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
Date: 2021-07-20
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, 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. 

1 

 
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  judiciary1.  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  General2.  The  State  Attorney’s  Council  is  an  independent  self-governance 
body tasked with  ensuring the  autonomy  and independence of the State  Attorney’s  Office3. 
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 lawyers4. 

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 

1   The State Judicial Council is a judicial self-governance body with 11 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. The 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. 

2   Figures 55-57, 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
3   The State Attorney’s Council is a prosecutorial self-governance body with 11 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, 
deciding on external activities, participating in training, deciding on objections on the evaluations, keeping 
the personal records and verifying the asset declaration of state attorneys and deputy state attorneys, as well 
as deciding on transfer, conducting disciplinary proceedings and deciding on the disciplinary responsibility 
of deputy state attorneys. 

4   The  Assembly  of  the  Bar  elects,  in  accordance  with  the  Statute  of  the  Croatian  Bar  Association,  the 
Disciplinary  Court  (consisting  of  at  least  five  members  and  deciding  on  more  serious  violations,  and  on 
appeals against Disciplinary Councils’ decisions), and the Higher Disciplinary Court (consisting of at least 
five members and deciding on appeals against Disciplinary Court’s decisions), while the Executive Board of 
the Bar elects Disciplinary Councils (consisting of three members and deciding on less serious violations). 

2 

 
                                                 
good  decreased  from  24%  to  17%)5.  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%)6. 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  politicians7.  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 independence8. 

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  judges9.  According  to  the 
Constitution,  the  President  of  the  Supreme  Court  is  appointed  by  the  Parliament  on  the 
proposal from the President of the Republic10. The General Assembly of the Supreme Court 
and  the  competent  parliamentary  committee  give  their  opinions  on  the  candidates11.  As 
clarified  by  the  Constitutional  Court,  these  opinions,  which  have  to  be  given  regarding  all 
candidates,  are  not  binding  on  the  President  of  the  Republic12.  In  line  with  amendments 
adopted in 201813, in February 2021 the State Judicial Council transmitted to the Office of the 

5   Figure  48,  2021  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 50, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
7   Figure 49, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. The main perceived reason 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. Figure 51, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. It is 
to be noted that over the five-year period, the share of general public and companies that mentioned these 
reasons has remained the highest in the EU in comparative terms. 

8   The last comprehensive survey of court users and professional was conducted in 2015 on accessibility of the 
court service, customer service at the court, the conducting of the hearing, the judgment of the court, and the 
service provided by the lawyer. Figure 45, 2017 EU Justice Scoreboard. See also Figure 49, 2018 EU Justice 
Scoreboard, Figure 42, 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard, Figure 42, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard, and Figure 37, 
2021 EU Justice Scoreboard, showing that in 2016-2019, no surveys were conducted. 

9   These statements were made by certain representatives of the executive power. In reaction,  the Association 
of Judges and the Supreme Court issued press releases denouncing such statements, e.g. General Assembly 
of  the  Supreme  Court,  Press  release  of  26  March  2021;  Association  of  Judges,  Press  release  of  29  April 
2021; General Assembly of the Supreme Court, Press release of 18 May 2021. 

10   The Constitution of the Republic of Croatia, art. 116(2). 
11   The Constitution of the Republic of Croatia, art. 116(2). 
12   Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 23 March 2021, U-I-1039/2021, para. 18.1. 
13   The  2018  amendments  to  the  Law  on  Courts  introduced  the  requirement  that  a  vacancy  notice  for  the 
position  of  the  Supreme  Court  President  has  to  be  published  in  the  Official  Journal,  and  that  the  vacancy 
procedure is managed by the State Judicial Council. Law on Courts, amended articles 44, 44.a and 44.b. The 
State  Judicial  Council  publishes  the  candidates’  CVs  and  the  Supreme  Court  work  programmes  they 
submitted on its website. The Council then transmits the applications of the candidates to the Office of the 
President of the Republic, which requests opinions on the candidates from the General assembly of Supreme 
Court judges and the competent parliamentary committee. It should be noted that the State Judicial Council 
has only an administrative role in the vacancy procedure, and does not give its opinion on the candidates or 
select them.  

3 

 
                                                 
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”14.  The  Constitutional 
Court  later  found  the  2018  amendments  to  be  in  compliance  with  the  Constitution15.  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  Parliament16.  An  unsuccessful  candidate  can 
request review of the Parliament’s decision before the Constitutional Court17. 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  Court18.  After  the  Constitutional  Court 
judgment,  the  President  of  the  Republic  requested  for  the  vacancy  to  be  re-published19. 
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 candidate20. 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  President21. 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 practice22. 

14   Office of the President of the Republic, Press release of 8 March 2021. In an earlier interview, the President 
of the Republic stated that he doesn’t intend to propose any of the three candidates, as this would “seriously 
deviate constitutional customs”. He also declared that “the law that gives a role to State Judicial Council [in 
the vacancy process] is pointless” and that he will not select a candidate among the Supreme Court judges. 
15   Judgment  of  the  Constitutional  Court  of  23  March  2021,  U-I-1039/2021,  U-I-1620/21.  The  initiative  for 

constitutional review was launched by a citizen.  

16   Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 23 March 2021, U-I-1039/2021, U-I-1620/21, paras. 18.2., 18.2.1. 
The Court clarified that the State Judicial Council should transmit to the President of the Republic only those 
applications that were valid and fulfilled the statutory criteria. (para. 18.1). The Court also stressed that the 
Council  is  required,  according  to  the  2018  amendments,  to  appoint,  outside  of  regular  procedures  for 
becoming a judge, the new Supreme Court President as a judge with a permanent tenure, if that person had 
not been a judge before. (para. 18.2.6).  

