 final} - {SWD(2021) 707 final} - {SWD(2021) 708 final} - {SWD(2021) 709 final} - {SWD(2021) 710 final} - {SWD(2021) 711 final} - {SWD(2021) 712 final} - {SWD(2021) 714 final} - {SWD(2021) 715 final} - {SWD(2021) 716 final} - {SWD(2021) 717 final} - {SWD(2021) 718 final} - {SWD(2021) 719 final} - {SWD(2021) 720 final} - {SWD(2021) 721 final} - {SWD(2021) 722 final} - {SWD(2021) 723 final} - {SWD(2021) 724 final} - {SWD(2021) 725 final} - {SWD(2021) 726 final} - {SWD(2021) 727 final}



Abstract The Croatian justice system has seen improvements in reducing length of proceedings and backlogs, but further improvements are still needed to address serious efficiency and quality challenges. The continued extension of the new electronic communication tools in courts has led to a gradual increase in their use. The ongoing process for appointing the new Supreme Court President has given rise to controversy and to repeated disparaging public statements against judges. In the context of diverging views on the next Supreme Court President, the Constitutional Court stressed the importance of cooperation between state authorities. The State Judicial Council made proposals to strengthen its role in selecting judges – an issue already raised in the 2020 Rule of law Report. A series of alleged ethical breaches and disciplinary violations by judges led to proceedings before the State Judicial Council and Judges’ Councils, as well as to a criminal investigation. The level of perceived judicial independence remains very low. Shortages in human resources of the State Judicial Council and the State Attorney’s Councils remain, even if some limited reinforcements have been allocated to verify the newly published asset declarations of judges and state attorneys. A new Strategy on the Prevention of Corruption for 2021-2030 is in the public consultation process. As the previous Strategy, the draft proposal of the Strategy also envisages the strengthening the legal framework on prevention of conflict of interest, which is currently being drafted. Codes of Ethics for members of the Government and for members of Parliament are still missing, while “revolving doors” are only partially regulated. Detailed rules on lobbying activities remain to be introduced. While changes to the framework of political immunity of the members of Government were announced, the legislative action has yet to follow. Public procurement procedures remain a high-risk area for corruption, and several cases have been discovered due to reporting by whistleblowers. The prosecution and investigation of high-level corruption continues, but due to protracted proceedings convictions are often delayed. Croatia is updating its media legislation to transpose the Audiovisual Media Services Directive, with the revision of the Electronic Media Act to be adopted still in 2021. Concerns about the political independence of the Agency for Electronic Media persist, and new qualification requirements are envisaged for potential members of its governing body in the context of the revision of this law. Croatia has a solid framework on transparency of media ownership information and envisages further improvements. While state advertising is partly regulated by the Electronic Media Act, stakeholders report it often undermines the political independence of media outlets which are economically dependent on such funding, notably at local level. A legal framework for the protection of journalists is in place, but they continue to face threats. In particular, the high number of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) targeting journalists continues to be a serious concern. Access to information is ensured by law, but delays in the processing of requests from journalists persist. As regards checks and balances, while public consultations are embedded in legislative procedures, stakeholders perceive citizen participation to be rather formalistic than substantive. Croatia did not declare a state of emergency, and COVID-19 pandemic measures were based on the twice-amended law regarding infectious diseases. The Constitutional Court has reviewed these measures, finding that they were compatible with the Constitution and also ruled that Parliament should find ways to guarantee its functions during the pandemic. The People’s Ombudsperson’s access to the information required to undertake investigations needs further improvement. The National Plan for Creating and Enabling Environment for the Civil Society Development 2021-2027 remains in drafting phase since 2016 – an issue raised in the 2020 Rule of law Report. 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 has been on a downward trend. The level of perceived judicial independence among the general public has deteriorated in 2021 and remains the lowest in the EU (the share perceiving judicial independence to be fairly or very good decreased from 24% to 17%) . Among the companies, the level of perceived independence is also very low and dropped to the lowest in the EU (the share perceiving judicial independence to be fairly or very good remained at 16%, with the share of companies which perceived the independence to be very bad increasing from 36% to 43%) . The 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard shows a continued downward trend since 2016. The main perceived reason cited by the general public 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 on-going process for appointing the new Supreme Court President has given rise to controversy, and the Constitutional Court stressed the importance of cooperation between state authorities. On 15 July 2021, the four-year mandate of the previous Supreme Court President came to an end. The process for appointing the new President has led to an intense exchange between highest representatives of state authorities, which included repeated negative statements about Supreme Court and other judges. According to the Constitution, the President of the Supreme Court is appointed by the Parliament on the proposal from the President of the Republic. The General Assembly of the Supreme Court and the competent parliamentary committee give their opinions on the candidates. As clarified by the Constitutional Court, these opinions, which have to be given regarding all candidates, are not binding on the President of the Republic. In line with amendments adopted in 2018, in February 2021 the State Judicial Council transmitted to the Office of the President of the Republic the applications of the three candidates (including the incumbent Supreme Court President). The President of the Republic proposed to the Parliament a candidate who had not applied to the vacancy, claiming that the 2018 amendments to the Law on Courts prescribing the vacancy procedure are “unconstitutional”. The Constitutional Court later found the 2018 amendments to be in compliance with the Constitution. The Court clarified that the President of the Republic can only choose from among the candidates who have applied to the vacancy; however, the President can also decide not to propose any of the candidates who applied and inform the Parliament. An unsuccessful candidate can request review of the Parliament’s decision before the Constitutional Court. The Court also stressed the constitutional requirement of cooperation between state authorities in finding joint