Freedom of association

Participants considered that the legal framework regulating the freedom of association and the freedom of assembly was liberal. Only three people were needed to set up a CSO, which resulted in the creation of a wide number of small associations. Generally speaking, there was no major issue concerning the right to protest. However, some participants criticised the restrictions on protests on St Mark's Square – the seat of state institutions in Zagreb – which had not been lifted since a shooting in 2020. CSOs had appealed to the government to seek the reopening of the square to demonstrators, but the authorities had reportedly refused, referring to a security level assessment which they had, however, kept secret. The legal framework for CSOs, dating from 2014, was considered to be adequate, notably because it introduced important principles for the sector and facilitated the running of economic activities with a non-profit aim. However, the availability of information on the operation of CSOs was found to be insufficient, while the financial and administrative burden imposed by the state on their running (for example concerning book-keeping and reporting) was felt to be constantly increasing. Calls for 3/7 proposals imposed criteria (for example in the area of taxation) that generated many issues for small CSOs, often resulting in their staff being overwhelmed by administrative tasks at the expense of the vocation of the CSO. On the other hand, the contractualisation and reception of payments for projects financed by the state were often late, creating delays and complicating the day-to-day work of CSOs.

A central concern raised by participants was the absence of trust and partnership spirit between the state authorities and CSOs, a situation which had not changed considerably since the country had gained independence. Participants strongly criticised the inability of the authorities to renew the National Strategy for the Creation of an Enabling Environment for the Development of Civil Society, which had expired in 2016. Participants also referred to the lack of influence of the Council for Civil Society Development – the government advisory body entailing CSO participation – to illustrate what was, in their view, a lack of political will on the part of the authorities to develop a genuinely free civic space in Croatia. The Croatian authorities indicated that the 2023-2030 National Strategy for CSOs was currently being prepared. Participants considered that the involvement of CSOs in decision-making through the mentioned council, as well as the government's Council on Human Rights and the legislative drafting groups, was mostly superficial. Some participants also considered that the authorities were favouring the inclusion of CSOs close to their views in such bodies, even when they were not representative of a given sector, at the expense of independent organisations. CSOs made use of the e-consultation portal to comment on draft legislation, but doubted whether it had an impact. One participant explained that the Government Office for Cooperation with NGOs organised elections for the EESC but that, in 2020, candidates could not present their programmes or take part in debates before the vote had taken place.

Access to funding was also considered a serious issue by the participants. According to them, national lottery funding channelled through the National Foundation for Civil Society Development had diminished over recent years. It was particularly complicated for CSOs doing watchdog activities or providing legal aid to finance themselves, and the EU was seen as a better source of funding than the national level. CSOs regretted that they had not been properly included in the discussions on the Croatian National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP) or as recipients of its funding. One participant pointed out that EU funds earmarked for corruption monitoring and civic education had been reallocated by the national authorities to CSOs providing services in other domains. The Croatian authorities indicated that public funding for CSOs had increased by half between 2015 and 2019. They also pointed to efforts to propose tenders on core CSO funding during the COVID-19 crisis. Acknowledging the difficulties highlighted by participants concerning yearly tenders, the Croatian authorities indicated their intention to favour multiannual funding contracts in the future. Participants explained that CSOs were confronted with a rise in negative narratives – particularly those working on issues such as the rights of LGBTQI persons, migrants and ethnic minorities, gender equality, the protection of the environment, and a historic approach to the war of independence. One participant explained that Croatia was one of the countries with the highest numbers of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs), targeting journalists but also CSOs and human rights defenders.