17   Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 23 March 2021, U-I-1039/2021, U-I-1620/21, para. 18.2.6. 
18   Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 23 March 2021, U-I-1039/2021, U-I-1620/21, para. 18.2.1. 
19   Office of the President of the Republic, Press release of 25 March 2021.  
20   The  General  Assembly  of  the  Supreme  Court  did  not  issue  a  positive  opinion  for  any  of  them.  Supreme 
Court, Press release of 18 May 2021. On 8 June 2021, after presenting their programmes for the work of the 
Supreme  Court  before  the  parliamentary  Committee  for  the  Judiciary,  neither  of  the  four  remaining 
candidates  (one  candidate  withdrew  his  candidacy)  received  the  majority  of  votes  of  the  members  of  the 
Committee. On 25 June 2021, the proposed candidate did not receive the required majority in the plenum of 
the Parliament. 

21   Law  on  Courts,  art.  44.c.  The  appointment  process  is  subject  to  controversy  and  has  already  led  to  two 
successive  public  calls,  and  in  the  absence  of  agreement  in  Parliament,  this  process  could  be  further 
prolonged. 

22   CM/Rec(2010)12, para. 47. Under EU law, the involvement of a body such as the council for the judiciary in 
judicial appointment procedure may contribute to making that process more objective by circumscribing the 

4 

 
                                                 
 
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 attorneys23. 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  candidates24.  In March 
2021, the State Judicial Council prepared an analysis of provisions of the law on the selection 
of judges and proposed changes25. 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  available26.  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 
authorities27. However, connection of the Councils to these databases, once achieved, would 

executive’s discretion as regards such appointments, provided that such council is sufficiently independent. 
Judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU, Case C-824/18 AB et al., paras. 124-127 and the case-law cited. 

23   2018 amendments to the Law on State Judicial Council. 

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 before the respective Council. 2020 Rule of Law 
Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Croatia, pp. 3-4. 

24   The amendments also limited the choice of candidates among which the Council can conduct an interview. 
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.  2020 Rule of  Law  Report,  Country  Chapter on the  rule  of law situation in 
Croatia, p. 4. 

25   The  State  Judicial  Council  proposed  changes  to  the  Law  on  State  Judicial  Council,  particularly  increasing 
the  number  of  points  awarded  after  the  interview  with  the  candidate  to  the  level  before  the  2018 
amendments,  and  revising  the  provisions  on  which  candidates  can  be  invited  to  an  interview.  Information 
received in the context of the country visit to Croatia.  

26   The amended system of submitting, conducting, controlling and publishing reports on the property of judges, 
state attorneys and deputy state attorneys (asset declarations) was introduced in law in 2018. Judges and state 
attorneys are required to submit their asset declarations in the electronic form and the data on their property 
are  public  and  published  on  the  Councils’  websites,  while  respecting  data  protection  rules.  Input  from 
Croatia for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, pp. 3-5, 17-18.  

27   Input  from  Croatia  to  the  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report,  pp.  3,  17.  To  gain  access  to  the  data  bases  in  other 
institutions  (e.g.  tax  administration,  financial  agency,  ministry  of  transport,  ministry  of  agriculture,  land 

5 

 
                                                                                                                                                        
 
allow more efficient verification of assets28. 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  declarations29.  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 202430, 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  Ethics31.  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 restrictions32. 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-
going33.  The  Judges’  Councils  at  courts  decide  on  breaches  of  the  Code  of  Judicial  Ethics 
regarding  the  judges  in  those  courts34.  The  decision  can  be  appealed  before  the  Ethical 
Council, a panel of judges selected by the presidents of all Judges’ Councils35. Decisions on 

registry, cadastre), both Councils will need to conclude agreements with each institution, which specify what 
kind of information will be shared and include data protection provisions.  

28   Information received in the context of the country visit to Croatia. 
29   In  February  2021,  the  Ministry  of  Justice  and  Public  Administration  held  a  tripartite  meeting  with  the 
representatives of the Commission for the Resolution of Conflict of Interest and the State Judicial Council, 
with the aim of exchanging experiences in introducing the ICT applications. Input from Croatia for the 2021 
Rule of Law Report, p. 18. 

30   Announced in the National Recovery and Resilience Plan submitted by the Croatian Government on 18 May 

2021. 

31   Supreme Court, Request from the President of the Supreme Court, 5 March 2021. 
32   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. 

33   On 9 June 2021, three judges were arrested in relation to the alleged corruption offences.  It is to be noted 
that the President of the relevant Court also requested a new security check regarding the judges dealing with 
corruption and organised crime cases at that court. 

34   The  decision  establishing  an  ethical  breach  is  inserted  into  judges’  personal  file  and  transmitted  to  the 

relevant court president. 

35   Law on Courts, articles 106, 107 and 107.a. 

6 

 
                                                                                                                                                        
disciplinary  sanctions  regarding  judges  are  made  by  the  State  Judicial  Council,  and  can  be 
appealed before the Constitutional Court36. 

Quality  

The use of electronic communication tools in courts is gradually increasing37. 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 EU38. 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  202139.  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 
practitioners40. 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)41.  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 
necessary42.  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  limited43.  The  e-File  system  is  envisaged  to  be  upgraded  by  202344  with  a 
special  anonymisation  module,  allowing  for  the  publication  of  judgments  on  a  publicly 
accessible and searchable portal45. 

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  powers46,  but  their  administrative  capacity  remains  very  limited47  and  the 
situation has not significantly improved. While in 2020 both Councils have formally received 

36   Law  on  State  Judicial  Council,  articles  62-79.  For  a  comparison  of  authorities  involved  in  disciplinary 

proceedings regarding judges in all Member States see Figures 52-53, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. 

37   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Croatia, p. 4. 
38   Figures 40-47, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
39   In four first-instance Administrative courts, and the High Administrative Court. Input from Croatia for the 

2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 9. 

40   Input from Croatia for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 8. 
41   At the end of 2020, about 49% of all documents were sent and received electronically in Commercial courts, 

and 26% in Municipal courts. Information received in the context of the country visit in Croatia. 

42   Announced in the National Recovery and Resilience Plan submitted by the Croatian Government on 18 May 

2021. 

43   Figure  46,  2021  EU  Justice  Scoreboard.  2020  Rule  of  Law  Report,  Country  Chapter  on  the  rule  of  law 

situation in Croatia, pp. 6-7. 

