Rule of law

Participants considered that Croatia had progressed in the area of the rule of law in the decade preceding its accession to the EU, but that efforts had been less substantial since its accession. Participants acknowledged the existence of national strategies in the area of human rights and gender equality, but regretted the lengthy processes of adoption and piecemeal action points. The Croatian authorities contested the idea that reforms in the area of the judiciary had slowed down after the country's accession to the EU, referring to several strategies in the area, such as the Strategy on the Development of the Judiciary. Participants explained that trust in the judicial system among the general public was very low, and that the quality of justice was affected by the fact that the system was overburdened. The absence of publication of the decisions of courts of first and second instance was considered an major issue. It was regretted that the implementation of some decisions of the ECHR was still lagging behind and that references to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights were apparently decreasing in national judgments. Participants remarked that this called for more training for judges and prosecutors on victim support and on international human rights law and EU law more generally. Participants also regretted that free legal aid provided by CSOs was underfunded. Justice for war crimes was seen as stagnating, with most trials held in absentia and investigations not progressing because of the limited capacity of the police and the attorney. The Croatian authorities considered that the low level of public trust in the judiciary 7/7 did not match the comprehensive legal framework put in place to guarantee the independence of judges and the courts. They remarked that Croatia had a litigation-based, rather than conciliationbased, approach to dispute resolution, which contributed to the courts being overwhelmed. They indicated that work was underway to ensure that all court decisions would be made public as of 2024.

Concerning corruption, participants remarked that nepotism was common, for example, obtaining a job at local level through connections with local politicians. It was believed that Croatian citizens placed greater trust in EU-level monitoring through the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) than the national monitoring through the Office for Combating Corruption and Organised Crime (USKOK), whose mandate had been weakened. One participant remarked that some files reopened by OLAF had remained in the drawers of the national prosecutor for years, which was a sign of a lack of will to investigate. According to participants in this session and the session on media freedom, SLAPPs against journalists were often linked to their work on corruption and Croatia distinguished itself by the fact that judges were also at the source of such legal proceedings. Participants considered that legislation on whistle-blowers was a major step in the right direction, and they called for increased support from public authorities to ensure the effective protection of whistle-blowers. The Croatian authorities indicated their political will to tackle corruption, notably through that the Anti-Corruption Strategy 2021-2030, which was the basis for triennial action plans entailing more than two hundred measures in the areas of prevention and repression. They added that USKOK had opened cases against top-level officials and that they were collaborating with all relevant international institutions in the relevant area.