solutions in compliance with the rule of law and avoiding destabilising situations, which would hamper the functioning of the Supreme Court. After the Constitutional Court judgment, the President of the Republic requested for the vacancy to be re-published. Following a new announcement, the President of the Republic in June 2021 proposed to the Parliament one of the five candidates who applied (no current Supreme Court judge applied), but the Parliament did not appoint the candidate. On 7 July 2021, the State Judicial Council published the third public call. As the new Supreme Court President has not been appointed before the term of the previous President expired, this role will be performed, potentially for a prolonged time, by the deputy Supreme Court President. Considering that the candidate for the President of the Supreme Court could be at the same time also appointed as a new judge (if the person was not a judge already), it is worth noting that under Council of Europe recommendations on the process for the selection of judges, where the constitutional or other legal provisions prescribe that the head of state, the government or the legislative power take the decisions, the opinion of an independent and competent authority drawn in substantial part from the judiciary (in this case the General Assembly of the Supreme Court) should be followed by the relevant appointing authority in practice. The State Judicial Council made proposals to strengthen its role in selecting judges. The 2020 Rule of Law Report found that the State Judicial Council and the State Attorney’s Council are facing challenges following amendments that reduced their role in selecting judges and state attorneys. As regards judges, the 2018 amendments decreased the number of points that the State Judicial Council can award to candidates based on the interview, which reduced the possibility of the Council to distinguish amongst candidates. In March 2021, the State Judicial Council prepared an analysis of provisions of the law on the selection of judges and proposed changes. The Council stressed that current provisions on awarding of points to candidates in the selection procedure compromised its ability to act as an independent and autonomous body tasked with ensuring the independence of judiciary. According to the Council, the current system, where the points achieved in the State school for judicial officials have the decisive role in the selection of judges, leaves the Council without significant role or influence in the selection of judges. The new proposals reflect on how to improve the Council’s role in the selection process. The Council also proposed improvements to the framework on disciplinary proceedings regarding judges, particularly regarding deadlines. In this respect, the resources available to the State Judicial Council and to the State Attorney’s Council are important elements for improving the quality of work of both Councils. The State Judicial Council and the State Attorney’s Council received additional resources to verify the newly published asset declarations of judges and state attorneys. In January 2021, the asset declarations of judges and state attorneys were published online and became publicly available. The 2020 Rule of Law Report found that support with electronic tools and adequate human resources would be needed to ensure that the State Judicial Council and the State Attorney’s Council can effectively and quickly verify the declarations, if possible already prior to their publication online. Both Councils have started taking steps to enable the connection of their ICT systems with databases of the competent authorities. However, connection of the Councils to these databases, once achieved, would allow more efficient verification of assets. As stated in the 2020 Rule of Law Report, these ICT systems do not automatically detect inconsistencies between the declared and real assets of judges and state attorneys. In April 2021, the Councils received three officials (one civil servant was transferred to State Attorney’s Council and two were transferred to State Judicial Council), transferred temporarily from the Ministry of Justice and Public Administration, in order to help with manual verification of asset declarations. The implementation of an automatised software solution for both Councils, aiming at automatised comparison of data, is envisaged to be introduced by end 2021. Further improvements of the software solution for both Councils as well as for the Commission for the Resolution of Conflict of Interest (which has been using a software solution since 2018), is envisaged only for 2024, in line with the National Recovery and Resilience Plan. The State Judicial Council, Judges’ Councils, and investigative authorities are reacting to a series of alleged ethical breaches and disciplinary violations by judges. In the beginning of 2021, several events involving judges have been extensively reported in the press and discussed in the public that allegedly took place in 2020 and 2021. One situation involved five judges who allegedly violated the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. Proceedings were initialised by the President of the Supreme Court for a breach of the Code of Judicial Ethics. In March, one Judges’ Council found a breach concerning one judge, while another Judges’ Council found no breach regarding remaining four judges. In an appeal against all five decisions, the Ethical Council on 13 May 2021 decided that all five judges violated the Code of Judicial Ethics due to breaching COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. The second situation involved allegations of violations of impartiality and improper gifts to deciding judges from the suspect in a criminal case (a prominent public figure), where the President of the relevant Court initiated disciplinary proceedings before the State Judicial Council. The proceedings regarding judges, including criminal proceedings, are still on-going. The Judges’ Councils at courts decide on breaches of the Code of Judicial Ethics regarding the judges in those courts. The decision can be appealed before the Ethical Council, a panel of judges selected by the presidents of all Judges’ Councils. Decisions on disciplinary sanctions regarding judges are made by the State Judicial Council, and can be appealed before the Constitutional Court. Quality The use of electronic communication tools in courts is gradually increasing. According to the 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard, the Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) for case management and the electronic communication between courts and parties remain among the least developed in the EU. As regards the use of ICT in case management, the introduction of the “e-File” system for the last remaining courts is underway, to be operational by the end of 2021. As regards the electronic communication tools, the “e-Communication” system, which allows exchanging documents with court electronically, it has been introduced to Commercial, County and Municipal courts, the High Commercial Court and the Supreme Court (only for civil cases). Currently, the main users of this system are lawyers, public notaries, court experts, appraisers and interpreters, and insolvency practitioners. The use of the e-Communication