44   Announced in the National Recovery and Resilience Plan submitted by the Croatian Government on 18 May 

2021. 

45   Input from Croatia for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, pp. 8-9. 
46   See footnotes 1 and 3 above. 
47   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Croatia, pp. 4-5. 

7 

 
                                                 
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 attorneys48. 

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)49. 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 Court50. 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 court51. 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 EU52. 
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  efficiency53.  In  2020,  the 

48   See the Independence section above. 
49   Criminal Procedure Code, art. 490: (1) An appeal against a second instance judgment is allowed to a third-
instance court only if: 1) the court of second instance has imposed a sentence of long-term imprisonment or 
has confirmed the first-instance verdict by which such a sentence was imposed; 2) the second-instance court 
reversed  the  first-instance  verdict  acquitting  the  accused  and  pronounced  the  verdict  finding  the  accused 
guilty.  

50   The  request  for  review  of  constitutionality  claimed,  among  others,  that  the  Law  on  Courts  and  Criminal 
Procedure  Code  unconstitutionally  narrowed  down  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Supreme  Court  to  act  as  a  third 
instance  court  and  unconstitutionally  removes  the  jurisdiction  to  act  as  the  second  instance  court.  The 
Constitutional Court held that the legislative power has the discretion to decide which court will decide on 
which types of issues. It also stated that the measures used by the Supreme Court to ensure the constituency 
of case law will not be endangered, particularly if the Supreme Court invites to its meetings on consistency 
of case law (under art. 27 of the Law on Courts) also the president of the High Criminal Court. Judgment of 
the Constitutional Court of 3 November 2020, U-I-4658/2019.  

51   The remaining four candidates for judges did not receive sufficient votes in the State Judicial Council and 
the  vacancy  has  not  been  repeated,  also  in  light  of  the  fact  that  the  number  of  cases  before  the  court  is 
currently low. 

52   Figures 6-19, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
53   On 2 November 2020, the Supreme Court President issued an instruction for court presidents to organise the 
work following two models. According to Model A, the first instance courts act in all types of cases within 
their jurisdiction, in compliance with the epidemiological measures and with a view to reduce the number of 
persons  in  the  court  buildings,  while  outside  activities  are  limited  to  urgent.  Use  e-Communication  is 
recommended, as is to hold second instance court hearings using video/audioconferencing tools. According 
to Model B, used after approval of the Supreme Court President in case of an unfavourable development of 
the  epidemiological  situation,  the  first  instance  courts  act  only  in  urgent  cases  of  urgent,  and  only  judges 
who  are  assigned  to  such  cases  come  to  court.  Hearings  in  all  other  cases  are  adjourned  for  14  days. 

8 

 
                                                 
 
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)54. 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 developed55.  

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 USKOK56. 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 globally57. 
This perception has deteriorated58 over the past five years59.   

Activities  outside  of  court  building  are  suspended.  In  the  second  instance  courts,  the  court  president 
determines  the  schedule  of  hearings,  with  recommended  use  of  video/audioconferencing  tools.  Input  from 
Croatia for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 14. 

54   Data for 2020, Ministry of Justice.  
55   Input from Croatia for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 11. 
56   For more information on the functioning of the High Criminal Court and the judgment of the Constitutional 

Court of 3 November 2020, U-I-4658/2019, see section on the Quality of justice system above. 

57   Transparency  International,  Corruption  Perceptions  Index  2020  (2021),  pp.  2-3.  The  level  of  perceived 
corruption  is categorised as  follows: low (the perception among experts and business executives of public 
sector  corruption scores  above  79);  relatively  low  (scores  between  79-60),  relatively  high  (scores  between 
59-50), high (scores below 50). 

58   In 2015, the score was 51, while in 2020, the score is 47. The score significantly increases/decreases when it 
changes  more  than  five  points;  improves/deteriorates  (changes  between  4-5  points);  is  relatively  stable 
(changes from 1-3 points) in the last five years. 

9 

 
                                                                                                                                                        
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  202060.  After  internal  consultation,  the  draft  proposal  of  the 
strategy is now published for public consultation61. 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  strategy62.  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  recommendations63.  The  main  focus  areas  of 
the strategy will be on prevention64, 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 areas65.  

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 
Administration66.  This  new  structure  aims  to  improve  the  work  of  the  Sector  for  the 
Prevention of Corruption, which now includes two new organizational units67. 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  increased68. 
However, the Commission for the Resolution of Conflict of Interest has a limited number of 
staff69. 

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  2020-202470 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 

59   The Eurobarometer data on corruption perception and experience of citizens and businesses as reported last 
year is updated every second year. The latest data set is the Special Eurobarometer 502 (2020) and the Flash 
Eurobarometer 482 (2019). 

60   The Anti-Corruption Strategy 2015-2020. 
61   The  draft  proposal  of  the  Anti-Corruption  Strategy  2021-2030  has  been  published  in  the  e-consultation 

portal of the Government.  

62   Written contribution from Croatian Government for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 12.  
63   List of international recommendations as mentioned in the draft Anti-Corruption Strategy, p. 6. 
64   The  Anti-Corruption  Strategy  2015-2020  focused  on  prevention,  see  2020  Rule  of  Law  Report,  Country 

Chapter on the rule of law situation in Croatia, p. 9. 

65   Draft proposal of the Anti-Corruption Strategy 2021-2030 p. 5.  
66   Input from Croatia for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 15.  
67   Input from Croatia for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 15. The two new units are: the service for strategic 
planning, coordination of national documents implementation and raising public awareness; and the service 
for international cooperation and the development and improvement of the normative framework.  

68   Input from Croatia for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 15.  
69   Information  reported  by  the  Commission  for  the  Prevention  of  Conflict  of  Interest  in  the  context  of  the 

country visit to Croatia.  

70   Government  of  the  Republic  of  Croatia,  Programme  of  the  Government  2020-2024,  p.  45.  The  Plan  of 
Legislative Activities of the Government for 2021 stipulates, for the 4th quarter, referral to the procedure of 
working bodies regarding the amendments. This Law would aim at abolishing the immunity of members of 
the Government for corrupt criminal offenses that are prosecuted ex officio. 

