COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2020 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 2020 Rule of Law Report The rule of law situation in the European Union
Date: 2020-09-30
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: Croatia, administrative transparency, coronavirus disease, corruption, democracy, epidemic, independence of the judiciary, infringement of EU law, political rights, rule of law

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 30.9.2020  SWD(2020) 310 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2020 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  2020 Rule of Law Report       The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2020) 580 final} - {SWD(2020) 300 final} - {SWD(2020) 301 final} - {SWD(2020) 302 final} - {SWD(2020) 303 final} - {SWD(2020) 304 final} - {SWD(2020) 305 final} - {SWD(2020) 306 final} - {SWD(2020) 307 final} - {SWD(2020) 308 final} - {SWD(2020) 309 final} - {SWD(2020) 311 final} - {SWD(2020) 312 final} - {SWD(2020) 313 final} - {SWD(2020) 314 final} - {SWD(2020) 315 final} - {SWD(2020) 316 final} - {SWD(2020) 317 final} - {SWD(2020) 318 final} - {SWD(2020) 319 final} - {SWD(2020) 320 final} - {SWD(2020) 321 final} - {SWD(2020) 322 final} - {SWD(2020) 323 final} - {SWD(2020) 324 final} - {SWD(2020) 325 final} - {SWD(2020) 326 final}  
 
 
ABSTRACT 

The  Croatian  justice  system  has  made  progress  on  reducing  backlogs  and  improving 
electronic  communication  in  courts,  but  is  still  experiencing  serious  efficiency  and  quality 
challenges.  The  level  of  perceived  judicial  independence  remains  among  the  lowest  in  the 
EU.  The  State  Judicial  Council  and  the  State  Attorney’s  Council,  autonomous  and 
independent bodies, are facing challenges to adequately fulfil their mandate due to a lack of 
sufficient  resources  as well as the fact  that their role in  selecting judges  and state attorneys 
has been reduced. These Councils also lack an upgraded IT system that would allow them to 
effectively verify the asset declarations of judges and state attorneys. The centralised postal 
delivery of court documents is a positive example of saving resources in courts. 

Croatia has the legal and policy framework to promote integrity and prevent corruption in the 
public sector broadly in place. A network of authorities contribute to anti-corruption policy-
making  across  all  branches  of  government.  However,  shortcomings  remain  both  in  the 
legislation and practices to combat corruption. Important initiatives to strengthen ethics and 
integrity  amongst  top  executive  functions  and  Members  of  Parliament  and  to  regulate 
lobbying remain unimplemented. Corruption remains of particular concern at the local level 
due  to  structural  weaknesses  in  the  integrity  framework  for  local  office-holders  and  the 
management of local State-owned companies. On 18 September 2020, the Minister of Justice 
and Public Administration announced a new Anti-Corruption Strategy for 2021-2030. 

Croatia’s  legal  and  institutional  framework  guarantees  media  pluralism.  The  Agency  for 
Electronic Media, which is the audiovisual media regulator, functions transparently, but it is 
not  entirely  shielded  from  political  influence  in  relation  to  the  selection  procedure  of  the 
members of its governing body. The rules on transparency of media ownership ensure a solid 
system of ownership notification to the authorities and the public, but the identification of the 
beneficial  owner  can  be  problematic.  Recent  years  witnessed  a  high  number  of  lawsuits 
against  journalists,  threats  of  physical  attack  and  online  harassment,  which  may  have  an 
impact  on  the  editorial  policy  of  media  companies  and  on  the  work  of  investigative 
journalists.  

The  system  of  checks  and  balances  is  supported,  among  others,  through  online  tools  for 
consultation  of  the  public  and  other  stakeholders,  and  by  a  People’s  Ombudsperson  and  an 
Information  Commissioner  competent  for  protecting  the  right  to  access  public  information. 
However,  citizens’  involvement  in  decision-making  remains  relatively  weak.  Constitutional 
review  is  carried  out  by  the  Constitutional  Court,  including  on  the  basis  of  individual 
constitutional  complaints.  The  Government  is  preparing  a  national  plan  to  support  the  civil 
society for the period 2020-2026. 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
I.  JUSTICE SYSTEM  

Croatia  has  a  three-tiered  justice  system,  including  courts  of  general  and  specialised 
jurisdiction. The first  instance courts of  general  jurisdiction are Municipal  (34) and County 
(15)  courts,  with  the  latter  also  functioning  as  second  instance  courts.  The  courts  of 
specialised jurisdiction are nine Commercial and four Administrative courts at first instance, 
and the High Misdemeanour Court, the High Commercial Court and the High Administrative 
Court  at  second  instance.1  The  Supreme  Court  serves  both  as  a  second  and  third  instance 
court.2 An independent State Judicial Council, a self-governance body, ensures the autonomy 
and independence of the judiciary.  It  selects  and appoints judges  and Court Presidents,  and 
decides on their disciplinary responsibility or dismissal. The State Attorney’s Office (DORH) 
is an autonomous, independent judicial body, mainly acting as the prosecution service, and is 
headed  by  the  State  Attorney  General.3  The  powers  over  appointment  and  career  of  state 
attorneys, and the management of the Office rest with the State Attorney’s Council and the 
State  Attorney  General.4  The  State  Attorney’s  Council  is  an  independent  self-governance 
body  tasked  with  ensuring  the  autonomy  and  independence  of  the  State  Attorney’s  Office. 
Among others, it selects and appoints state attorneys and deputy state attorneys, and decides 
on  their  disciplinary  responsibility  or  dismissal.  The  Croatian  Bar  Association  is  an 
independent, self-governing professional organisation. 

Independence 

The  level  of  perceived  judicial  independence,  both  among  companies  and  among  the 
general  public,  remains  very  low.  In  2020,  the  level  of  perceived  judicial  independence 
among  the  general  public  remains  the  lowest  in  the  EU  (only  24%  perceived  judicial 
independence  to  be  fairly  and  very  good),  although  it  improved  compared  to  2019.5  In  the 
same time period, the level of perceived judicial independence among companies decreased 
further (the share perceiving judicial independence to be fairly or very good decreased from 
18%  to  16%),  although  Croatia’s  ranking  improved  to  the  second  lowest  in  the  EU.6  A 
different survey among businesses shows that the level of perceived independence has been 
decreasing  continuously  since  2014-15  and  remains  the  lowest  among  Member  States.7 
According to the 2020 Eurobarometer study, 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.8  The  main  perceived  reason 

1   The  establishment  of  a  new  High  Criminal  Court  is  suspended,  pending  a  decision  of  the  Constitutional 

Court. 

2    The Supreme Court acts as a second instance court when reviewing criminal cases from County courts and 

as a third instance court in exceptional appeals and extraordinary remedies. 

3   The  State  Attorney’s  Office  has  two  department,  one  acting  as  the  prosecution  service,  and  the  other 
undertaking  legal  actions  to  protect  the  property  of  Croatia  and  to  apply  legal  remedies  to  protect  the 
Constitution and the law. 

4    Figures 55 – 57, 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
5   Figure  44,  2020  EU  Justice  Scoreboard.  The  level  of  perceived  judicial  independence  is  categorised  as 
follows: very low (below 30% of respondents perceive judicial independence as fairly good and very good); 
low (between 30-39%), average (between 40-59%), high (between 60-75%), very high (above 75%). 

6   Figure 46, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
7   See the World Economic Forum surveys, presented in Figure 59, 2018 EU Justice Scoreboard, and Figure 

48, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. 

8   Figure  45,  2020  EU  Justice  Scoreboard.  To  be  noted  that  the  share  of  general  public  stating  this  reason 

remains the highest in the EU among the general public in comparative terms. 