system increased during 2020, after the law prescribed electronic communication as mandatory for legal persons (citizens still have a choice to use paper). However, room for improvement remains, particularly in criminal cases: while technical conditions for electronic communication between the state attorneys and courts exist, amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code, envisaged for 2022, will be necessary. As regards the electronic communication between the state attorneys and the police, a test trial has been done. The police is sending indictments in misdemeanour cases to the courts, but for courts to communicate electronically with the police, legislative amendments are needed. The publication of first and second instance court judgments remains very limited. The e-File system is envisaged to be upgraded by 2023 with a special anonymisation module, allowing for the publication of judgments on a publicly accessible and searchable portal. The State Judicial Council and the State Attorney’s Councils have received some temporary reinforcements, but a shortage in human resources remains. As stated in the 2020 Rule of Law Report, the State Judicial Council and the State Attorney’s Council have considerable powers , but their administrative capacity remains very limited and the situation has not significantly improved. While in 2020 both Councils have formally received more financial resources (25% more for the State Judicial Council and 40% more for the State Attorney’s Council, compared to 2019), the COVID-19 pandemic related restrictions postponed using these resources for hiring of new staff. So far, the Councils only received some temporary reinforcements for dealing with verification of asset declarations of judges and state attorneys. A new High Criminal Court began its work as a specialised appeal court in criminal cases. In January 2021, the High Criminal Court began its work as a specialised court with jurisdiction to decide on appeals against decisions made by County Courts (either acting as first instance or second instance criminal courts) . The court started its work following the Constitutional Court judgment which held that the High Criminal Court does not put under question the constitutional position of the Supreme Court. The necessary professional and administrative staff and properly equipped court space has been provided. The State Judicial Council appointed 11 out of the total of 15 judges, as determined by the decision of the Minister of Justice and Public Administration for this court, as well as the new President of the court. The new court, as envisaged, should alleviate the work of the Supreme Court as a second instance court. The Supreme Court would be able to focus on the legal issues in criminal cases, acting as a third instance court. Efficiency The backlogs and length of proceedings decreased at second instance courts and mostly increased at first instance courts, and remain among the most considerable in the EU . The COVID-19 pandemic as well as the massive earthquakes in Zagreb and Petrinja adversely impacted on the efficiency of first instance courts in particular, mostly due to delayed hearings, while the second instance and Supreme Court, which mostly operate on the basis of written court files, continued working with improved efficiency. In 2020, the average length of proceedings in the first instance courts remained among the longest in the EU and mostly increased, with 1000 days in litigious commercial cases (735 in 2019), and 705 days in criminal cases at Municipal courts (691 in 2019), while decreasing in litigious civil cases to 826 days (854 in 2019) . The average length of proceedings mostly decreased before the County courts, where litigious civil cases at second instance took only 233 days (258 in 2019), and criminal cases took 804 days (930 in 2019). At first instance courts, backlogs decreased by 13% in commercial cases (compared to 2019), but increased by 15% in 2020 in litigious civil cases, 12% in administrative and by 9% in criminal cases. Before second instance County courts, backlogs decreased in litigious civil cases by 22%, and by 9% in criminal cases. Both High Commercial Court and Supreme Court further decreased the length of proceedings and backlogs in commercial and civil cases, respectively. In early 2021, the Ministry of Justice and Public Administration began drafting action plans to improve the efficiency of the work of courts, envisaging that for each judicial area and specialised courts a tailored plan would be developed.

II.Anti-Corruption Framework The Ministry of Justice and Public Administration is the central corruption prevention body, with a dedicated unit for coordinating the implementation of anti-corruption strategies and related action plans. It also acts as a central body for exchanging data on the suppression of corruption. The Council for the Prevention of Corruption (a government advisory body composed of representatives of public institutions and non-governmental organisations) 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 specialized 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 preventing, 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 Ombudsperson’s office is developing its new task on the management of 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 2020 Corruption Perceptions Index by Transparency International, Croatia scores 47/100 and ranks 18th in the European Union and 63th globally. This perception has deteriorated over the past five years. A new Anti-Corruption Strategy 2021-2030 is in public consultation, while the previous Strategy has expired. The decision to initiate the process of drafting the new strategy was adopted on 19 November 2020. After internal consultation, the draft proposal of the strategy is now published for public consultation. The new strategy will be complemented by three-year implementation plans. The first implementation plan is foreseen to cover 2022-2024 and the drafting will only start after the adoption of the strategy. According to the authorities, the comprehensive Anti-Corruption Strategy 2021-2030 will aim at addressing a wide range of open issues by identifying the specific corruption areas that need to be strengthen as also underlined by international recommendations. The main focus areas of the strategy will be on prevention, strengthening the institutional and legal framework for fighting corruption, raising awareness on the harmfulness of corruption in the general public, increasing transparency of the work of public bodies and improving integrity systems in numerous priority areas. The institutional framework to fight corruption has undergone some institutional reorganization to increase efficiency. On 22 July 2020, the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Public Administration were merged into the Ministry of Justice and Public Administration. This new structure aims to improve the work of the Sector for the Prevention of Corruption, which now includes two new organizational units. Furthermore, the Council for the Prevention of Corruption now includes representatives from the State Election Commission, the Ombudsperson and the Central State Office for the Development of the Digital Society. Human and financial resources have recently slightly increased. However, the