10 

 
                                                                                                                                                        
 
imprisonment and the same provisions are also applicable to foreign officials71. 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  transactions72.  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 GRECO73. 

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  level74.  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  rulings75.  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 proceedings76. As 
for  present  resources  available,  USKOK  reported  the  difficulties  in  recruiting  new  state 
attorneys  with  applicants  not  matching  expertise  requirements77.  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  activities78. 

71   Arts. 293-294 criminalise bribery, however, there is no a clear reference to foreign officials. Art. 89(3) of the 
Criminal  Code  defines  “official  person”.  OECD,  Foreign  Bribery  Offence  and  its  Enforcement  in  Eastern 
Europe and Central Asia, 2016, p. 69. 

72   Draft proposal of the Anti-Corruption Strategy 2021-2030 p. 30.  
73   GRECO Fifth Evaluation Round, Evaluation Report, 6 December 2019, para. 99. 
74   In  2020,  the  State  Attorney’s  Office  received  criminal  notifications  regarding  1  230  alleged  suspects  of 
corruption offences, representing 72% of the total criminal notifications received by USKOK (in 2019, there 
were  1003  suspects  representing  73%  out  of  total  notifications).  This  shows  about  20%  increase  in  the 
number of alleged suspects compared to recent years. To be noted that more than 90% of these notifications 
were dismissed and most of them arrived from citizens. State Attorney’s Office, Report for 2020, 29 April 
2021, pp. 187-188. 

75   In 2020, the average length of criminal proceedings at  first instance was 733 days in Municipal courts and 
804  in  County  courts  (dealing  with  serious  criminal  cases).  Data  from  the  Ministry  of  Justice  and  Public 
Administration. Regarding corruption cases, one example is the Fimi-media case running since 11 years. 

76   Draft proposal of the Anti-Corruption Strategy 2021-2030, p. 32. 
77   Information  provided  by  USKOK  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to  Croatia.  For  instance,  lack  of 

specialised software, forensic tools to investigate electronic equipment.   

78   Information provided by PNUSKOK in the context of the country visit to Croatia.   

11 

 
                                                 
According  to  the  draft  Strategy,  PNUSKOK  will  benefit  from  digitalisation  and  renovation 
both at national and a local level79.   

Limited  progress  has  been  made  on  the  strengthening  of  the  legal  framework  on 
prevention of conflict of interest since the 2020 Rule of Law Report80. 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 role81. 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  include82.  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 Court83. 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 
officials84.  The  issue  concerns  the  interpretation  of  Article  585  and  the  possibility  for  the 
Commission  to  impose  sanctions  on  public  officials  solely  on  the  basis  of  this  provision86. 
The implications of this judgment are important as it rules on the sanctioning powers of the 
Commission  for  the  Resolution  of  Conflicts  of  Interest87.  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  Law88.  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 Court89. 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 

79   Draft proposal of the Anti-Corruption Strategy 2021-2030 p. 36.  
80   2020 Rue of Law Report, country chapter for Croatia, p. 10.  
81   2020 Rue of Law Report, country chapter for Croatia, p. 10.  
82   Draft proposal of the Anti-Corruption Strategy 2021-2030 p. 44-45.  
83   E.g.  Judgment  of  the  Constitutional  Court  of  2  July  2019,  U-III-673/2018.  This  judgment  quashed  the 
judgments  of  the  Administrative  Court  and  High  Administrative  Court  with  the  reasoning,  among  others, 
that the courts did not provide for effective judicial control.  

84   Judgment of the High Administrative Court of 10 December 2020, Usž – 2745/18-5.  
85   Article 5 of the Law refers to the principles to which public officials must adhere in executing their public 
duties  –  acting  honestly,  conscientiously,  responsibly  and  impartially,  preserving  their  credibility  and 
dignity. 

86   According to the ruling of the High Administrative Court, the Commission for conflict of interest can only 
impose sanctions according to the list of breaches included in Article 42 of the same law and the provisions 
of Article 5 are not foreseen in this list. Judgment of the High Administrative Court of 10 December 2020, 
Usž – 2745/18-5. 

87   At  the  same  time,  similar  ongoing  procedures  by  the  Commission  for  Prevention  of  Conflict  of  Interest 

might be affected by the High Administrative Court ruling.   

88   GRECO, Fifth Evaluation Round: Preventing corruption and promoting integrity in central governments (top 

executive functions) and law enforcement agencies, 24 March 2020, para. 92. 

89   GONG, Letter to GRECO: The Commission must not be destroyed, 4 February 2021. 

12 

 
                                                 
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 May90. 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 202091. 

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  Report92.  The  absence  of  a  Code  of  Ethics  for  the  Members  of  the 
Government93 and Members of the Parliament94 was noted by GRECO95 and some steps have 
been taken in order to address these recommendations96. Revolving doors rules have not been 
strengthened  and  remain  narrow  in  scope97.  The  provision  forbidding  officials  to  accept 
employment  in  the  private  sector  for  a  period  of  12  months  after  the  end  of  the  public 
service98  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 201199. However, at local level, civil servants have their own Code of Ethics only 
if  the  local/regional  government  has  adopted  one100.  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. 

90   On 3 February 2021, High Administrative Court issued a press release regarding its case law on conflict of 
interest stating that administrative courts are competent to assess the legality of decisions of the Commission 
for the Prevention of Conflicts of Interest and ensure legality, but also to provide judicial protection of the 
rights  and  legal  interests  of  natural  and  legal  persons  and  other  parties  violated  by  individual  decisions  or 
actions of public bodies. The Court also pointed out that the fight against corruption does not mean that the 
courts must uncritically and unconditionally assess as lawful all decisions of the Commission, because that 
would  make  the  above-mentioned  role  of  administrative  courts  in  the  control  of  the  legality  of  decisions 
made by public bodies meaningless. High Administrative Court, Press release of 3 February 2021. 
On  14  May  2021,  the  State  Attorney’s  Office  rejected  the  Commission’s  initiative  regarding  the  High 
Administrative Court’s judgment of December 2020 due to the fact that the person in question, the mayor of 
Zagreb, has since passed away.  