2 

 
 
 
                                                 
stated by the companies is the perception of interference or pressure from economic or other 
specific  interests,  closely  followed  by  the  perception  of  interference  or  pressure  from  the 
Government  and  politicians.9  Since  the  last  comprehensive  survey  of  court  users  or  legal 
professionals  was  conducted  in  2015,  there  is  no  recent  data  examining  in  more  detail  the 
specific  reasons  among  the  different  stakeholders  behind  the  persistently  low  level  of 
perceived judicial independence concerning the Croatian justice system.10    

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. 
The  Law  on  State  Judicial  Council11  and  the  Law  on  State  Attorney’s  Council12  were 
amended in 2018.13 These changes were triggered by a judgment delivered in 2018, in which 
the  Constitutional  Court14  held  that  the  State  Judicial  Council  had  not  provided  sufficient 
reasoning  in  its  decision  on  the  appointment  of  a  judge  to  another  court.15  Judicial  and 
prosecutorial posts are filled in a merit-based process based on a scoring system, which takes 
into  account  two  elements.  The  first  one  is  either  the  final  score  of  the  candidate  in  the 
National School for judges or state attorneys or, in case of appointment to another court of an 
existing judge, the assessment of judicial performance. The second element is the interview 

9   Figure  47,  2020  EU  Justice  Scoreboard.  To  be  noted  that  the  share  of  companies  who  mentioned  these 

reasons remains the highest in the EU among companies in comparative terms. 

the 

10   See  Figure  45,  2017  EU  Justice  Scoreboard,  which  shows  that  in  2015  a  survey  was  conducted  into  the 
following  topics:  accessibility  of  the  court  service,  customer  service  at  the  court,  the  conducting  of  the 
hearing, 
lawyer. 
See  also  Figure  49,  2018  EU  Justice  Scoreboard,  Figure  42,  2019  EU  Justice  Scoreboard,  and  Figure  42, 
2020 EU Justice Scoreboard, showing that in 2016, 2017, or 2018, no surveys were conducted. 

service  provided  by 

judgment/decision  of 

the  court,  and 

11   The  State  Judicial  Council  has  eleven  members,  consisting  of  seven  judges  elected  by  their  peers,  two 
university professors of law and two Members of Parliament, one of whom is from the opposition. Members 
of the Council are elected for a four-year term, and can be re-elected only once. The Council is responsible 
for appointing and dismissing judges and court presidents, deciding on the immunity, transfer and external 
activities  of  judges,  conducting  disciplinary  proceedings  and  deciding  on  disciplinary  responsibility  of 
judges, participating in training of judges and court clerks, adopting a  methodology  for evaluating judges, 
keeping the personal records and verifying asset declarations of judges. 

the 

the 

12   The State Attorney Council has eleven members, consisting of seven deputy state attorneys elected by their 
peers,  two  university  professors  of  law  and  two  Members  of  Parliament,  one  of  whom  is  from  the 
opposition. The members of the Council are elected  for a four-year term, and can be re-elected only once. 
The Council's mandate includes the appointment and dismissal of state attorneys, deciding on the transfer of 
and  external  activities  of  state  attorneys,  conducting  disciplinary  proceedings  and  deciding  on  disciplinary 
responsibility  of  state  attorneys,  participating  in  the  training  of  state  attorneys,  deciding  on  objections  to 
evaluations  of  state  attorneys,  keeping  the  personal  records  and  verifying  the  asset  declarations  of  state 
attorneys.   

13   Amended  Articles  55,  55a  and  56,  Law  on  State’s  Judicial  Council,  July  2018,  NN  67/2018. 

Articles 56 and 57, Law on State’s Attorney’s Council, July 2018, NN 67/2018. 

14   To be noted that the review before the Constitutional Court is a regular remedy available to any unsuccessful 

candidate for a position of a judge or state attorney. 

15   Constitutional Court, judgment of 22 May 2018, U-III-5074/2017. Since the reasoning in the State Judicial 
Council’s decision  was insufficient,  the Constitutional Court struck it down and returned the  matter to the 
Council  for a  new procedure  and decision-making. In particular, the  Constitutional Court stressed that the 
Council  had  failed  to  justify  why  it  had  chosen  a  candidate  that  had  a  lower  number  of  points,  which  are 
assigned  to  every  candidate  according  to  pre-established  criteria  in  the  Law  on  State  Judicial  Council  and 
related Council acts (e.g. based on the results of previous judicial work, experience, advanced legal degrees). 
Following  the  prescribed  assigning  of  points,  most  candidates  are  awarded  a  relatively  similar  number  of 
points 
candidates. 
each 
The  Constitutional  Court  in  a  later  judgment  of  24  June  2020,  U-III-3053/2018,  again  struck  down  the 
decision  of  the  State  Judicial  Council  of  July  2018  in  a  repeated  appointment  procedure  following  its 
judgment  U-III-5074/2017.  The  Court  again  stressed  (see  para.  42)  the  obligation  of  the  State  Judicial 
Council to provide reasoning disclosing the criteria and reasons on which it based its appointment decision, 
and that this requirement does not impede the autonomy and independence of the Council.  

therefore 

other 

close 

and 

list 

are 

the 

on 

of 

to 

3 

 
 
                                                 
before the respective Council. However, as raised by the Constitutional Court, despite having 
been awarded fewer points, candidates could still be selected without proper reasoning. The 
stated aim of the 2018 amendments  was to increase the objectivity  and transparency of the 
appointment procedure by, among others, decreasing the number of points that each Council 
can  award  to  candidates  based  on  the  interview.16  In  doing  so,  however,  the  amendments 
reduced  the  possibility  of  Councils  to  distinguish  amongst  candidates  through  the  award  of 
points  after  the  interview.  They  also  limited  the  choice  of  candidates  among  which  the 
Councils can conduct an interview. The combined effect of these changes was to diminish the 
role  of  the  Councils  in  selecting  candidates  for  judicial  or  prosecutorial  office.  The 
consequences  of  these  amendments  could  be  seen  in  some  procedures  for  appointment  in 
2019 and 2020, where Councils faced challenges in trying to avoid reducing the appointment 
procedure to a mechanical counting of points.17 The decision of the Constitutional Court has 
triggered a reflection in the State Judicial Council and the State Attorney’s Council on how to 
improve the reasoning in their decisions and opinions, including through more clearly defined 
criteria  to  be  taken  into  account  when  assigning  the  points  in  the  interview.  However,  the 
possibility  of  further  improving  the  work  quality  of  both  Councils,  including  by  following 
best practices on appointment of judges developed among Councils for the Judiciary, is more 
work-intensive  and  therefore  dependent  upon  the  availability  of  sufficient  financial  and 
human resources.18 In that respect, it should be noted that both Councils are facing significant 
resource challenges and that their administrative capacity is very low, despite an increase of 
financial resources.19  

The verification of asset declarations of judges and state attorneys remains a challenge 
for the State Judicial Council and the State Attorney’s Council. Amendments to the Law 
on the State Judicial Council in 2018, and a new 2018 Law on the State Attorney’s Council 
provided for the online system of asset declarations of judicial officials. The online platform 
aims  at  enhancing  integrity  and  transparency,  preventing  conflicts  of  interest  as  well  as 
strengthening public trust in the justice system. The publication of assets of judges and state 
attorneys, which is now expected in the course of 2020, was delayed by the need to address 
data  protection  requirements  raised  by  the  Data  Protection  Authority.20  However,  the 
envisaged  IT  system  for  the  automated  verification  of  asset  declarations  is  not  yet 
operational. Notably, the asset declarations database is not yet connected with the database of 
the tax authority and the land registry.21 Consequently, it is not yet possible to automatically 
detect inconsistencies between the declared and real assets. 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.  Disclosure  of  only  verified  and  corrected  data  is 

16   See 

draft 
https://www.sabor.hr/sites/default/files/uploads/sabor/2019-01-18/081446/PZ_301.pdf. 

memorandum 

explanatory 

the 

the 

to 

amendments, 

17   Information received in the context of the country visit. 
18   For example, according to best practices, shared among the members of the European Network of Councils 
for the Judiciary,  some councils compare, based on a set of criteria, each candidate  judge  with everybody 
else. Such a practice requires adequate human resources in the council. 

19   See more on the Councils’ resource issue below, section on Quality of the Justice system. 
20   Input from Croatia for the 2020 Rule of Law Report.  
21   The  upgrade  of  the  IT  system  for  submitting  and  making  publicly  available  asset  declarations  of  judicial 
officials  requires  further  action  in  relation  to  the  automatic  verification  of  data.  This  includes  concluding 
memorandums  of  understanding  between  the  State  Judicial  Council  and  the  State  Attorney's  Council  and 
other  competent  bodies  (e.g.  Tax  Administration,  Land  Registry,  Ministry  of  Interior),  regarding  the 
information exchange that the relevant competent authorities have in their databases. 

4 

 
 
                                                 
important for achieving the declared objective of the reform, which is increasing public trust 
in the justice system. 