Commission for the Resolution of Conflict of Interest has a limited number of staff. The legislative framework to fight corruption remains to be reformed. The abolishment of political immunities of Government members was announced in the Government’s Program 2020-2024 but so far the rules remain as indicated in Art. 34 of the Law on the Government, which foresees the immunity for all crimes punishable with up to five year imprisonment. Bribery is sanctioned in the criminal code with penalties up to ten years imprisonment and the same provisions are also applicable to foreign officials. The current draft proposal of the Anti-Corruption Strategy 2021-2030, which is in public consultation, foresees a specific milestone to improve the framework for fighting bribery in international business transactions. In this context, the draft strategy proposes that the legislative framework on immunity for members of the Government is to be strengthened by excluding immunity for corruption offences, as also recommended by GRECO. The prosecution and investigation of high-level corruption cases continue, but due to protracted proceedings convictions are often delayed. The positive trend on corruption investigations and prosecutions continued, including at local level. In 2020, the State Attorney’s Office initiated indictments against 84 persons (109 persons in 2019). In the same period, the Courts delivered judgments regarding 92 persons out of which 78 were convicted (85%). As regards the sanctions for corruption offences, 31 persons received jail sentences (for 12 persons jail sentence was changed into work for the public good) and 47 conditional sentences. In 2020, the length of investigations led by the state attorneys in the Office for the Suppression of Corruption and Organised Crime (USKOK) increased (due to complexity of cases and COVID-19 pandemic). In only about 28% of USKOK cases, the investigation was finished within six months (90% in 2019). In about 35% of cases, the investigation lasted up to one year, while in the remaining 35% of cases, the investigation lasted up to 18 month or above. Once the cases reach the Courts, several high level corruption cases face lengthy procedure that delays Court rulings. No clear steps have been taken to address the inefficiencies of the justice system reported in the 2020 Rule of Law Report. In order to address this issue, the draft Strategy sets the objective of improving the legal framework for the prosecution of corruption offences with the aim of speeding up judicial proceedings. As for present resources available, USKOK reported the difficulties in recruiting new state attorneys with applicants not matching expertise requirements. Both the USKOK and the National Police Office for the Suppression of Corruption and Organised Crime (PNUSKOK) reported that the cooperation in investigating and prosecuting corruption offences is working well. National authorities reported that available resources are considered sufficient and specialized anti-corruption trainings are available online. Shortcomings have been identified as regards the availability of equipment to carry out complex investigative activities. According to the draft Strategy, PNUSKOK will benefit from digitalisation and renovation both at national and a local level. Limited progress has been made on the strengthening of the legal framework on prevention of conflict of interest since the 2020 Rule of Law Report. The 2020 Rule of Law Report found that the legal framework on conflict of interest needs improvement as regards its implementation and in order to ensure that the Commission for the Resolution of Conflicts of Interest has sufficient powers to impose deterrent sanctions and perform its essential preventive role. While the legal framework on conflict of interest did not change, the draft proposal of the Anti-Corruption Strategy 2021-2030 commits to improving it, providing some details on what this would include. The decisions of the Commission for the Resolution of Conflicts of Interest have been subject to a number of judgments of the administrative courts and the Constitutional Court. For example, on 12 September 2019, the High Administrative Court, with regard to powers of the Commission under article 5 of the Law on the Prevention of Conflict of Interests, confirmed the practice of the Commission and the sanctions it had delivered. On 10 December 2020, the High Administrative Court delivered its judgment on an appeal and, by reference to the provisions in Article 5 of the Law on the Prevention of Conflict of Interests, ruled that the Conflict of Interest Commission does not have the powers to sanction only a violation of principles of conduct of public officials . The issue concerns the interpretation of Article 5 and the possibility for the Commission to impose sanctions on public officials solely on the basis of this provision . The implications of this judgment are important as it rules on the sanctioning powers of the Commission for the Resolution of Conflicts of Interest . The Group of States against Corruption of the Council of Europe (GRECO) examined the powers of the Commission for the Resolution of Conflicts of Interest and highlighted that the Commission can only establish whether there is a violation but cannot impose sanctions when it comes to Articles 2 and 5 of the Law . In this regard, GRECO recommended to review the available sanctions for violations of the Law on the Prevention of Conflicts of Interest in order to ensure that all violations have proper consequences. Civil society expressed concerns on the possible diminishing of the Commission’s sanctioning powers following the ruling of the High Administrative Court . The Commission for the Resolution of Conflicts of Interest has raised concerns about inconsistent case law and has proposed to the State Attorney’s Office to initiate before the Supreme Court the extraordinary review of the High Administrative Court’s judgment in view of quashing this judgment, which was rejected on 14 May. On 27 May 2021, the High Administrative Court delivered an additional judgment in relation to Article 5 of the Law confirming the judgment of the Administrative Court delivered on 19 December 2020. Ethics rules for members of the Government and for members of the Parliament are missing and “revolving doors” remain only partially regulated as reported in the 2020 Rule of Law Report. The absence of a Code of Ethics for the Members of the Government and Members of the Parliament was noted by GRECO and some steps have been taken in order to address these recommendations. Revolving doors rules have not been strengthened and remain narrow in scope. The provision forbidding officials to accept employment in the private sector for a period of 12 months after the end of the public service has been considered too short by GRECO, which also recommended giving the Commission for the Prevention of Conflicts of Interests a mediating role in this area. Code of Ethics for state level civil servants is in place, however ethics codes at the local and regional level are largely lacking. Code of Ethics for state level civil servants is in place since 2011. However, at local level, civil servants have their own Code of Ethics only if the local/regional government has adopted one. According to the draft proposal of the