91   Judgment of the High Administrative Court of 27 May 2020, Usž – 2889/20-2. 
92   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Croatia, p. 11.  
93   GRECO, Fifth Evaluation Round: Preventing corruption and promoting integrity in central governments (top 

executive functions) and law enforcement agencies, 24 March 2020, pp. 15-16. 

94   GRECO, Fourth Evaluation Round: Fourth Evaluation Round, Addendum to the Second Compliance Report 

Croatia, Addendum to the Second Compliance Report Croatia, 21 October 2020, p. 3. 

95   Preparatory work to establish the Code of Ethics for Members of the Parliament and the Code of Ethics for 

Members of the Government are ongoing.   

96   The working group in charge of drafting the Code of Ethics for Members of the Parliament sent the draft to 
the  Committee  on  the  Constitution,  Rules  of  Procedure  and  Political  System  after  discussion  at  the 
Presidency session.  

97   GRECO, Fifth Evaluation Round: Preventing corruption and promoting integrity in central governments (top 

executive functions) and law enforcement agencies, p. 25.  

98   Art. 20 of the Law on the Prevention of Conflict of Interests states that officials cannot accept employment 

from an entity with which they had direct contact for a period of 12 months after the end of service. 

99   Etički kodeks državnih službenika, Official Gazette 40/201.  
100  Draft proposal of the Anti-Corruption Strategy 2021-2030 p 64. 

13 

 
                                                 
Some progress has been made since the 2020 Rule of Law Report in the area of lobbying 
introduced101.  The 
activities  where  a  comprehensive 
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  purpose102.  The  need  to  regulate 
lobbying activities was also highlighted by GRECO, as its recommendations in this area are 
still not implemented103.  

legislation  remains  to  be 

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  risks104.  The 
State  Commission  for  Supervision  of  Public  Procurement  Procedures  is  an  independent 
decision-making  body  (tribunal)  responsible  for  reviewing  appeals  regarding  public 
procurements105.  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 Procedure106. 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  framework107.  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 recommendations108. 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 
procedures109.  

101  The absence of such detailed rules for members of Parliament and top executive functions was already noted 

in the 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Croatia, p. 11. 

102  Written contribution by Croatian Government in the context of the country visit to Croatia, Draft proposal of 
the Anti-Corruption Strategy 2021-2030 p. 46 and the Government of the Republic of Croatia, Programme 
of  the  Government  2020-2024,  p.  45.  The  working  group  will  be  composed  of  representatives  of  the 
Government of the Republic of Croatia, State Attorney's Office, Information Commissioner, Commission for 
Resolution  of  Conflicts  of  Interest,  Agency  for  Personal  Data  Protection,  Croatian  Lobbyists'  Association, 
civil  society  organizations  Transparency  International  and  GONG,  academics.  The  Croatian  Employers' 
Association and trade unions might also be invited to participate in the working group. 

103  GRECO, Fifth Evaluation Round: Preventing corruption and promoting integrity in central governments (top 

executive functions) and law enforcement agencies, 24 March 2020, p.20.   

104  Draft proposal of the Anti-Corruption Strategy 2021-2030 p 23.  
105  According  to  article  8  of  the  Law  on  the  State  Commission  for  Supervision  of  Public  Procurement 
Procedures,  the  Government  proposes,  based  on  public  vacancy,  the  candidates  to  Parliament  for 
appointment  as  members  of  the  State  Commission  without  the  involvement  of  an  independent  body. 
Parliament would also decide on potential disciplinary responsibility of the members.  

106  Information  reported  by  the  State  Commission  for  Supervision  of  Public  Procurement  Procedures  in  the 
context  of  the  country  visit  to  Croatia.  The  State  Commission  for  Supervision  of  Public  Procurement 
Procedure 2020 annual report is not available yet.  

107  Draft proposal of the Anti-Corruption Strategy 2021-2030 p. 49.  
108  CM/Rec(2010)12, paras. 66 and 69. According to EU law, the requirement of independence means that the 
disciplinary  regime  regarding  judges  must  display  the  necessary  guarantees  in  order  to  prevent  that  the 
regime is used as a system of political control of the content of judicial decisions. E.g. Court of Justice of the 
European Union, judgment of 24 June 2019, Commission v. Poland, C-619/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:531, para. 
77,  judgment  of  25  July  2018,  LM,  C-216/18  PPU,  ECLI:EU:C:2018:586,  judgment  of  5  July  2016, 
Ognyanov,  C-614/14,  ECLI:EU:C:2016:514,  and  order  of  12  February  2019,  RH,  C-8/19, 
ECLI:EU:C:2019:110. 

109  Draft proposal of the Anti-Corruption Strategy 2021-2030 p. 51.  

14 

 
                                                 
The Ombudsperson’s Office has started receiving external reports from whistleblowers. 
Following the approval of the Protection of Reporters of Irregularities Act110, 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 2020111. In the same 
period  several  high  profile  cases  on  corruption  were  discovered  after  reports  made  by 
whistleblowers112. 

In  order  to  mitigate  corruption  risk  in  the  procurement  area  during  the  COVID-19 
pandemic  new  specific  trainings  for  officials  have  been  delivered113.  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 
contacts114. Furthermore, the Ministry of the Economy and Sustainable Development issued 
specific  recommendations  aiming  at  strengthening  the  public  procurement  system  in  the 
context of the pandemic115. 

III.  MEDIA PLURALISM AND MEDIA FREEDOM 

Freedom  of  expression  and  information  are  enshrined  in  the  Constitution116,  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 place117. The 
revision of the Electronic Media Act is pending adoption to transpose the revised Audiovisual 
Media  Services  Directive  (AVMSD)118.  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 2021119. 