Quality 

Despite  continued  progress,  the  use  of  electronic  communication  and  electronic  case 
management  systems  in  courts  remains  limited.  Information  and  Communication 
Technologies (ICT) for case management and the electronic communication between courts 
and parties are among the least developed in the EU.22 For example, it is not always possible 
to  submit  a  case  or  to  receive  summons  electronically.  In  recent  years,  continued  advances 
have  been  made  with  regard  to  the  ICT  system  for  case  management,  including  plans  to 
extend  the  unified  system  to  the  administrative  courts,  which  currently  use  a  legacy  ICT 
system. As regards the electronic communication between courts and parties23, the possibility 
to  submit  claims  electronically  has  so  far  been  introduced  in  all  Commercial,  County  and 
Municipal  courts.24  However,  room  for  improvement  remains,  particularly  in  County  and 
Municipal courts, where uptake remains low in communication with the tax authority and in 
popularising the tools among the legal professionals.25 

In  order  to  unburden  the  courts’  administrative  staff  and  speed  up  the  delivery  of 
judicial decisions, in 2019, a centralised postal delivery was introduced. This tool enables 
the  electronic  submission  of  documents  (signed  by  qualified  electronic  signature)  from  the 
courts to the postal service provider for delivery in letter form to court parties (the status of 
delivery is  updated online).  In May 2020, the centralised postal  delivery  increased to  about 
80%  of  all  court  writs  in  Commercial  courts  (about  28%  in  Municipal  courts),  while  the 
uptake in County courts remained low.26  

The State Judicial Council and State Attorney’s Council, as well as the State Attorney’s 
Office,  are  experiencing  challenges  in  terms  of  human  resources.  The  State  Judicial 
Council and the State Attorney’s Council have considerable powers27, but their administrative 
capacity remains very limited. The number of employees is very low, taking into account that 
only  the  President  of  the  State Judicial  Council is  mostly  relieved  of  his/her  judicial  duties 
(by  75%),  while  other  judge-members  are  relieved  only  in  a  small  part  (by  20%).28  In  the 

22   Figures 40 and 27, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
23   The  ICT  system  allows,  via  a  qualified  electronic  signature,  for  submission  of  documents  from  lawyers, 
insolvency administrators, court experts and public notaries.  In 2019, electronic communication  with court 
users  exceeded  90,000  exchanges  in  Commercial  and  17,000  in  some  Municipal  courts  (mostly  from 
lawyers,  and  insolvency  cases  from  insolvency  administrators  and  the  Financial  Agency  (FINA),  and  less 
from notaries and court experts). 

24   In  May  2020,  out  of  all  writs  in  Commercial  courts,  about  36%  of  court  filings  from  parties  (23%  in 
Municipal courts), and 44%  of  writs sent  from courts to parties  have been sent through e-Communication 
(18% in Municipal courts). Input from Croatia for the 2020 Rule of Law Report. 

25   To be noted that in order to tackle the issue, the Ministry of Justice requested support through the Structural 
Reform  Support  Programme  –  2020.  The  project  “Support  to  the  implementation  of  e-communication  in 
Croatian  judiciary”,  to  be  implemented  with  the  Council  of  Europe  (CEPEJ),  will  support  the  Ministry  of 
Justice  to address  the poor uptake of  the e-communication system and popularize  it,  in  order to fully take 
advantage of the benefits of digitalized processes for the end users. 
26   Data on the use of electronic communication, Ministry of justice, 2020.  
27   See footnotes 11 and 12 above. 
28   See Art. 4.a, Law on the State Judicial Council. President and members of the State Attorney’s Council, who 
are 
duties.  
For a comparative perspective of resources of Councils for the Judiciary, see ENCJ contribution to the Rule 

professional 

attorneys, 

relieved 

their 

state 

not 

are 

of 

5 

 
 
 
                                                 
period  2017-2019,  the  financial  resources  of  the  State  Judicial  Council  and  the  State 
Attorney’s  Council  increased  by  25%  and  28%,  respectively.  However,  due  to  a  lack  of 
financial resources, in 2020, the State Judicial Council employed only five officials, despite 
the personnel plan allowing for eleven officials. The State Attorney’s Council has only three 
officials  (personnel  plan  allows  for  ten  officials).  Given  the  lack  of  sufficient  human 
resources, the State Attorney’s Council faces difficulties in developing a strategic approach to 
improving the overall quality of the State Attorney’s Office.29 The lack of resources at both 
Councils presents a serious challenge particularly in relation to the upcoming publication of 
assets,  and  the  need  to  verify  the  information  submitted  by  1,712  judges  and  635  state 
attorneys.30 As regards the State Attorney’s Office, the human resources have been increased 
(new  deputy  state  attorneys  and  trainees).  However,  it  remains  difficult  to  attract  qualified 
candidates  for  specialised  financial  investigators,  because  of  uncompetitive  employment 
conditions.31 The lack of financial specialists has negative repercussions on the ability of the 
State  Attorney’s  Office  to  fight  against  economic  and  financial  crime,  since  these 
investigators  were  meant  to  assist  state  attorneys  in  analysing  complex  financial  data.  The 
State  Attorney’s  Office  proposed  to  the  Government  to  raise  the  salaries  of  prospective 
financial investigators.32  

The  consecutive  judicial  map  reforms,  the  latest  in  2019,  have  contributed  to  evening 
out  the  workload  among  judges  and  to  improving  efficiency.  The  2015  judicial  map 
reforms  reduced  the  number  of  first  instance  courts,  and  changed  the  allocation  of  appeal 
cases  to  all  second-instance  courts,  with  some  becoming  specialised.33  In  2019,  all 
Misdemeanour courts were integrated into the  Municipal courts.34  The reform  was justified 
by a trend in recent years of decreasing numbers of misdemeanour cases, requiring flexibility 
in  assigning  judges  to  these  cases.  The  new  reform  could  bring  efficiency  gains,  as  more 
judges  could  work  in  areas  facing  challenges  (e.g.  civil  cases).  At  the  end  of  2019,  the 
establishment  of  a  specialised  second  instance  High  Criminal  Court  was  put  on  hold, 
following  an  order  for  interim  measures  of  the  Constitutional  Court,  which  is  examining  a 
request for constitutional review of the amendments establishing this Court.35 

Publication of first and second instance court judgments remains very limited. The rate 
of  online  publication  of  judgments  is  the  lowest  in  the  EU.36  The  upgraded  ICT  system  is 
capable  of  processing  a  larger  number  of  judgments.  However,  online  publication  remains 
very  limited,  as  the  judgments  are  not  systematically  prepared  (e.g.  anonymised)  and 

of Law Report, May 2020, p. 9. For a comparative perspective on powers of the Councils for the Judiciary, 
see Figure 50, 2016 EU Justice Scoreboard. 

29   In  particular,  the  training  of  entry-level  prosecutors  could  be  further  improved,  by  focussing  on  practical 

skills. 

30   See  more  on  the  issue  of  publication  of  assets  above,  section  on  Independence  of  the  Justice  system. 
Data on the number of judges and State Attorney’s on 31 December 2019, Input from Croatia for the 2020 
Rule of Law Report. 

31   Report for 2019 of the State Attorney’s Office. 
32   With the aim of encouraging employment of financial investigators, the employment procedure for this post 
has  been  simplified.  Upon  request  of  the  State  Attorney’s  Office,  the  Government  has  the  authority  to 
allocate ad hoc additional resources related to specific complex cases, which includes the hiring of financial 
investigators. 

33   The reform also enlarged the geographic areas of first instance courts, which may entail a more regular use 
of  the  power  entrusted  to  the  Presidents  of  Municipal  courts  to  assign,  by  means  of  an  annual  work  plan, 
judges to particular types of cases or geographic locations. To be noted that a judge, who is dissatisfied with 
the annual work plan, is able to request review from the County Court President. 

34   This reform reduced the number of first instance courts from 46 to 34. 
35   Constitutional Court, U-I-4658/2019, U-I-4659/2019, 17.12.2019.  
36   Figure 28, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard.  

6 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                        
uploaded  into  the  platform.  In  addition,  the  machine  readability  of  published  judgments, 
which would allow the development of services for court users based on artificial intelligence 
solutions, is the second lowest in the EU.37 

Efficiency 

Despite progress in resolving the oldest cases, the backlogs and length of proceedings in 
civil and commercial courts remain among the most considerable in the EU.38 In 2019, 
the average length of proceedings in the first instance courts remained among the longest in 
the EU, with around 855 and 735 days for litigious civil and commercial cases, respectively, 
an increase compared to 2018.39 The average length in enforcement cases  before Municipal 
and Commercial courts continuously increased, reaching 797 days. However, before  second 
instance County courts, the litigious civil cases took only 258 days, on average.40 Similarly, 
at second instance High Commercial Court, the average length of litigious commercial cases 
further decreased to 634 days. At the Supreme Court, it took 720 days, on average, to resolve 
a civil case. A Ministry of Justice initiative to resolve the pending cases 10 years and older, 
developed  in  cooperation  with  Court  Presidents  who  voluntarily  prepare  action  plans, 
continued with solid results. Between 2016 and 2019, the number of such cases was reduced 
by  about  50%.41  Backlogs  in  commercial  cases  continued  to  decrease,  mainly  due  to 
improved  business  processes  initiated  by  the  High  Commercial  Court.  Despite  the  latter 
experiencing an increase in incoming cases, the backlogs were reduced by more than 20% at 
the  end  of  2019,  compared  to  2018.  These  improvements  in  handling  commercial  cases 
consist in assigning procedural work to the court staff, thereby allowing the judges to focus 
on the merits of the case. The business process reform is being partially extended to the first 
instance Commercial courts. Further progress in reducing backlogs was also achieved in civil 
cases at all instances, but the Municipal courts are currently facing an exceptional influx of 
cases concerning loans linked to the Swiss franc 42 and personal insolvencies.43 

Amendments  to  the  criminal  procedure  aim  to  increase  the  efficiency  of  the  criminal 
justice  system,  where  considerable  backlogs  and  lengthy  proceedings  remain  a 
challenge.  In  2019,  backlogs  and  length  of  proceedings  increased  in  first  instance  cases  at 
Municipal and County courts (to 678 and 930 days on average, respectively). This increase 
was  partly  due  to  the  priority  given  to  resolving  the  oldest  cases,  which  raised  the  average 
length of resolved cases. However, at the Supreme Court, it only took 138 days, on average, 
to  resolve  a  criminal  case  in  2019.  A  reported  lack  of  procedural  discipline  by  lawyers  in 
to  considerable  delays.44 
court  proceedings  for  approving 
indictments  often 
Amendments of December 2019 to the Criminal Procedure Act aim to speed up proceedings 
before  the  indictment  panel  and  criminal  proceedings  as  a  whole.45  In  2019,  the  State 

leads 

37   Figure 29, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
38   Figures 5 – 19, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
39   Data for 2019, Ministry of Justice.  
40   Compared to 2018, the length of proceedings further decreased in 2019. 
41   Input from Croatia for the 2020 Rule of Law Report.  
42   Following  the  Supreme  Court  judgment  on  the  availability  of  legal  remedy  in  those  situations.  Supreme 

Court, Judgment of 12 February 2019, Rev 2868/2018-2. 

