Monday, 28 March 2022

Human Rights House Publishes Curriculum on Freedom of Expression and Media

28 March 2022 - The Human Rights House Zagreb, in collaboration with the Embassy of the United Kingdom and lawyers Vesna Alaburić and Vanja Jurić, has developed a curriculum for lawyers and other legal experts on freedom of expression and freedom of the media.

The curriculum will serve as a basis for training on freedom of expression and freedom of the media and will help strike a balance in the conflict between the right to freedom of expression and the right to protection of reputation and other personality rights.

"This curriculum is aimed at strengthening the capacity of lawyers and other legal experts, as well as journalists, editors and media publishers, in providing legal arguments in the area of freedom of expression to reduce the number of potential new cases ending up before the Constitutional Court of the European Court of Human Rights," the non-governmental organisation said.

The curriculum has been released as an electronic publication.

Sunday, 13 February 2022

Croatian Citizens See Defense of Freedom of Speech and Movement as European Parliament's Top Priority

ZAGREB, 14 Feb 2022 - The highest share of Croatian citizens think that the European Parliament's (EP) priority is to defend freedom of speech and freedom of movement, while most respondents in the European Union (EU) think that the EP's top priority should be to defend democracy, a Eurobarometer survey released last Tuesday shows.

In Croatia, the highest number of respondents think that the EP's priority should be to defend freedom of speech (28%) and freedom of movement (28%), while 25% see the protection of human rights as a priority and 22% see democracy as a value the EP should primarily defend.

At the level of the EU, democracy is seen as the most important value (32%), followed by freedom of speech and thought (27%), and the protection of human rights (25%).

Freedom of movement is the most important value for 16% of respondents in the EU, compared to 28% in Croatia.

In the survey, carried out on behalf of the EP, respondents could choose four topics which they think should be a priority to the EP.

At the EU level, the top priority is public health (42%), followed by the fight against poverty and social exclusion (40%) and action against climate change (39%), which is significantly different from the results in Croatia.

Croatian citizens see the fight against poverty as the top priority (52%), followed by support to the economy and the creation of new jobs (48%), public health (34%), and action against climate change (29%).

As many as 83% of Croatian citizens think that Croatia has benefited from being a member of the EU, which is an increase of 5% compared to the previous Eurobarometer survey. In the entire EU, fewer citizens see the benefits of EU membership, with only 72% support.

52% of Croatian respondents see membership of the EU as "a good thing", 9% see it as "a bad thing", while 39% see it as neither a good nor a bad thing.

Most EU citizens (63%) are optimistic about the future of the EU.

According to the survey, citizens' support for the EU, and especially for the EP, significantly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. In Croatia and in the EU, 58% of respondents would like the EP to play a more important role.

45% of respondents have a neutral opinion of the EP, and only 17% have a negative opinion. This positive attitude towards the EP is also visible in the latest Standard Barometer 95 of the European Commission, according to which citizens trust the EP the most out of all EU institutions.

Since 2015, the percentage of respondents with a positive opinion of the European Parliament has increased by 12%, to 36%.

In Croatia, 43% of respondents have a positive opinion of the EP, 48% a neutral and only 9% a negative opinion.

The autumn Eurobarometer survey of the EP was conducted from 2 November to 3 December 2021 in all 27 EU member states.

For more, check out our politics section.

Sunday, 11 April 2021

SLAPP Lawsuits Croatia: Lawyer Vanja Juric on Attempts to Stifle Journalists

April 11, 2021 - In the Open Editorial, public figures write freely and openly about developments in their field of expertise. A look at SLAPP lawsuits Croatia.

In March, lawyer Vanja Jurić was appointed to the Expert Group of the European Commission for the so-called SLAPP lawsuits, as previously reported on TCN. These are "strategic" lawsuits that are unfounded or exaggerated and are aimed at intimidating and silencing those who ask questions of public interest - journalists, activists, and associations. This is a real threat to freedom of expression and democracy, says Vanja Jurić, who writes in the Open Editorial about lawsuits filed by powerful officials, politicians, and businessmen against journalists who problematize their public activities.

A few years ago, the Croatian Journalist’s Association began to publish annual data on the number of proceedings against journalists, editors, and media publishers in Croatia. For the public, that number, which is around a thousand active proceedings, was probably shocking. However, Croatia has long been, at the European level, one of the countries where the media are exposed to the largest number of lawsuits. These are different types of proceedings, but most often lawsuits for damages, in which the media or journalists are asked to pay monetary compensation, due to the so-called mental pain. A significant number of these proceedings are initiated by politicians, officials, judges, powerful businessmen, and corporations because of texts written by journalists in which they problematize their public activities.