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 

110  Protection of Reporters of Irregularities Act. 
111  13 of these were submitted in 2019 but the cases continued in 2020.  
112  Telegram, Ovo je bomba. Telegram otkriva tajnu snimku: ovako HDZ-ov gradonačelnik Požege diktira koje 
firme  moraju  dobiti  poslove,  12  January  2021;  Večernji  list,  Dosje  o  Bandićevoj  poskupjeloj  Žičari:  Laži, 
aneksi,  tužbe  ljubavne  afere,  osvete...,  29  November  2020;  Večernji  list,  USKOK  i  PNUSKOK  provode 
izvide o sljemenskoj žičari, 27 November 2020. 

113  Input from Croatia for the 2021 Rule of Law Report p. 24. 
114  Information reported by PNUSKOK in the context of the country visit to Croatia. 
115  Recommendation from the Ministry of the Economy, Entrepreneurship and crafts on the issue of prescribing 
the  corona  virus  outbreak, 
and  providing 
(http://www.javnanabava.hr/default.aspx?id=7221);  and  Recommendation  from 
the 
Economy, Entrepreneurship and crafts concerning the implementation of a public binding process in the new 
situation caused by the coronavirus outbreak, (http://www.javnanabava.hr/default.aspx?id=7220).  

the  new  situation  caused  by 

tender  guarantees 

the  Ministry  of 

116  Constitution of the Republic of Croatia, Art. 38.  
117  2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Croatia. 
118  Directive  (EU)  2018/1808  amending  Directive  2010/13/EU  on  the  coordination  of  certain  provisions  laid 
down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual 
media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) in view of changing market realities. 

in 

119  Input from Croatia for the 2021 Rule of Law report, p. 28.  

In the 2021 World Press Freedom Index, Croatia ranks 56th globally and 22nd among EU Member States 
(Reporters without Borders, Croatia). The 2021 Media Pluralism Monitor indicates medium risks in the area 
of fundamental protection, social inclusiveness and political independence, with a high risk for the market 
plurality indicator (2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, p. 8). 

15 

 
                                                 
 
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  services120.  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  nominations121.  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  regulator122.  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 
Council123. 

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  practice124.  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 Act125. 

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 publications126. 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  Journal127.  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 framework128. Stakeholders claim that the register 
maintained  by  the  Agency  for  Electronic  Media  may  have  gaps  as  regards  the  coverage  of 

120  2020  Rule  of  Law  Report,  Country  Chapter  on  the  rule  of  law  situation  in  Croatia,  p.  9.  2021  Media 

Pluralism Monitor, p. 10. 

121  Input from Croatia for the 2021 Rule of Law report, p. 28. 
122  Contribution from the Centre for Peace Studies and the Croatian Platform for International Citizen Solidarity 
for the 2021 Rule of  Law  Report,  pp. 3-4; 2020 Rule of  Law  Report,  Country Chapter  on the rule of law 
situation in Croatia, p. 13; Contribution from the Croatian Journalists' Association and the Trade Union of 
Croatian Journalists for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, pp. 14-15. To be noted that, until now, three members 
of the Council have been reappointed by different parliamentary majorities. 

123  Input from Croatia for the 2021 Rule of Law report, p. 28. 
124  2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, p. 11. 
125  Input from Croatia for the 2021 Rule of Law report, p. 28. 
126  Input from Croatia for the 2021 Rule of Law report, p. 30. 
127  Information  received  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to  Croatia;  Contribution  from  the  Croatian 
Journalists' Association and the Trade Union of Croatian Journalists for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 17. 
128  2021  Media  Pluralism  Monitor,  p.  10.  The  Media  Pluralism  monitor  shows  a  high  risk  for  the  related 
indicators  on  news  media  concentration,  online  platforms  concentration  and  competition  enforcement  and 
media viability.  

16 

 
                                                 
electronic  publications129.  According  to  the  2021  Media  Pluralism  Monitor,  in  Croatia  we 
observe high market shares of leading media outlets in different market segments130. 

While there are basic rules in place governing state advertising131, stakeholders report 
that  state  advertising  often  undermines  the  political  independence  of  media  outlets, 
notably  at  local  level132.  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 programmes133. 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”134.  In  particular,  regional  and  local  media  outlets  are  often  considered  heavily 
dependent on the advertising from local authorities, creating potential to undermine editorial 
independence135. 

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  staff136.  Freelance 
journalists  have  been  particularly  affected137.  The  Trade  Union  of  Croatian  Journalists 
considers that the working conditions of journalists have deteriorated considerably during the 
pandemic138.  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 
workers139. 

Access  to  information  is  ensured  by  law,  but  considerable  delays  in  the  processing  of 
requests from journalists by public authorities persist140. The implementation of the Right 

129  Contribution from the Centre for Peace Studies and the Croatian Platform for International Citizen Solidarity 

for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 5. 

130  2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, pp. 10-11. According to the data assessed in the Media Pluralism Monitor, 
“[t]op 4 audio-visual media owners accounted for 96 percent of the market in 2019. In 2020, the top 4 audio-
visual  media  owners  accounted  for  56  percent  of  the  audience  share.  The  Top  4  radio  owners  held  a  70 
percent market share in 2019, and 39 percent of the audience share in 2020. The Top 4 newspaper owners 
held a 71 percent market share in 2019” (2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, p. 10). 

131  2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Croatia, p. 13. 
132  Contribution from the Croatian Journalists' Association and the Trade Union of Croatian Journalists for the 
2021 Rule of Law Report, pp. 16-17. Information received in the context of the country visit to Croatia. 
133  The  draft  for  a  revised  Electronic  Media  Act  intends  to  extend  this  to  electronic  publications  (with  an 

obligation of disclosing relevant information online).  

134  2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, p. 12. 
135  Contribution from the Croatian Journalists' Association and the Trade Union of Croatian Journalists for the 
2021 Rule of Law Report, pp. 16-17. Information received in the context of the country visit to Croatia. 
136  Information  provided  by  the  Trade  Union  of  Croatian  Journalists  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to 

Croatia. 

137  Reporters without Borders, Croatia; Information received in the context of the country visit to Croatia. 
138  Information  provided  by  the  Trade  Union  of  Croatian  Journalists  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to 

Croatia. 