43   Following the amendments to the Law on Personal Insolvency, 10.7.2018, NN 67/2018-1364, .  
44   Information received in the context of the country visit. 
45   The  issue  stems  from  the  previous  possibility  for  defence  lawyers  to  request  from  the  panel  of  judges  to 
declare  the  evidence  submitted  by  the  State  Attorneys  as  inadmissible  in  a  consecutive  way,  in  different 
hearings  of  the  panel  of  judges  that  is  reviewing  the  submitted  indictment.  The  consequence  of  this 
procedure  was  that  each  time  that  the  panel  rejected  to  declare  a  piece  of  evidence  as  inadmissible,  the 
lawyers could start separate  appeal procedure, which then  ended up before  higher courts, and long lasting 

7 

 
 
                                                 
Attorney’s Office processed more criminal cases than it received (a clearance rate of 102%), 
which lowered the backlogs by almost 23%.46   

II.  ANTI-CORRUPTION FRAMEWORK  

Croatia  has  developed  a  legal  and  policy  framework  to  promote  integrity  and  prevent 
corruption in the public sector and for that purpose, it has established a network of authorities 
that contribute to policy-making across all branches of government. Croatia has a specialised 
prosecutor’s office charged with prosecuting corruption and organised crime, the Office for 
the  Suppression  of  Corruption  and  Organised  Crime  (USKOK),47  as  well  as  a  specialised 
police  department  within  the  Ministry  of  the  Interior,  the  Police  National  Office  for  the 
Suppression  of  Corruption  and  Organised  Crime  (PNUSKOK).  The  latter  is  mandated  to 
prevent, detect, and investigate complex corruption-related crimes.  

In  the  2019  Transparency  International  Corruption  Perceptions  Index,  Croatia  has  a 
score of 47/100 and ranks 18th among EU Member States and 63rd globally. Croatia also 
features  among  the  worst  performing  Member  States  in  the  2020  Eurobarometer  survey  on 
citizens’ perception of corruption.48 97% of Croatians consider corruption to be widespread 
in their country (EU average 71%) and 54% of people feel personally affected by corruption 
in  their  daily  lives  (EU  average  26%).  As  regards  businesses,  91%  of  companies  consider 
corruption  to  be  widespread  (EU  average  63%),  and  57%  of  companies  consider  that 
corruption is a problem when doing business (EU average 37%). In addition, 28% of people 
find that there are enough successful prosecutions to deter people from corrupt practices (EU 
average  36%),  while  16%  of  companies  consider  that  people  and  businesses  caught  for 
bribing a senior official are appropriately punished (EU average 31%).49 

The legal framework is largely in place. The Criminal Code criminalises different types of 
corruption  and  provides  specific  penalties,  sanctions  and  measures  such  as  confiscation  or 
seizure. However, in accordance with the Law on Government, members of the Government 
cannot  be  prosecuted  without  the  prior  approval  of  the  Government  itself  for  a  criminal 
offence  for  which  up  to  five  years’  imprisonment  is  foreseen.50  GRECO  has  stated  that  a 
review of the system of political immunities for members of the Government is needed, as it 
is too far-reaching and needs to exclude corruption-related offences to prevent it acting as an 
obstacle  to  the  prosecution  of  high-level  corruption.51  In  July  2020,  the  Government 
announced  that  it  would  propose  to  abolish  the  immunity  regime  for  members  of  the 
Government.52 

appeal  procedures.  According  to  the  amended  rules,  the  requests  for  inadmissibility  of  evidence  will  now 
have to be concentrated in one hearing of the panel, and will later not be allowed, with some explicitly listed 
exceptions.  

46   Report for 2019 of the State Attorney’s Office, April 2020, p. 17. The following types of criminal cases are 
counted  in  this  overview:  criminal  notifications  from  police,  public  and  others,  investigation,  research, 
second instance procedure, request for protection of legality in criminal and misdemeanour cases, and other 
criminal cases (in total amounting to nearly 129 000 incoming cases in 2019).  

47   In Zagreb, Split, Rijeka and Osijek. 
48   Special Eurobarometer 502. 
49   482 Flash Eurobarometer. 
50   GRECO Fifth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report, recommendation xi, para. 96. 
51   GRECO Fifth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report, recommendation xi, para. 99. 
52   http://hr.n1info.com/Video/Info/a529417/Plenkovic-najavio-ukidanje-imuniteta-za-clanove-Vlade-To-je-

relikt-devedesetih.html. 

8 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                        
The  Anti-Corruption  Strategy  2015-2020  focuses  primarily  on  the  prevention  of 
corruption.  The  strategy  contains  seven  horizontal  goals  and  includes  the  “integrity  of  the 
political  system  and  administration”  as  one  of  its  primary  objectives.  The  overarching 
strategy  was  accompanied  by  three  more  detailed  two-year  action  plans.  These  focussed 
primarily on educational and training initiatives and developing guidance manuals as well as 
planning  dedicated  legislation.  The  2015-16  and  2017-18  plans  were  both  partially 
implemented,  and  assessments  show  that  88%  of  2019’s  planned  activities  are  either 
implemented,  or  partially  implemented.53  However,  certain  crucial  legislative  and  integrity 
initiatives  were  delayed.54  In  May  2019,  the  Government  adopted  the  Anti-Corruption 
Programme for state-owned companies 2019-2020, with measures focussing on intensifying 
internal  and  external  supervision  of  majority  state-owned  companies  and  establishing 
transparent criteria for assessing business efficiency. Other measures focus on creating clear 
rules  on  the  appointment  of  members  of  management  and  supervisory  boards,  and 
strengthening  mechanisms  to  prevent  conflicts  of  interest.55  Reportedly,  however,  the 
proposed  introduction  of  compliance  and  ethics  officers  to  increase  transparency  and 
efficiency in state-owned enterprises has not been implemented by several entities.56 On 18 
September  2020,  the  Minister  of  Justice  and  Public  Administration  announced  a  new  Anti-
Corruption Strategy for 2021-2030.57 

A  network  of  authorities  is  established  for  anti-corruption  policy-making  across  all 
branches of government. The Ministry of Justice is the central corruption prevention body 
with  a  dedicated  unit  for  coordinating  the  implementation  of  anticorruption  strategies  and 
related action plans. It also acts as a central body for exchanging data on the suppression of 
corruption.58  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 and report to Parliament twice a year. Besides the key repressive bodies, namely 
USKOK and PNUSKOK, several other bodies exist in the framework to prevent corruption. 
These include the Ministry of Public Administration, the State Audit Office, the Anti-Money 
Laundering Office, the Commission for the Prevention of Conflicts of Interest and the State 
Commission for Supervision of Public Procurement Procedures.  

