Freedom of expression and freedom of the media

Noting that Croatia was among the lowest ranked EU Member States on the Reporters without Borders index, participants considered that the pro-EU stance by the authorities was not sufficiently matched by measures to protect media freedom. One participant warned about the introduction by the 4/7 authorities of amendments to the Penal Code that would criminalise the use of information leaks from investigations. Participants regretted the rise of an anti-media narrative, which fuelled verbal and physical attacks on media professionals. One participant believed that around a thousand SLAPP cases, entailing damages amounting to over EUR 10 million, were allegedly ongoing in Croatia. Such cases of strategic litigation to silence journalists were being launched by figures as diverse as public officials, political parties from both the majority and the opposition, local politicians, businesspersons, and judges themselves. One participant regretted the fact that the courts did not use the possibility offered by the Civil Procedure Act to dismiss abusive litigation at an early stage. The Croatian authorities considered that the figure of 1000 SLAPP cases was very much overestimated compared to their own estimation of slightly over 30 cases. According to them, the figure of 1000 cases actually referred to all lawsuits involving journalists, including, for example, labour disputes. The Croatian authorities also referred to the work of the expert group set up in 2021 on policies to combat SLAPPs, which included media representatives.

Participants regretted the lack of social dialogue and collective bargaining in the media sector. While unions were well established in the traditional media and the public broadcasting service, representation was low in new media and particularly digital media. Discussions were called for concerning benefits, media workers' rights, and a fair share in the post-COVID-19 recovery. Media workers hoped that the European Media Freedom Act could prompt employers to join comprehensive discussions. Participants considered the transparency of media ownership to be very low. While large-scale private media were mostly in the hands of foreign owners, local media outlets were often controlled by local councils, which strongly affected the independence of reporting. The lack of transparency of ownership raised suspicions in cases such as the reallocation of a radio frequency from an independent station to a radio channel that was part of a large conglomerate. The Croatian authorities indicated that electronic media now had the obligation to inform the relevant agency about the composition of their ownership, and that a system on the disclosure of financial data for all media was planned.

Participants regretted that pressure and socioeconomic hardship had led to a tendency for media workers to leave the world of journalism. Those remaining in the sector often had to cope with selfcensorship or pressure if they wrote on topics such as history, minorities, or business activities. At university, journalism curricula were now in competition with public relations curricula, illustrating a blurring of the lines between communications and reporting. Young journalists often ended up in news portals mostly processing existing information in order to produce low-cost content instead of investigating or producing original content. There was hope that the European Media Freedom Act, which defined journalism as a public good, could help bring about a change of approach. Foremost among the funding difficulties faced by the media sector, participants stressed that the Media Act adopted two decades ago was no longer fit to address the current challenges. Participants regretted the fact that the authorities did not publish yearly tenders, as intended in that Media Act. They also criticised the alleged refusal by the authorities to disclose the allocation of millions of euros in advertising funds on the grounds that it was a matter of business secrecy. One participant also pointed to the lack of transparency concerning the use of EU funds to promote fact-checking, which would mostly have benefitted a state agency, and concerning the visibility components of EU projects, which would usually benefit media closer to the government.

Participants criticised the procedure for selecting the board of the public broadcasting service, which was in the hands of the political forces controlling the majority in Parliament. One participant referred to data showing a clear overrepresentation of government views over those of the opposition in primetime public debates on public television. The Croatian authorities stated that a law reforming the appointment procedure for public broadcasting service managers was planned. One participant expressed concerns with regard to the protection of the copyright of authors in the context of the transposition into Croatian law of the EU Copyright Directive. It was explained that the Croatian legislator had changed the logic of the Directive by granting copyright to the owner rather than the producer of the content. In the absence of any deadline on the right of exploitation of a work, the owner could change its content without the consent of the author, which raised serious questions concerning the risk of censorship and the right to access information.