139  Input from Croatia for the 2021 Rule of Law report, p. 29; Information provided by the Croatian Ministry of 

Culture and Media in the context of the country visit to Croatia. 

140  2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, p. 9; 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation 
in  Croatia,  p.15;  Contribution  from  the  Croatian  Journalists'  Association  and  the  Trade Union  of  Croatian 
Journalists for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 20. 

17 

 
                                                 
of Access to Information Act141 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 
journalists142.  The  2021  Media  Pluralism  Monitor  indicates  a  medium  risk  related  to  the 
protection of the right to information143. GRECO has recommended that measures should be 
taken  to  strengthen  the  enforcement  of  decisions  of  the  Information  Commissioner  in  line 
with the Act144. 

A legal framework for the protection of journalists is in place, but journalists remain a 
target of hate speech and threats, both online and offline145. A number of prominent cases 
have concerned verbal attacks  by politicians against journalists, highlighting tensions in the 
relationship between some politicians and the media146. 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' Association147. 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  outlet148.  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 cases149. 

Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) targeting journalists continue 
to be a serious concern150. A survey by the Croatian Journalists’ Association in April 2021, 

141  Act on the Right of Access to Information. 
142  Contribution from the Croatian Journalists' Association and the Trade Union of Croatian Journalists for the 
2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 20; Information provided by the Office of the Information Commissioner in the 
context of the country visit to Croatia. 
143  2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, p. 9. 
144  GRECO,  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, 
p.19. 

145  2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Croatia, p. 14;  Reporters without 
Borders,  Croatia;  European  Centre  for  Press  and  Media  Freedom,  Platform  on  mapping  media  freedom; 
2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, p. 15. 

146  Information  received  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to  Croatia;  European  Centre  for  Press  and  Media 
Freedom,  Platform  on  mapping  media  freedom;  Council  of  Europe,  Platform  to  promote  the  protection  of 
journalism and safety of journalists (2021), Croatian President Milanovic verbally attacked HRT journalists, 
no. 89/2021. 

147  Council  of  Europe,  Platform  to  promote  the  protection  of  journalism  and  safety  of  journalists  (2021), 
President  of  Croatian  Journalists’  Union  Maja  Sever  Threatened  with  Dismissal,  no.  40/2021;  Croatian 
Journalists'  Association,  Bačić's  persecution  of  the  leaders  of  the  CJA  and  the  Journalists'  Union  is  a  new 
blow to media freedom, 13 March 2021. 

148  Council of Europe, Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists. At the time of 
writing,  Croatian  authorities  had  provided  replies  to  three  out  of  the  five  cases  (with  the  latest  two  cases 
having  been  registered  respectively  in  April  and  May  2021).  Four  of  the  cases  fell  into  the  category 
“Harassment and intimidation of journalists” and one case was categorised under “Other acts having chilling 
effects on media freedom”.  

149  Contribution  from  the  Osservatorio  Balcani  Caucaso  Transeuropa  for  the  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report,  p.  9; 

Information received in the context of the country visit to Croatia. 

150  Information received in the context of the country visit to Croatia; Contribution from Human Rights House 

Zagreb for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 8. 

18 

 
                                                 
counted 924 active lawsuits against journalists and the media in Croatia151 (compared to 905 
in  2020152).  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  journalists153.  Examples  of  such  cases  include  lawsuits  against  journalists  by 
prominent politicians or public officials154. While courts often rule in favour of the concerned 
journalists155,  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  defamation156.  Stakeholders  have  called  upon  the  Government  to  address  this 
issue,  including  to  decriminalise  defamation157.  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  Equality158,  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  increasing159.  As  part  of  its  regular  activities,  the  Office  of  the 
Information  Commissioner monitored how the consultations were conducted in  2020160. As 

151  Croatian Journalists’ Association, At least 924 lawsuits against journalists and the media currently active in 

Croatia, 16 April 2021.  

152  Croatian Journalists’ Association, CJA's poll: over 905 lawsuits against journalists and the media currently 

active in Croatia, 1 May 2020. 

153  Croatian Journalists’ Association, At least 924 lawsuits against journalists and the media currently active in 

Croatia, 16 April 2021.  

154  E.g. 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;  European  Centre  for  Press  and  Media  Freedom, 
Platform  on  mapping  media  freedom;  Croatian  Journalists’  Association,  At  least  924  lawsuits  against 
journalists and the media currently active in Croatia, 16 April 2021.  

155  Reporters without Borders, Croatia. Information received in the context of the country visit to Croatia. 
156  2021  Media  Pluralism  Monitor,  p.  9;  Croatian  Journalists’  Association,  At  least  924  lawsuits  against 
journalists and the media currently active in Croatia, 16 April 2021; Information received in the context of 
the country visit to Croatia.  

157  Contribution from the Croatian Journalists' Association and the Trade Union of Croatian Journalists for the 

2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 18; Information received in the context of the country visit to Croatia. 

158  It should be noted that the mandate of the Ombudsperson for Gender equality can be terminated if his/her 

annual report is rejected in the Parliament. 

159  In 2019, a total of 1 031 public consultations  were held, a growing number over the  years (in 2012, there 
were  only  144  consultations).  In  2020,  a  total  of  761  consultations  were  conducted  through  the  portal,  in 
which 7 211 users participated. A total of 21 798 comments were received, of which, until May 2021, 3 321 
comments were accepted, 2 057 were partially accepted, 4 902 were not accepted, 10 519 were noted, and 
999 remained  unanswered.  The  average  length  of  consultation  in  2020  for  all  types  of  regulations  was  17 
days. Data from the Government Office for Legislation. 

160  (https://www.pristupinfo.hr/dokumenti-i-publikacije/izvjesca-o-provedbi-zppi/) 

19 

 
                                                 
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  substantive161.  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 project162 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  persistent163.  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  test164.  Moreover,  the  public  authorities,  and  in  particular  local  and  regional 
authorities,  lack  the  human  resources  or  experience  to  effectively  implement  regulatory 
policy165. 