Whilst  civil  servants  abide  by  a  code  of  conduct,  there  is  no  such  code  in  place  for 
Members of Parliament and top executive functions. The Civil Servants Act and the Code 
of Ethics for Civil Servants (the Code) establish  basic ethical principles.  The Code sets out 
the  rules  of  conduct  and  establishes  an  institutional  framework  for  its  implementation.  The 
Ethics  Commission  for  Civil  Servants  is  a  second-instance  body  dealing  with  complaints 
from  citizens  and  officials,  and  an  Ethics  Department  within  the  Ministry  of  Public 
Administration  provides  educational  activities.  Whilst  a  code  of  ethics  is  in  place  for  civil 
servants,  a  code  of  conduct  for  Members  of  Parliament  is  lacking.  A  related  GRECO 

53   Croatian Parliament report on Action plan implementation: 55/126 actions for 2015-2016 were implemented 
(44%), some unimplemented actions were transferred to the following year. 87/126 actions in the 2017-2018 
action plan were implemented (69%). 
54   Anti Corruption Action Plans 2016-2020. 
55   Antikorupcijski program za trgovačka društva u većinskom državnom vlasništvu 2019-2020. 
56   Information received in the context of the country visit. 
57   Announcement of 18 September 2020:  https://vlada.gov.hr/vijesti/malenica-najavio-izradu-nove-strategije-

borbe-protiv-korupcije/30397 

58   Regulation on Internal Organisation of Ministry of Justice (Art. 126). 

9 

 
 
 
                                                 
recommendation  asked  to  develop  and  adopt  such  a  code,  coupled  with  a  supervision  and 
enforcement mechanism.59 Similarly, no code of conduct providing guidance on conflicts of 
interest and other integrity-related matters is in place for top executive functions.60 

Legislation  on  the  prevention  of  conflicts  of  interest  is  in  place,  although  it  needs 
attention  as  regards  its  implementation  and  a  clear  authority  of  its  supervisory  body. 
The  Law  on  the  Prevention  of  Conflicts  of  Interest  contains  detailed  rules  on  conflicts  of 
interest, incompatibilities, gifts and financial declarations. It sets out the general principles of 
action  in  the  exercise  of  public  office,  including  persons  entrusted  with  top  executive 
functions. The law confers a central role on the independent Commission for the Resolution 
of Conflicts of Interest (‘the Commission’), which supervises the implementation of the law, 
verifies financial declarations and conducts trainings.61 The Commission can initiate conflicts 
of  interest  proceedings  and  render  decisions  on  whether  a  particular  action  represents  an 
infringement. It can impose sanctions, such as admonition or withholding part of an official’s 
monthly  salary.  It  has  played  a  proactive  role  in  upholding  the  Law  on  the  Prevention  of 
Conflicts  of  Interest,  in  particular  when  it  comes  to  top  executive  functions.  Whilst  it  can 
impose  administrative  sanctions  for  non-compliance,  its  ability  to  verify  information  and 
enforce  decisions  appears  limited  by  its  lack  of  full  access  to  information  and  non-
cooperation  by  officials.  Upon  judicial  review,  decisions  of  the  Commission  have  been 
quashed, in particular concerning top executive functions. Past decisions have also triggered 
criticism  from 
the  Commission  and  Non-Governmental 
Organisations  to  notify  the  Council  of  Europe  of  increased  non-compliance  with  its 
decisions.62 The Commission is dependent on the cooperation of authorities when it comes to 
checks  on 
issued  several 
recommendations with regard to the Commission’s role. These include improved possibilities 
to  obtain  information  necessary  for  the  verification  of  financial  declarations,  reviewing  the 
available  sanctions  for  violations  of  the  Law  on  the  Prevention  of  Conflicts  of  Interest  to 
ensure  adequate  consequences,  and  enabling  the  effective  verification  of  financial 
declarations. It also recommended that a requirement of ad hoc disclosure be introduced for 
top  executive  functions  in  situations  of  conflicts  between  private  interests  and  official 
functions.63  Whilst  the  authorities  have  increased  the  Commission’s  budget  and  plan  to 
amend the Law on the Prevention of Conflicts of Interest in 2020, the European Commission 
and international evaluations have highlighted the importance of ensuring that the Conflicts 
of  Interest  Commission has sufficient  powers to  impose deterrent  sanctions and perform  its 
essential preventive role.64 Croatia is planning amendments of the Law on the prevention of 
conflicts of interest and the Ministry of Administration established a Working Group for the 
preparation of this draft proposal. 

the  financial  declarations.  However,  GRECO  has  also 

the  Government, 

leading 

59   GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report, recommendations i and iii. 
60   GRECO Fifth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report, recommendation ii, para. 41.  
61   Prevention of Conflicts of Interest Act. 
62   GONG letter to GRECO, 1.10.2019. 
63   GRECO Fifth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report, recommendations viii, ix and x, para. 4. 
64   Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the verification of the 
full  application  of  the  Schengen  acquis  by  Croatia,  COM(2019)  497  final,  22.10.2020;  Council 
Recommendation  of  20  July  2020  on  the  2020  National  Reform  Programme  of  Croatia  and  delivering  a 
Council  opinion  on  the  2020  Stability  Programme  on  the  2020  Convergence  Programme  of  Croatia, 
https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-8430-2020-INIT/en/pdf. 
In 2018, HRK 5,048,458.28 was allocated  for the  work of the Commission. In 2019 the allocated amount 
was HRK 6,493,939.00. The budget for 2020 amounts HRK 7,810,718. 

10 

 
 
                                                 
While  measures  exist  to  prevent  local-level  corruption,  the  corresponding  supervisory 
and  enforcement  mechanisms  remain  weak.  Croatia  has  established  a  framework 
governing  the  prevention  of  conflicts  of  interest  of  state  and  local  officials,  consisting  of 
special Acts. The Civil Servants and Employees in Local and Regional Self-Government Act 
applies  to  local  officials  employed  in  the  governing  bodies  of  local  and  regional  self-
government  units.  Whilst  not  prohibiting  the  existence  of  private  interests,  it  forbids  the 
abuse  of  office  from  unresolved  conflicts  of  interest  and  establishes  sanctions  for  non-
compliance.  In  spite  of  this,  the  large  majority  of  corruption  cases  occur  at  local  or  county 
level. Eurobarometer surveys indicate that concerns regarding conflicts of interest remain at 
both local level and at the level of state-owned and controlled companies, many of which are 
owned/controlled  by  municipalities.65  Yet,  the  current  scope  of  legislation  on  conflicts  of 
interest  does  not  include  the  chairpersons  and  board  members  of  companies  in  which  the 
local  government  has  a  majority  share,  as  well  as  the  presidents  and  board  members  of 
companies  that  are  majority-owned  by  these  companies.  However,  Croatia  is  planning 
amendments  of  the  Law  on  the  Prevention  of  Conflicts  of  Interest,  and  the  Ministry  of 
Administration  established  a  Working  Group  for  the  preparation  of  this  draft  proposal.  In 
addition,  the  current  Law  on  Local  and  Regional  Self-Governance  gives  local  officials 
considerable discretion in decision-making about disposals of assets and finances of up to one 
million  Croatian  kuna  (HRK)  and  on  the  appointment  of  board  members  of  public  local 
companies, leaving substantial scope for corruption. At the regional level, 17 counties have 
recently  set  up  their  own  Anti-Corruption  Commissions  and  some  have  adopted  internal 
action plans to combat corruption and develop codes of conduct for officials at regional level.  

Although  rules  are  in  place  for  asset  declarations  and  ‘revolving  doors’,  these  have 
shortcomings. Officials covered by the law on prevention of conflicts of interest are required 
to  declare  assets,  whether  acquired  or  inherited,  and  to  identify  the  source  of  income  from 
professional and non-professional activities. They are also required to declare the assets and 
income  of  their  spouses  or  partners  and  any  underage  children.  The  Commission  for  the 
Prevention  of  Conflicts  of  Interest  publishes  the  contents  of  these  declarations  online.66 
However,  in  practice,  officials  only  submit  their  declarations  upon  taking  up  their  position 
and upon termination or re-appointment, whilst not submitting ad hoc declarations to reflect 
any change in status during their mandate. Whereas the Commission may request an ad hoc 
declaration,  it  has  a  limited  ability  to  sanction  incorrect  declarations.  Individuals  in  top 
executive  functions,  even  though  expected  to  adhere  to  higher  integrity  and  transparency 
standards,  are  not  obliged  to  submit  regular  financial  declarations.67  The  Law  on  the 
Prevention of Conflicts of Interest contains a cooling-off period of one year for officials. This 
period  has  been  considered  too  short  by  GRECO,  which  has  also  recommended  that  the 
Commission  for  the  Prevention  of  Conflicts  of  Interests  be  given  a  mediating  role  in 
assessing potential conflicts in movement from the public to the private sector.68   

There are no detailed rules to regulate contacts of individuals in top executive functions 
with  lobbyists.  There  are  also  no  reporting  or  disclosure  requirements  applicable  to  those 
who  seek  to  influence  government  actions  and  policies.  Rules  on  how  to  engage  with 
lobbyists and other third parties seeking to influence the Government’s decision-making were 
recognised  in  successive  anti-corruption  plans,  and  the  latest  plan  intends  to  draft  a 
framework regulating lobbying in 2020. 

65   State Attorney’s Office, Report for 2019, April 2020, and Eurobarometer 502 and Eurobarometer 482. 
66   GRECO Fifth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report, recommendation vii, para. 79. 
67   GRECO Fifth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report, recommendation viii, para. 82. 
68   GRECO Fifth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report, para. 78. 