Anti-Corruption Strategy 2021-2030 there are 142 Code of Ethics in force at local and regional government level. The Strategy envisages to increase this number to 576 in 2030. Some progress has been made since the 2020 Rule of Law Report in the area of lobbying activities where a comprehensive legislation remains to be introduced. The Government programme for 2020-2024 and the draft proposal of the Anti-Corruption Strategy 2021-2030 envisage the adoption of a comprehensive regulation. A working group has been established by the Ministry of Justice for that purpose . The need to regulate lobbying activities was also highlighted by GRECO, as its recommendations in this area are still not implemented . A high number of appeals have been filed in public procurement procedures, which remain a high-risk area for corruption. The draft proposal of the Anti-Corruption Strategy 2021-2030 identifies public procurement as a vulnerable area for corruption risks. The State Commission for Supervision of Public Procurement Procedures is an independent decision-making body (tribunal) responsible for reviewing appeals regarding public procurements. Its workload has increased over the years: in 2020, 66% of public procurements were under appeal procedure before the State Commission for Supervision of Public Procurement Procedure. The crucial role of the State Commission for Supervision of Public Procurement Procedures is also recognised in the draft Anti-Corruption Strategy which envisages a further strengthening of its legal framework. It is important that the reform of the State Commission safeguards its independence, particularly regarding the appointment and discipline of the members of the State Commission, in line with EU law and taking into account Council of Europe recommendations. According to the draft proposal of the Anti-Corruption Strategy 2021-2030, the public procurement legislative framework will also be improved by strengthening the oversight mechanism and the transparency of the procedures. The Ombudsperson’s Office has started receiving external reports from whistleblowers. Following the approval of the Protection of Reporters of Irregularities Act, since 2019 the Ombudsperson’s Office can receive reports on possible misconducts or wrongdoings. As reported by the Ombudsperson’s Office, 45 complaints were treated in 2020. In the same period several high profile cases on corruption were discovered after reports made by whistleblowers. In order to mitigate corruption risk in the procurement area during the COVID-19 pandemic new specific trainings for officials have been delivered . As regards the prosecution only a few activities of the State Attorney’s Office were delayed due to the pandemic, and the law enforcement authorities worked in two shifts to minimize the risk of contacts. Furthermore, the Ministry of the Economy and Sustainable Development issued specific recommendations aiming at strengthening the public procurement system in the context of the pandemic . III.Media Pluralism And Media Freedom Freedom of expression and information are enshrined in the Constitution, while media plurality is ensured by various laws, notably the Electronic Media Act and the Media Act. They provide for the independent media regulatory authority, the Agency for Electronic Media (AEM), and guarantee that media ownership information is available to the public. A framework for the access to information and public documents is generally in place. The revision of the Electronic Media Act is pending adoption to transpose the revised Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) . The Government moreover intends to update the second pillar of the Croatian media law framework, the Media Act, with a proposal expected by the end of 2021. New qualification requirements are envisaged for the potential members of the governing body of the Agency for Electronic Media. The agency is led by a Director who also heads the Council for Electronic Media, the governing body of the agency. Its financial independence is ensured as it is bound to the income of electronic media services. The members of the Council are appointed by the Parliament by simple majority, following a proposal by the Government, based on a public call for nominations. The fact that members of the Council may be re-appointed for several five-year terms as well as the decisive influence of the parliamentary majority in the appointment of the body have been raised as potentially compromising the political independence of the regulator. With the draft Act on Electronic Media, the Government intends to introduce further requirements as regards the education, skills and professional experience of potential members of the Council. There is no independent, self-regulatory media council to represent both the press and news media sector as well as publishers and journalist associations. The self-regulatory Code of Ethics of the Croatian Journalists’ Association is limited in scope to the journalists represented in the association, and does not seem to be sufficiently well recognised to protect journalists in practice. The Ministry for Culture and Media is considering to support the constitution of an independent, self-regulatory media council in the context of the proposal for a new Media Act. Further improvements of the framework for the transparency of media ownership information are planned. In its draft for the revised Electronic Media Act, the Government intends to make the available information more comprehensive by requiring to include an extract from the register of ultimate beneficial ownership and requiring the registration of electronic publications. Currently, information on media ownership concerning audiovisual and digital media is made available on the website of the Agency for Electronic Media. Information on print media is collected by the Chamber of Commerce and is published in the Official Journal. The 2021 Media Pluralism Monitor indicator on transparency of media ownership shows a medium risk, pointing out that the identity of the ultimate beneficial owner can be concealed under the current framework. Stakeholders claim that the register maintained by the Agency for Electronic Media may have gaps as regards the coverage of electronic publications. According to the 2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, in Croatia we observe high market shares of leading media outlets in different market segments . While there are basic rules in place governing state advertising, stakeholders report that state advertising often undermines the political independence of media outlets, notably at local level. The Electronic Media Act stipulates that public institutions and predominately state-owned companies are required to use 15% of their annual funds earmarked for the promotion of their services or activities, for advertising in regional or local television or radio programmes. The 2021 Media Pluralism Monitor concludes that under the current framework “broadcasters [are] often dependent on regional and local politics while newspapers often support policies and viewpoints in line with the political leaning of ownership”. In particular, regional and local media outlets are often considered heavily dependent on the advertising from local authorities, creating potential to undermine editorial independence.