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 
pandemic166. The constitutionality and the legality of both, the amended legal framework and 
of 
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 

introduced,  have  been  challenged  before 

the  specific  restrictive  measures 

161  Contribution from Centre for Peace Studies (CMS) and Croatian Platform for International Citizen Solidarity 
(CROSOL) for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 8. Contribution from the European Civic Forum (GONG) 
for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 19. Contribution from ILGA-Europe for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, 
p. 18. Contribution from the European Network of National Human Rights Institutions for the 2021 Rule of 
Law Report, p. 82. 

162  Technical Support Instrument 21HR31, Strengthening the implementation of regulatory impact assessment. 
163  Regulatory Policy in Croatia: Implementation is Key, OECD Reviews of Regulatory Reforms, 2019, p. 105. 
164  Regulatory  Impact  Assessment  Act,  Regulation  of  the  Regulatory  Impact  Assessment  Implementation, 

Regulation on the SME Test Implementation, and Strategy on the Regulatory Impact Assessment. 

165  Regulatory Policy in Croatia: Implementation is Key, OECD Reviews of Regulatory Reforms, 2019, p.105. 
166  Parliament adopted the amendments in April and December 2020.  

20 

 
                                                 
proceedings  instigated  on  its  own  initiative,  it  established  that  one  measure  adopted  by  the 
Civil Protection Authority did not meet the request of proportionality167. 

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 force168. 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  2019169.  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  tasks170.  According  to  the 
People’s Ombudsperson, the Ministry of the  Interior continues to  refuse the Ombudsperson 
access  to  information  on  the  treatment  of  irregular  migrants171.  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 

167  Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 14 September 2020, U-II-2379/2020. 
168  Input from Croatia for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 36. 
169  While the share of such laws decreased from about 82% in 2014 to 28% in 2016, it increased again to about 

56% in 2019. 

170  Contribution from the ENNHRI for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 78. 
171  The Ombudsperson is, in the performance of the National Preventive Mechanism mandate, authorized under 
Articles 4, 19 and 20 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or 
Degrading  Treatment  or  Punishment  (OPCAT)  and  Article  3  and  5  of  the  Law  on  National  Preventive 
Mechanism  to  visit  places  where  there  are  or  could  be  detained  persons  unannounced  and  freely  access 
information about their treatment. This practice was reported to Parliament on several occasions, and in the 
2019 and 2020 Annual  Reports the  Ombudsperson issued a  recommendation to the Ministry of Interior to 
ensure  unannounced  and  free  access  to  data  on  irregular  migrants  to  the  staff  of  the  Office  of  the 
Ombudsperson  and  the  National  Preventive  Mechanism  in  line  with  provisions  of  the  OPCAT,  Law  on 
National Preventive  Mechanism and the Ombudsperson  Act. Contribution from the ENNHRI  for the 2021 
Rule of Law Report, p. 78-79. 

21 

 
                                                 
between  the  Ombudsperson  and  the  Ministry  of  the  Interior.  Recommendations  of  the 
European  Network  of  National  Human  Rights  Institutions172  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  borders173, 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 
the 
Ombudsperson, have established an Independent Monitoring Mechanism for border control, 
which entered into force on 8 June 2021. 

including 

The  Government  is  still  preparing  the  National  Plan  for  Creating  and  Enabling 
Environment  for  the  Civil  Society  Development  2021-2027174.  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 
Days175. The civic space in Croatia is considered to be narrowed176. 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 pandemic177. 

172  The  National  reports  drafted  by  the  French  NHRI  (CNCDH),  the  Croatian,  Greek,  Serbian  and  Slovenian 

National Human Rights Institutions, [date – to be updated].   

173  Asylum Information Database, Country Report Croatia, 2020 update. 
174  2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter for Croatia, pp. 16-17. 
175  Input from Croatia for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 39-40. 
176  Rating by CIVICUS; ratings are on a five-category scale defined as: open, narrowed, obstructed, repressed 

and closed. 

177  Contribution from the ENNHRI for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 80.  

22 

 
                                                 
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 

2020 
(https://asylumineurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/AIDA-HR_2020update.pdf). 

Information 

Database, 

Croatia, 

Country 

Report 

update, 

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). 

the  Code  of  Judicial  Ethics 

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 
release  of  31  May  2021, 
violation  of 
; 
(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). 

-  Press 

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 
(http://www.vsrh.hr/EasyWeb.asp?pcpid=560). 

(2021),  Press  release  of  18  May  2021, 

General  Assembly  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Croatia  (2021),  Press  release  of  26  March  2021, 

(http://www.vsrh.hr/EasyWeb.asp?pcpid=560). 

23 

 
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  (2020),  Fifth  Evaluation  Round:  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 

U-III-673/2018, 
(https://sljeme.usud.hr/usud/praksaw.nsf/fOdluka.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=C1257
0D30061CE54C125842D00218646). 

Constitutional 

Court 

2019, 

July 

of 

2 

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 
2021, 

is 
deadline 
(https://www.novilist.hr/novosti/hrvatska/raspisan-novi-poziv-za-predsjednika-vrhovnog-
suda/?meta_refresh=true). 

candidacies 

March 

days, 

for 

31 

30 

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/). 

24 

 
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 
2021, 

Požege 
(https://www.telegram.hr/politika-kriminal/ovo-je-bomba-telegram-otkriva-tajnu-snimku-ovako-
hdz-ov-gradonacelnik-pozege-diktira-koje-firme-moraju-dobiti-poslove/). 

poslove, 

January 

moraju 

diktira 

dobiti 

firme 

koje 

12 

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). 

25 

 
 
 
Annex II: Country visit to Croatia 

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  
  European Youth Forum 
  Front Line Defenders 
  Human Rights House Foundation  
  Human Rights Watch  
 

ILGA-Europe 

26 

 
 
 
International Commission of Jurists 
 
International Federation for Human Rights 
 
International Planned Parenthood Federation European Network (IPPF EN) 
 
International Press Institute 
  Netherlands Helsinki Committee  
  Open Society European Policy Institute 
  Philanthropy Advocacy 
  Protection International  
  Reporters without Borders 
  Transparency International EU 

27