11 

 
 
                                                 
Whistle-blower  protection  was  introduced  by  the  July  2019  Law  on  the  Protection  of 
Reporters  of  Irregularities  Act.  The  law  has  a  wide  scope  of  application,  which  extends 
beyond corruption to include violations of laws, regulations and actions that pose threats to 
the  public  interest.  The  People’s  Ombudsperson  is  the  body  competent  for  the  external 
reporting of irregularities. In accordance with its new mandate, the Ombudsperson received 
additional  resources  from  the  state  budget  for  promotional  activities.69  The  Ministry  of 
Justice  is  also  carrying  out  training  for  officials  in  charge  of  implementing  the  Act  and  a 
media  campaign  is  planned.  However,  across  the  EU,  Croatia  recorded  in  2019  the  most 
marked increase since 2017 in citizens mentioning the lack of protection for whistleblowers 
as the primary reason for not reporting corruption cases (39%, + 10 percentage points  since 
2017).70 

Despite  negative  perceptions,  specialised  offices  have  established  a  consistent  track 
record  for  prosecuting  corruption.  In  April  2019,  the  Ministry  of  Justice  established  a 
working  group  for  drafting  amendments  to  the  Law  on  the  Office  for  the  Suppression  of 
Corruption  and  Organised  Crime.  The  amendments  aim  to  increase  the  efficiency  in 
prosecuting organised crime and corruption, as well as to align and harmonise it with other 
relevant domestic legislation.71 Both USKOK and PNUSKOK have built up a track record in 
investigating and prosecuting high-level corruption-related offences.72 According to the State 
Attorney’s Annual Report, during 2019 there were a total of 1 365 criminal complaints73 to 
USKOK, of which 1 003 (about 73%) were related to corruption. Amongst these complaints, 
879  (about  88%)  were  for  abuse  of  power  and  authority  and  124  (about  12%)  related  to 
corruption  in  a  narrower  sense.  In  2019,  indictments  were  raised  against  109  persons.  In 
2019,  USKOK  received  and  resolved  a  larger  number  of  cases,  and  registered  a  declining 
number of unresolved cases, compared to 2018. In 2019, about 90% of investigations led by 
prosecutors of USKOK took up to 6 months to complete, with length of investigation reduced 
from 12 months in 2016.74 Despite the specialised services’ record and recent reinforcements, 
the  efforts  to  fight  corruption  are  undermined  by  a  lack  of  convictions  and  limited  human 
resources, in particular as regards specialised investigators. Although there is a considerable 
number of investigations and indictments in cases related to organised crime and corruption, 
both the State Attorney’s Office (DORH) and USKOK encounter issues with the inefficiency 
of the justice system, where lengthy court proceedings and appeals often impede closure of 
cases.  In  addition,  high  profile  cases  against  former  top  officials  remain  unresolved  and 
subject  to  lengthy  procedures.  As  a  result,  80%  of  respondents  to  a  Eurobarometer  survey 
consider that high-level corruption cases are not pursued sufficiently, and 74% consider that 
government efforts to combat corruption are ineffective (EU average 53%).75  

III.  MEDIA PLURALISM 

Freedom  of  expression  and  information  are  enshrined  in  the  Constitution,  while  media 
plurality  is  ensured  by  different  laws.  The  media  regulator  (Agency  for  Electronic  Media; 
AEM)  is  an  independent  authority  established  by  law.  The  rules  on  transparency  require 
companies  to  report  ownership  data  to  AEM  and  to  publish  them  in  the  Official  Journal. 

69   200.000,00 HRK. 
70   Special Eurobarometer 502 on Corruption. 
71   Law on State Attorney’s Office and Law on State Attorney’s Council. 
72   GRECO Fifth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report, para. 13. 
73   http://www.dorh.hr/fgs.axd?id=5289. 
74   State Attorney’s Office, Report for 2019, April 2020, p. 120.  
75   Special Eurobarometer 502 on Corruption. 

12 

 
 
                                                 
Access to information is guaranteed by law. The protection of journalists is not specifically 
addressed in legislation, and the mechanisms available to all citizens apply.76  

The media regulator is by law an independent entity. The Electronic Media Act77 details 
the  competencies  of  the  Agency  for  Electronic  Media  (AEM),  its  sanctioning  powers  and 
mechanisms to appeal its decisions. The regulator has legal personality. The seven members 
of  the  Agency’s  Council,  including  its  President  acting  as  the  head  of  the  Agency,  are 
appointed  by  Parliament  based  on  a  recommendation  from  the  Government  following  a 
public call for expression of interest.  After their  five-year term,  a Council member may  re-
apply for the same position. Suspension and dismissal can take place due to unsuitability for 
the position or incompetence, or due to other compelling reasons related to the person. The 
decision is taken by Parliament, upon the proposal of the Government. The fact that Council 
members  may  be  re-appointed  for  several  terms  and  that  the  parliamentary  majority  has  an 
important  influence  in  the  appointment  of  the  Agency’s  decision-making  body  may,  in 
practice,  have  an  impact  on  the  political  independence  of  the  regulator,  as  highlighted  by 
some  stakeholders  and  the  MPM  2020.78  The  latter  assessed  the  risk  to  independence  and 
effectiveness of the media authority as medium. .79 As explained during the country visit, the 
budget of AEM is based on the income from the Agency’s activity, which contributes to its 
independence.  The  AEM  assures  a  high  level  of  transparency  by  publishing  online  its 
decisions,  minutes  of  meetings  and  the  annual  report.  The  Agency’s  decisions  are,  in 
addition, published in the Official Journal. 

To  ensure  transparency  of  media  ownership,  media  service  providers  need  to  report 
annually to the Agency for Electronic Media ownership details and ownership changes. 
According to the Electronic Media Act, the reports must contain data on direct and indirect 
holders  and  the  percentages  of  stocks  or  shares.80  The  ownership  information  is  also  made 
public  in  the  Official  Journal,  and  the  law  foresees  sanctions  in  case  of  non-reporting. 
Political parties or politicians are not specifically excluded from media ownership by the law. 
The  MPM  2020  expressed  concern  that  the  identification  of  the  beneficial  owner  remains 
problematic  and  assessed  the  transparency  of  media  ownership  at  medium  risk.81  The 
proposed new Electronic Media Act envisages that the ownership information would have to 
be disclosed by providing an extract from the register of beneficial owners. 

The  allocation  of  state  advertising  is  regulated  for  state  administration  and  entities 
predominantly  owned  by  the  state.  The  Electronic  Media  Act  stipulates  that  the  state 
administration is required to use 15% of their annual funds, earmarked for the promotion of 
their  services  or  activities,  for  advertising  in  the  audio-visual  and  radio  programmes  of 
regional or local television or radio broadcasters. The state bodies need to report to the AEM 
annually about the advertising activities.82  

76   Between 2019 and 2020 Croatia climbed 5 positons in the Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom 

Index, now registering at 59th position worldwide. See https://rsf.org/en/ranking/2019 

77   Electronic Media Act. 
78   Media Pluralism Monitor 2020. 
79   In this context, it should also be recalled that the revised Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) 
sets out specific guarantees for the independence and effectiveness of national media regulators. Croatia is 
expected to transpose the revised Directive in autumn 2020. 

80   Art. 52 of the Electronic Media Act. 
81   It should be recalled in this regard that the revised AVMSD encourages Member States to adopt legislative 
measures  providing  that  media  service  providers  under  their  jurisdiction  make  accessible  information 
concerning their ownership structure, including the beneficial owners. 

82   Art. 33 of the Electronic Media Act. 

13 

 
 
                                                 
Access  to  information  is  guaranteed  by  law,  but  the  process  appears  to  be  slow.  The 
Information Commissioner is  an independent body which protects  and implements the Law 
on Access to Information. While the right of access to information has been provided by law 
since  2003,  the  situation  improved  with  the  Law  on  Access  to  Information  and  the  first 
Information Commissioner in 2013. The Commissioner provides legal protection of the right 
to access public information and its reuse (open data), monitors the publicity of authorities’ 
work, and  raises  awareness.  It  has  a relatively  small  office  (17 employees). As required by 
the Law on Access to Information, each public authority must appoint an information officer 
for  handling  information  requests.83  The  introduction  of  the  power  of  direct  sanctioning 
would  contribute  to  counter  violations.  The  Commissioner  may  file  motions  to  indict  and 
issue misdemeanour orders.84 In 2019, more than half of the appeals made to the Information 
Commissioner  were  filed  due  to  failure  of  the  authorities  to  resolve  requests  for  access  to 
information  within  the  legal  deadlines.85  The  Information  Commissioner  issued  a  report86 
stating  concerns  about  the  implementation  of  the  Right  of  Access  to  Information  Act.87 
According  to  the  MPM  2020,  access  to  information  ‘is  mostly  exercised  through  appeal 
mechanisms and the direct involvement of the Information Commissioner’.88  

The  framework  for  journalists’  protection  provides  safety  guarantees  through  several 
legislative acts. The Media Act89 refers to the freedom of expression and media pluralism. In 
the context of editorial freedom, journalists have the right to express their opinion and not to 
pursue their tasks if this would go against the rules of the journalistic profession. In that case, 
the work contract cannot be changed to their detriment. Furthermore, journalists do not need 
to disclose their sources, unless the competent  court orders the disclosure based on national 
security concerns. This holds for both already published and to-be-published information.90  

Journalists  face  numerous  threats  online,  including  smear  campaigns,  hate  speech, 
death  threats  and  threats  of  physical  attacks.91  According  to  several  reports  and 
stakeholders,  these  often  do  not  elicit  a  timely  reaction  by  the  authorities.92  The  Criminal 
Code  itself  provides  certain  free  speech  and  journalistic  safeguards  as  it  considers  the 
‘violation of freedom of thought and expression’ and “intimidation” to be criminal offences.93 
However,  journalists  are  also  subject  to  lawsuits  themselves,  often  with  an  intimidating 
effect.94 In 2019, well over 1000 lawsuits against journalists were filed.95 While most of the 
cases  are  civil  cases  concerning  ‘compensation  claims  for  alleged  non-material  damages’, 

83   Currently, about 85% of the 5 900 public authorities have done so, but the definition of public authorities is 

very broad. 