Croatian authorities took some media-specific measures to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 pandemic. As a result of the pandemic, newspaper sales and advertising revenues dropped, and many media outlets cut wages and laid off staff. Freelance journalists have been particularly affected. The Trade Union of Croatian Journalists considers that the working conditions of journalists have deteriorated considerably during the pandemic. Media companies were able to benefit from general relief programmes of the Government. Reacting to the calls for aid from stakeholders, the Government issued a public call via the Agency for Electronic Media to support freelance journalists and part-time media workers. Access to information is ensured by law, but considerable delays in the processing of requests from journalists by public authorities persist. The implementation of the Right of Access to Information Act is ensured by the Information Commissioner and its office. In a significant number of cases, the direct intervention of the Office of the Information Commissioner is required to ensure the follow up on access of information requests by journalists. The 2021 Media Pluralism Monitor indicates a medium risk related to the protection of the right to information. GRECO has recommended that measures should be taken to strengthen the enforcement of decisions of the Information Commissioner in line with the Act. A legal framework for the protection of journalists is in place, but journalists remain a target of hate speech and threats, both online and offline. A number of prominent cases have concerned verbal attacks by politicians against journalists, highlighting tensions in the relationship between some politicians and the media. Furthermore, serious concerns were expressed by stakeholders regarding the alleged dismissal or threats of dismissal by the Croatian Radio-Television against the representatives of the Trade Union of Croatian Journalists and the Croatian Journalists' Association. Since October 2020, the Council of Europe’s Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists has registered five alerts relating to events in Croatia, notably concerning instances of threats or insults against journalists as well as a defamation lawsuit against a media outlet. While there were instances of physical attacks against journalists in 2020, this does not seem to be a widespread concern, and police authorities follow-up on such cases. Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) targeting journalists continue to be a serious concern. A survey by the Croatian Journalists’ Association in April 2021, counted 924 active lawsuits against journalists and the media in Croatia (compared to 905 in 2020). The association highlights that these lawsuits have a strong impact on the concerned media outlets, threatening in particular the existence of smaller, local media outlets and freelance journalists. Examples of such cases include lawsuits against journalists by prominent politicians or public officials . While courts often rule in favour of the concerned journalists, SLAPPs pose a significant financial risk to journalists and can have an important intimidating effect. Many of the SLAPP cases against journalist are based on charges of defamation. Stakeholders have called upon the Government to address this issue, including to decriminalise defamation. Croatian authorities have set up an expert group to advise on policy initiatives to counter SLAPPs. 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, who is responsible for the promotion and protection of human rights and freedoms, 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. While public consultations are embedded in the legislative procedures, citizen participation is perceived by stakeholders to be rather formalistic than substantive. Public consultations are conducted through the central state consultations portal “e-Consultations”. The Government Legislation Office coordinates public consultations and administers the e-Consultations portal. The number of public consultations conducted in a year has been mostly increasing. As part of its regular activities, the Office of the Information Commissioner monitored how the consultations were conducted in 2020 . As in previous years, irregularities were most often related to the duration of the consultation and the lack of justification for shortening the deadline. Moreover complaints are also related to the non-publication of the report on the conducted consultation, and to the non-adoption or non-publication of public consultation plans. Furthermore, stakeholders perceive the public consultations, including with civil society and the non-governmental organisations, to be formalistic, rather than substantive. In 2021, improvements to the e-Consultations Portal are planned, aimed mainly at the expanding and upgrading the existing functionalities. Implementation of regulatory policy is planned to be improved. In March 2021, the Government Legislation Office started a technical support project to enhance the analytical capacity of applying appropriate methodological tools and processes for the implementation of the ex-ante and ex-post regulatory impact assessments (RIA). The project would disseminate the application of related methodologies and processes in the most relevant public bodies, by carrying out trainings among key actors and stakeholders in the regulatory impact assessment system, such as line ministries. The aim is to improve the overall capacity and regulatory performance, however issues of non-inclusion of secondary legislation and limited resources at local and regional level may remain persistent. Shortcomings in the implementation of RIA also remain. RIA are mainly conducted by the Ministries, while the Government Legislation Office provides trainings in methodology and legislative drafting. The Government Legislation Office’s mandate is limited to the scrutiny of impact assessments for primary legislation. As a result, subordinate regulations go unchecked, except for the SME test. Moreover, the public authorities, and in particular local and regional authorities, lack the human resources or experience to effectively implement regulatory policy. COVID-19 pandemic measures have been adopted on the basis of twice-amended law regarding infectious diseases. Croatia did not declare a state of emergency. Instead, measures to address the COVID-19 pandemic have been adopted on the basis of the Law on Protection of the Population from Infectious Diseases, and on the basis of the Law on the Civil Protection System, both of which have been amended twice since the start of the pandemic. The constitutionality and the legality of both, the amended legal framework and of the specific restrictive measures introduced, have been challenged before the Constitutional Court, which has confirmed their compatibility with the Constitution. The Court also dealt with the motions submitted by individuals requesting constitutionality and legality reviews of certain linked decisions adopted by the Civil Protection Authority. The Court confirmed their legality, recognising that they had a legitimate objective, which was to protect lives and health of the citizens, and were necessary to attain that objective. In separate proceedings instigated on its own initiative, it established that one measure adopted by the Civil Protection Authority did not meet the request of proportionality. The Constitutional Court ruled that the Parliament should find alternative ways to guarantee the participation of parliamentarians during the COVID-19 pandemic. Parliament continued working during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as in the aftermath of the December 2020 earthquake. In April 2020, the Rules of the Procedures were amended, limiting in special situations the number of the members of Parliament who can simultaneously sit in the voting chamber, and further shortening the length of their debates. In October 2020, the Constitutional Court declared these amendments as unconstitutional, stating that there are technical possibilities to organise the work of the Parliament so that the participation of the members of Parliament in plenary sessions and other debates would not be restricted. In November 2020, a new amendment to the Rules of Procedures was adopted to ensure that all members of