84   However, court procedures are lengthy, and courts have rarely found against public authorities. Sustainable 

Governance Indicators Platform, 2019. 

85   Summary of the Report on the Implementation of the Right to Access Information Act for 2019.  
86   Report on the Implementation of the Right to Access Information Act for 2018.  
87   Act on the Right of Access to Information. 
88   Media Pluralism Monitor 2020. 
89   Art. 3 of the Electronic Media Act. 
90   Art. 27-30 of the Electronic Media Act. 
91   Reporters without borders.  
92   Reporters  without  borders;  in  this  context,  it  should  also  be  recalled  that,  in  line  with  Recommendation 
CM/Rec(2016)4  of  the  Committee  of  Ministers  of  the  Council  of  Europe,  “Member  States  should  put  in 
place a comprehensive legislative framework that enables journalists and other media actors to contribute to 
public debate effectively and without fear”. 

93   Criminal Code, Art. 127.  
94   European Network of National Human Rights Institutions – The rule of law in the European Union, p. 53. 
95   European Federation of Journalists. 

14 

 
 
                                                 
some cases are criminal cases. This wave of lawsuits96 was the subject of an alert submitted 
to  the  Council  of  Europe’s  Platform  and  was  classified  as  “related  to  the  harassment  of 
journalists”.97  In  Croatia,  imprisonment  is  among  the  envisaged  sanctions  for  defamation, 
while the offence of strong shaming was removed from the Criminal Code in 2019.98 

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.  In  addition  to  the  justice  system,  the  People’s  Ombudsperson,  who  is 
responsible for the promotion and protection of human rights and freedoms, the Information 
Commissioner, and Ombudsperson for Gender Equality, which fulfils the role of the equality 
body, play a role in the system of checks and balances.  

Despite the existence of dedicated mechanisms, citizen participation remains relatively 
weak.  The  Government  Legislation  Office  (GLO)  coordinates  public  consultations  and 
administers  the  e-Consultations  portal.  Most  institutions  rely  exclusively  on  online 
consultations  rather  than  combining  several  consultation  methodologies.99  Stakeholder 
engagement  via  the  e-consultation  platform  e-Savjetovanja,  is  common  and  the  number  of 
consultations is increasing.100 However, the consultations are often lacking in quality and the 
uptake  of  comments  remains  low.  The  Information  Commissioner’s  analysis  shows  that  in 
2019,  complaints  related  to  public  consultations have  increased.101  The  stated  reasons  were 
that  the  consultation  was  absent,  shorter  than  30  days,  or  that  either  the  publication  of 
consultation plans or the report on the conducted consultation were missing. In 2019, a total 
of  19,543  comments  was  analysed  (23,035  in  2018).  Out  of  these,  only  16%  of  comments 
were fully accepted, 6% partially, while 25% were duly noted, 31% rejected, and 22% were 
left  unanswered.102  The  competent  bodies  are  obliged  to  conduct  an  online  public 
consultation for a period of up to 30 days, and in only 40% of all cases, consultations were 
conducted with the full statutory time limit. The low uptake of comments was also raised by 
social  dialogue  partners,  who  perceive  the  consultations  to  be  formalistic  rather  than 
substantive.103  

The regulatory policy has been strengthened, but challenges remain. The adoption of the 
Regulatory  Impact  Assessment  Act  in  2017  and  the  inclusion  of  stakeholder  engagement 
presented  progress,  but  shortcomings  remain.  Croatia  ranks  in  the  middle-third  among  the 
Member  States  for  the  use  of  evidence-based  instruments,  and  in  the  bottom-third  for 

96   According to sources, the large majority of lawsuits were decided in favour of the journalists. However, the 

court procedures resulted in financial consequences and a chilling effect on journalists. 

97   Most of this court cases are civil cases concerning ‘compensation claims for alleged non material damages’, 
and  only  some  are  criminal  cases  regarding  the  offence  of  ‘shaming’.  Council  of  Europe’s  Platform  to 
promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists.  

98   European Network of National Human Rights Institutions – The rule of law in the European Union, p. 53. 
99   Regulatory Policy in Croatia: Implementation is Key, OECD Reviews of Regulatory Reform, 2019, p. 58. 
100  The number of comments received and stakeholders involved in the regulation-making process is increasing. 
However, there is still room for improvement, especially in terms of increasing awareness of the consultation 
process among some groups of stakeholders. 

101  To 10%, compared to an average 5% of the total complaints received in previous years. 
102  Significantly higher than 12%, which remained unanswered in 2018. 
103  See European Commission, 2019 European Semester Country Report for Croatia, SWD(2019) [1010] final, 

27.2.2019, p. 39. 

15 

 
 
                                                 
regulatory  quality  and  consulting  social  and  economic  actors  during  policy  preparation.104 
While  regulatory  impact  assessments  are  mainly  conducted  by  the  Ministries,  the  GLO 
provides trainings in methodology and legislative drafting. The GLO’s mandate is limited to 
the  scrutiny  of  impact  assessments  for  primary  legislation.  As  a  result,  subordinate 
regulations  go  unchecked.  Even  though  local  and  regional  authorities  have  significant 
competencies  to  adopt  regulations,  the  majority  lack  the  human  resources  or  experience  to 
effectively  implement  regulatory  policy.  This  has  resulted  in  significant  differences  in  the 
quality  of  administration  and  regulation  at  local  level.105  The  Ministry  of  Economy, 
Entrepreneurship and Crafts reviews  the impacts of regulations on small and medium  sized 
businesses by conducting an SME-test (for primary and secondary legislation). 

The  share  of  laws  adopted  in  the  Parliament  under  the  emergency  procedure  has 
increased  since  2016.  While  the  share  of  such  laws  decreased  from  about  82%  in  2014  to 
28%  in  2016,  it  increased  again  to  about  56%  in  2019,  and  60%  in  2020,  also  due  to  the 
COVID-19 pandemic. Out of 25 laws adopted in Q1 2020, 20 were considered as emergency 
laws to combat COVID-19 and most of them remain in force.106 The standards for conducting 
public consultations apply also to the emergency procedure, and draft laws are published on 
e-Savjetovanja. 

The People’s Ombudsperson is responsible for the promotion and protection of human 
rights  and  freedoms,  the  rule  of  law  and  anti-discrimination  standards.  In  2008, 
institution  of  the  Ombudsperson  was  awarded  an  ‘A  status’  according  to  the  UN  Paris 
Principles,  that  was  reaccredited  in  2019.107  Since  2013,  its  annual  budget  increased  from 
EUR 1.2 million to EUR 1.6 million in 2019.108 Over the last years, the implementation of the 
Ombudsperson’s  recommendations  has  increased.109  The  institution  has  been  gaining  in 
reputation  based on professionalism,  resistance to  politicisation and  good  results. However, 
the Ombudsperson’s office is lacking capacity, particularly on new powers related to whistle-
blowers,  and  requires  additional  support  in  human  resources  (Ombudsperson’s  office 
received  additional  financial  resources  for  this  purpose).  The  Ombudsperson  for  Gender 
Equality performs the role of the equality body.110 

The Government aims to support the civil society through the upcoming National Plan 
for Creating and Enabling Environment for the Civil Society Development 2020-2026. 
One  of  the  objectives  of  the  Plan  is  to  further  improve  the  legal,  financial  and  institutional 
support  system  for  the  activities  of  civil  society  organisations.  This  would  include  specific 

104  World Bank, WGI op. cit. 
105  Regulatory Policy in Croatia: Implementation is Key, OECD Reviews of Regulatory Reform, 2019, p. 105. 
106  In order to address the COVID-19 pandemic, Croatia did not declare a state of emergency and most of the 
measures  were  adopted  by  the  Civil  Protection  Headquarters  on  the  basis  of  the  Law  on  Civil  Protection 
System amended in March 2020. Constitutional Court has been seised to review the constitutionality of these 
amendments and the measures of the Civil Protection Headquarters themselves, and the review is pending. 
107  Report and Recommendations of the Session of the Sub-Committee on Accreditation (SCA), 2019, p. 2, 18. 
108  2019 
167. 
In 2012, its mandate was extended (Law on the People’s Ombudsperson, NN 76/12), and in 2014 and 2015, 
new regional offices were opened (Law on the People’s Ombudsperson, NN 76/12) in order to cope with the 
increasing number of complaints (2275 resolved cases in 2013, 2013 report of the People’s Ombudsperson 
of Croatia, p. 5; 3632 resolved cases in 2017, 2017 report of the People’s Ombudsperson of Croatia, p. 11.). 
109  In 2016, 29 % of the recommendations from 2015 were implemented; in 2018, the share increased to 65 % 

Ombudsperson 

People’s 

Croatia, 

report 

the 

of 

of 

p. 

of the recommendations from 2017, see 2018 report of the People’s Ombudsperson of Croatia, p. 6.  

110  To be noted that Specialised human rights bodies, such as the ombudspersons for the rights of the child and 
for persons with disabilities are also established. Act on the Ombudsperson for Children, NN 96/03; Act on 
Gender Equality, NN 116/03; Act on the Ombudsman for Persons with Disabilities, NN 107/07. 

16 

 
 
                                                 
measures, activities, deadlines and authorities for implementing them, as well as sources of 
funds and indicators for measuring success of the implementation. The civic society space in 
Croatia is considered to be narrowed. 111 

111  Rating by CIVICUS; ratings are on a five-category scale defined as: open, narrowed, obstructed, repressed 

and closed. 

17 

 
 
 
                                                 
Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order* 
* The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2020 Rule of Law report 

can be found at (COM website). 

Centre  for  Media  Pluralism  and  Media  Freedom  (2020),  2020  Media  pluralism  monitor. 

https://cmpf.eui.eu/media-pluralism-monitor/mpm-2020.  

CIVICUS (2020), Croatia country profile. https://monitor.civicus.org/country/croatia/ 

Commission staff working document – Country Report Croatia 2019 including an in-depth review on 
the  prevention  and  correction  of  macroeconomic  imbalances  accompanying  the  document 
communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  European  Council,  the 
Council,  the  European  Central  Bank  and  the  Eurogroup  2019  European  Semester:  Assessment  of 
progress on structural reforms, prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances, and results 
of in-depth reviews under Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 {COM(2019) 150 final}. 

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the verification 

of the full application of the Schengen acquis by Croatia, COM(2019) 497 final. 

Constitutional Court of Croatia, decisions of 17 December 2019, U-I-4658/2019 and U-I-4659/2019, 

https://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2019_12_126_2550.html.  

Constitutional Court of Croatia, judgment of 22 May 2018, U-III-5074/2017. 

Constitutional Court of Croatia, judgment of 17 December 2019, U-I-4658/2019 and U-I-4659/2019. 

https://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2019_12_126_2550.html.  

Constitutional Court of Croatia, judgment of 24 June 2020, U-III-3053/2018. 

Council  of  Europe,  Platform  to  promote  the  protection  of  journalism  and  safety  of  journalists. 

https://www.coe.int/en/web/media-freedom/the-platform.  

Council  of  Europe:  Committee  of  Ministers  (2016),  Recommendation  CM/Rec(2016)4  of  the 
Committee of Ministers to member States on the protection of journalism and safety of journalists 
and other media actors.  

Croatia Government (2019), Anti-corruption program for majority state-owned companies 2019-2020.  

Croatian Government (2016-2020), Anti-corruption action plan. 

Croatian Government (2020), input for the 2020 Rule of Law Report.  

Croatian Government (2020), Summary of the Report on the Implementation of the Right to Access 
Information Act for 2019. https://www.pristupinfo.hr/dokumenti-i-publikacije/izvjesca-o-provedbi-
zppi/.  

Directive  2010/13/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  10  March  2010  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) L 95/1. 

Directorate-General  for  Communication  (2020),  Flash  Eurobarometer  482:  businesses’  attitudes 

towards corruption in the EU. 

Directorate-General for Communication (2020), Special Eurobarometer 502: corruption. 

Draft 

amendments 

Law 
https://www.sabor.hr/sites/default/files/uploads/sabor/2019-01-18/081446/PZ_301.pdf.  

Judicial 

State 

the 

the 

on 

to 

Council. 

European Commission (2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020), The EU Justice Scoreboard.   

European Federation of Journalists (2019), Croatian journalists stage protest against abusive lawsuits. 
https://europeanjournalists.org/blog/2019/03/05/croatian-journalists-stage-protest-against-abusive-
lawsuits/.  

18 

 
 
European  Networks  of  Councils  for  the  Judiciary  (2020),  contribution  for  the  2020  Rule  of  Law 

Report.  

Global  Alliance  of  National  Human  Rights  Institutitons  –  GANHRI  (2019),  Report  and 
Recommendations  of  the  Session  of  the  Sub-Committee  on  Accreditation  (SCA)  –  March  2019. 
https://nhri.ohchr.org/EN/AboutUs/GANHRIAccreditation/Documents/SCA%20Report%20March
%202019%20-%20EN%20.pdf.  

Gong 

(2019),  Letter 

to  GRECO:  Plenkovic  undermines 
https://www.gong.hr/en/good-governance/anti-corruption-policy/letter-to-greco-plenkovic-
undermines-the-fight-aga/.  

the 

fight  against  corruption. 

GRECO (2014), Fourth evaluation round – Evaluation report on Croatia on corruption prevention in 

respect of members of parliament, judges and prosecutors.   

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. 

Information  Commissioner  (2019),  The  report  on  the  implementation  of  the  Law  on  Access  to 

Information for 2018 submitted to Croatian Parliament.  

Information  Commissioner  (2020),  The  report  on  the  implementation  of  the  Law  on  Access  to 
Information  for  2019  submitted  to  Croatian  Parliament.  https://www.pristupinfo.hr/dokumenti-i-
publikacije/izvjesca-o-provedbi-zppi/  

Ministry of Justice (2019), data on efficiency of courts. 

N1 (2020), Plenković announcing the end of immunity for members of the Government: a relic of the 
1990s.  http://hr.n1info.com/Video/Info/a529417/Plenkovic-najavio-ukidanje-imuniteta-za-clanove-
Vlade-To-je-relikt-devedesetih.html.  

OECD (2019), Regulatory policy in Croatia: Implementation is key.  

People’s Ombudsperson of the Republic of Croatia, Annual Report for 2013, 2017, 2018 and 2019. 

Recommendation  for  a  Council  Recommendation  on  the  2020  National  Reform  Programme  of 
Croatia  and  delivering  a  Council  opinion  on  the  2020  Convergence  Programme  of  Croatia  ST 
8184/20 - COM(2020) 511 final. 

Reporters without Borders, Country page: Croatia. https://rsf.org/en/croatia.  

State Attorney’s Office (2020), Report for 2019 of the State Attorney’s Office. 

Supreme  Court 

Judgment 
http://hr.n1info.com/Binary/245/Odluka-Vrhovnog-suda-o-kreditima-u-CHF.pdf.  

of  12  February 

of  Croatia, 

2019,  Rev 

2868/2018-2, 

Sustainable  Governance  Indicators  (2019),  Sustainable  governance  indicators  platform  2019. 

https://www.sgi-network.org/2019/Downloads.  

Virtual country visit to Croatia in the context of the 2020 Rule of Law Report. 

World  Bank,  Worldwide  governance  indicators.  https://databank.worldbank.org/source/worldwide-

governance-indicators.  

19 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex II: Country visit to Croatia 

The Commission services held virtual meetings in June 2020 with: 

  Academic expert (Viktorija Car, PhD, Associate Professor, University of Zagreb, Faculty of 

Political Science, Media and Communication Department) 

Information Commissioner 

  Agency for Electronic Media 
  Croatian Journalists’ Association 
  Croatian Newspaper Publishers’ Association 
  Gong  
  Government Office for Associations 
  Government Office for Legislation 
 
  Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs 
  Ministry of Justice 
  Ministry of State Administration  
  Ombudswoman’ Office   
  State Attorney’s Council 
  State Attorney’s Office 
  State Judicial Council 

* The Commission also met the following organisations in a number of horizontal meetings: 

  Amnesty International 
  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  
  Free Press Unlimited 
  Front Line Defenders 
 
ILGA-Europe 
 
International Commission of Jurists 
 
International Federation for Human Rights  
 
International Press Institute  
  Lifelong learning Platform  
  Open Society Justice Initiative/Open Society European Policy Institute 
  Reporters without Borders  
  Transparency International EU  

20