Parliament will be able to participate in the debates. Plenary sessions are organised in several chambers simultaneously, also by using remote access. However, the IT system does not allow for the recording of the votes cast by individual members of Parliament, and the remote participation is only available for those members who are in self-isolation or isolation. As regards the parliamentary oversight of COVID-19 measures, in December 2020, the 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 January 2021, the Government submitted the first report, covering the period from March 2020 to January 2021, which the Parliament adopted by majority vote. As regards the legislative process, between January 2020 and March 2021, 51% of the total number of laws were adopted using the urgent procedure, which presents a decrease compared to 2019. A significant share of these laws related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The People’s Ombudsperson started exercising its new powers. In 2020, new Rules of Procedures of the Ombudsperson were adopted by the Parliament, which created a new department within the Ombudsperson for the protection of whistleblowers followed by the appointment of one additional staff member in charge of these tasks. According to the People’s Ombudsperson, the Ministry of the Interior continues to refuse the Ombudsperson access to information on the treatment of irregular migrants . In this regard, the issue of enabling access to information to the representatives of the Office of the Ombudsperson, based on the interpretation of relevant national law, continues to be subject to discussion between the Ombudsperson and the Ministry of the Interior. Recommendations of the European Network of National Human Rights Institutions to ensure that national institutional structures, such as the Ombudsperson, are given access to information in order to ensure independent, proper and expeditious investigations, are particularly relevant in the light of the allegations about pushbacks at external borders , with a view to ensuring that fundamental rights are at all times respected. The Croatian Authorities, in cooperation with the European Commission, EU agencies and relevant stakeholders including the Ombudsperson, have established an Independent Monitoring Mechanism for border control, which entered into force on 8 June 2021. The Government is still preparing the National Plan for Creating and Enabling Environment for the Civil Society Development 2021-2027. As indicated in the 2020 Rule of Law report, the envisaged National Plan intends to further improve the legal, financial and institutional support system for the activities of civil society organisations, which are considered important for the socio-economic development of Croatia, and in shaping and implementing relevant EU and international policies. The Government Office for Cooperation with NGOs plans to involve, through a public call, civil society organisations in the expert working group. The Government Office continues to organise the NGO Open Days. The civic space in Croatia is considered to be narrowed . During 2020, the Office of the Ombudsperson opened a case in relation to civic space and human rights defenders in the context of COVID-19 pandemic. Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order* * The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2021 Rule of Law report can be found at https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/upholding-rule-law/rule-law/rule-law-mechanism/2021-rule-law-report-targeted-stakeholder-consultation . Association of Judges (2021), Press release of 29 April 2021, ( http://uhs.hr/archives/1544 ). Asylum Information Database, Country Report Croatia, 2020 update, ( https://asylumineurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/AIDA-HR_2020update.pdf ). Centre for Peace Studies and the Croatian Platform for International Citizen Solidarity (2021), Contribution for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. Council of Europe (2021), Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists, President of Croatian Journalists’ Union Maja Sever Threatened with Dismissal, no. 40/2021. Council of Europe, Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists (2021), Defamation Lawsuit against INDEX d.o.o., no. 80/2021. Croatian Journalists' Association (2021), Bačić's persecution of the leaders of the CJA and the Journalists' Union is a new blow to media freedom, 13 March 2021, ( https://hnd.hr/eng/bacic-s-persecution-of-the-leaders-of-the-cja-and-the-journalists-union-is-a-new-blow-to-media-freedom ).

Croatian Journalists' Association and the Trade Union of Croatian Journalists (2021), Contribution for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. Croatian Journalists’ Association (2020), CJA's poll: over 905 lawsuits against journalists and the media currently active in Croatia, 1 May 2020, ( https://hnd.hr/eng/cja-s-poll-over-905-lawsuits-against-journalists-and-the-media-currently-active-in-croatia ). Croatian Journalists’ Association (2021), At least 924 lawsuits against journalists and the media currently active in Croatia, 16 April 2021, ( https://hnd.hr/eng/cja-survey-at-least-924-lawsuits-against-journalists-and-the-media-currently-active-in-croatia ). Croatian Parliament, The Anti-Corruption Strategy 2015-2020, 27 February 2015, ( https://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2015_03_26_545.html ). Draft Anti-Corruption Strategy 2021-2030 as published for public consultation, 25 June 2021, ( https://esavjetovanja.gov.hr/ECon/MainScreen?entityId=16930 ). Ethical Council of the Supreme Court, The Ethics Council of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia has decided on the complaints of judges in the procedure of assessing the existence of a violation of the Code of Judicial Ethics - Press release of 31 May 2021, ( http://www.vsrh.hr/EasyWeb.asp?pcpid=560 ; http://www.vsrh.hr/CustomPages/Static/HRV/Files/2021dok/Priopcenja/Ev%205-2021-3.pdf ; http://www.vsrh.hr/CustomPages/Static/HRV/Files/2021dok/Priopcenja/Ev%207-2021-4.pdf ; http://www.vsrh.hr/CustomPages/Static/HRV/Files/2021dok/Priopcenja/Ev%208-2021-3.pdf ; http://www.vsrh.hr/CustomPages/Static/HRV/Files/2021dok/Priopcenja/Ev%208-2021-4.pdf ). European Civic Forum (GONG) (2021), Contribution for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. European Commission (2019-2021), EU Justice Scoreboard. European Network of National Human Rights Institutions (2021), Contribution for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. General Assembly of the Supreme Court (2021), Press release of 18 May 2021, ( http://www.vsrh.hr/EasyWeb.asp?pcpid=560 ). General Assembly of the Supreme Court of Croatia (2021), Press release of 26 March 2021, ( http://www.vsrh.hr/EasyWeb.asp?pcpid=560 ). GONG (2021), Letter to GRECO: The Commission must not be destroyed, 4 February 2021, ( https://www.gong.hr/en/good-governance/anti-corruption-policy/letter-to-greco-plenkovic-undermines-the-fight-aga/ ). GRECO (2020), Fifth evaluation round - Evaluation Report on Croatia on preventing corruption and promoting integrity in central governments (top executive functions) and law enforcement agencies, 24 March 2020, ( https://rm.coe.int/fifth-round-evaluation-report-on-croatia-preventing-corruption-and-pro/16809cff22 ). GRECO, Fourth Evaluation Round: Fourth Evaluation Round, Addendum to the Second Compliance Report Croatia, Addendum to the Second Compliance Report Croatia, 21 October 2020, ( https://rm.coe.int/fourth-evaluation-round-corruption-prevention-in-respect-of-members-of/1680a010c3 ). High Administrative Court, Press release of 3 February 2021, ( https://sudovi.hr/sites/default/files/priopcenja/2021-02/Visoki%20upravni%20sud%20Republike%20Hrvatske%20-%20priop%C4%87enje%20za%20javnost%203.%20velja%C4%8De%202021.pdf ). Human Rights House Zagreb (2021), Contribution for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. ILGA-Europe (2021), Contribution for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 14 September 2020, U-II-2379/2020, ( https://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/full/2020_09_105_1969.html ). Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 2 July 2019, U-III-673/2018, ( https://sljeme.usud.hr/usud/praksaw.nsf/fOdluka.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=C12570D30061CE54C125842D00218646 ).

Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 23 March 2021, U-I-1039/2021, ( https://sljeme.usud.hr/Usud/Praksaw.nsf/C12570D30061CE54C12586A200446E08/$FILE/U-I-1039-2021%20i%20dr.pdf ). Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 3 November 2020, U-I-4658/2019, ( https://sljeme.usud.hr/Usud/Praksaw.nsf/C12570D30061CE54C1258615004B58C4/$FILE/U-I-4658-2019%20i%20dr.pdf ). Judgment of the High Administrative Court of 10 December 2020, Usž–2745/18-5, ( https://www.sukobinteresa.hr/sites/default/files/akti/2021/milan_bandic_p-130-14_presuda_visokog_upravnog_suda_republike_hrvatske.pdf ). Judgment of the High Administrative Court of 12 September 2019, Usž-1948/19-2, ( https://www.sukobinteresa.hr/sites/default/files/akti/2019/p-73-18-19-27.pdf ). Judgment of the High Administrative Court of 27 May 2020, Usž – 2889/20-2, ( https://www.sukobinteresa.hr/sites/default/files/akti/2021/andrej_plenkovic_p-381-18_presuda_visokog_upravnog_suda_usz-2889-20.pdf ). Novi list (2021), A new vacancy for the President of the Supreme Court has been published, the deadline for candidacies is 30 days, 31 March 2021, ( https://www.novilist.hr/novosti/hrvatska/raspisan-novi-poziv-za-predsjednika-vrhovnog-suda/?meta_refresh=true ). Office of the President of the Republic (2021), Press release of 8 March 2021, ( https://www.predsjednik.hr/vijesti/predsjednik-republike-predlozio-je-zlatu-durdevic-za-predsjednicu-vrhovnog-suda-republike-hrvatske/ ). Office of the President of the Republic (2021), Press release of 25 March 2021, ( https://www.predsjednik.hr/vijesti/ured-predsjednika-republike-hrvatske-uputio-dopis-drzavnom-sudbenom-vijecu/ ). Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa (2021), Contribution for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. Supreme Court of Croatia (2021), Press release of 18 May 2021, ( http://www.vsrh.hr/EasyWeb.asp?pcpid=560 ). Supreme Court of Croatia (2021), Request from the President of the Supreme Court, 5 March 2021, ( http://www.vsrh.hr/CustomPages/Static/HRV/Files/2021dok/Priopcenja/Prituzba-2021.pdf ). Telegram (2021), Ovo je bomba. Telegram otkriva tajnu snimku: ovako HDZ-ov gradonačelnik Požege diktira koje firme moraju dobiti poslove, 12 January 2021, ( https://www.telegram.hr/politika-kriminal/ovo-je-bomba-telegram-otkriva-tajnu-snimku-ovako-hdz-ov-gradonacelnik-pozege-diktira-koje-firme-moraju-dobiti-poslove/ ). The National reports drafted by the French NHRI (CNCDH), the Croatian, Greek, Serbian and Slovenian National Human Rights Institutions, [date – to be updated], ( http://ennhri.org/rights-at-borders/ ). Večernji list (2020), Dosje o Bandićevoj poskupjeloj Žičari: Laži, aneksi, tužbe ljubavne afere, osvete..., 29 November 2020, ( https://www.vecernji.hr/vijesti/dosje-o-bandicevoj-poskupjeloj-zicari-lazi-aneksi-tuzbe-ljubavne-afere-osvete-1449799 ). Večernji list (2020), USKOK i PNUSKOK provode izvide o sljemenskoj žičari, 27 November 2020, ( https://www.vecernji.hr/vijesti/uskok-i-pnuskok-provode-izvide-o-sljemenskoj-zicari-1449498 ). The Commission services held virtual meetings in April and May 2021 with: ·Ministry of Justice and Administration ·Ministry of Culture and Media

·Office for Cooperation with NGOs ·Government Legislation Office ·Supreme Court ·State Judicial Council ·State Attorney’s Council ·State Attorney’s Office (including USKOK-specialised anti-corruption prosecution) ·PNUSKOK - specialised anti-corruption police ·State Commission for Supervision of Public Procurement Procedures ·Commission for the Prevention of Conflicts of Interest ·Parliamentary National Council for Monitoring Anti-Corruption Strategy Implementation ·Government Council for the Prevention of Corruption ·Secretariat of the Parliament ·Agency for Electronic Media ·Office of the Information Commissioner ·Office of the Public Ombudsperson ·Trade Union of Croatian Journalists ·Croatian Journalists' Association ·Croatian Newspaper Publishers' Association ·State Audit Office ·Association of Judges (Judge Damir Kontrec)

·Bar Association ·GONG ·Centre for Peace Studies ·Human Rights House ·Crosol ·Peace Institute. * The Commission also met the following organisations in a number of horizontal meetings: ·Amnesty International ·Center for Reproductive Rights ·CIVICUS ·Civil Liberties Union for Europe ·Civil Society Europe ·Conference of European Churches ·EuroCommerce ·European Center for Not-for-Profit Law ·European Centre for Press and Media Freedom ·European Civic Forum ·European Federation of Journalists ·European Partnership for Democracy