Current and former ministers sue the media for reporting discrepancies in their assets, officials file lawsuits over articles about their previous criminal convictions, large corporations seek damages to publish their e-mail correspondence with state leaders, judges sue for problematizing court decisions that have been enacted, and the public service for reporting on the program and spending taxpayer’s money.


Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation

More specifically, former Minister Tolusic filed a dozen lawsuits against various media outlets for reporting on his property cards, and Mijo Crnoja for reporting on land and soft loans granted to him ten years ago, although he has not built a house there to date. The Croatian National Tourist Board sued journalist Paul Bradbury and demanded HRK 50,000.00 for criticizing the promotional campaign they conducted, and Croatian Radio and Television initiated between twenty and thirty proceedings against its colleagues - media and journalists, for critical reporting on the situation on the public service. Likewise, a judge who released five suspects for serious crimes to defend himself from several media outlets is demanding amounts in excess of one million kuna, because they criticized such a decision, although his decision was later changed by a higher instance. This is only a small part of such examples.

What all these journalistic articles have in common is that they were justified, factually substantiated, verified, and about issues of significant public interest. All these procedures, if we adhere to the rights and case law, should be completed in favor of the media, and some of them already are.

Objects that have such characteristics are connected by a relatively new abbreviation SLAPP, which means the so-called Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation; and for which the European Commission, less than a month ago, appointed a special expert group, recognizing that this is a type of procedure that is characteristic of the entire EU and has consequences which are contrary to the fundamental values ​​of the European Union.

These are, therefore, lawsuits that are mainly directed against journalists, media, activists and their organizations, who, through their public actions, rightly and justifiably speak out on issues of public interest. It can be about uncovering various social or political affairs, criticizing the government, politicians, officials, or corporations; whose actions, for whatever reason, are important for society. Therefore, it is not just about the media, although they are most often from the other side of SLAPP. There are also a number of examples in Croatia in which the victims of such actions are NGOs, activists, and whistleblowers.

Financial exhaustion

Unlike other types of court proceedings, the primary goal of the so-called SLAPP lawsuits are not the protection of a right or interest of plaintiffs (and obtaining a court judgment by which these rights are exercised), but the prevailing belief is that their purpose is fulfilled by filing lawsuits, setting high lawsuits and conducting lengthy and often expensive court proceedings. One of the main characteristics of such lawsuits is that they are, in essence, unfounded; when it is clear from the beginning that there is no valid (factual and legal) basis and that the final success of the plaintiff in the proceedings is not likely. In these proceedings, which require the payment of damages of tens of thousands of kunas, almost completely regardless of their outcomes - longevity and financial exhaustion - attempts are made to put pressure on people or organizations that speak out about a social problem and thus, legally, punish and intimidate.

Given that the "larger" media are constantly exposed to court proceedings, in which the cumulative amounts claimed in lawsuits reach several million kunas, it is clear that this is serious pressure on them. The problem is even more obvious when individuals, such as journalists, activists, or non-profit media, are exposed to such lawsuits, and by initiating and conducting such proceedings, their existence is literally called into question.

Threat to freedom of expression

Through the work of domestic and international organizations dealing with the protection of freedom of expression and media freedom, this type of lawsuit - which in fact has always existed - has finally been named and recognized at the European Union level as a threat to freedom of expression. That is why an expert group of professionals from all over the EU has been appointed to advise the European Commission in the process of creating a system of protection against such lawsuits (both in terms of legislation and general policies) and the introduction of "safeguards" that will prevent or at least limit such lawsuits.

If we look only at Croatia, today or in the last thirty years, it should be completely clear that almost nothing that is really important (about politics, crime, social problems, and difficult affairs) we would not know without the media. We would know almost nothing about the assets of dismissed ministers, serious allegations of corruption and organized crime, health system problems in the fight against the coronavirus, or the shortcomings of the social welfare system.

Guard dogs

The point is that the role of the media, as well as the role of activists and organizations involved in detecting various social anomalies and informing the public about these problems, is completely irreplaceable in any democratic society. Without them, democracy, which implies public control over all political and social processes, simply does not exist. Without the so-called public watchdogs, which are the most common (or most visible) media, we would not know what is happening in society, and especially in politics. In Croatia, this example is so obvious, but only looking at the scandals that the media have discovered or helped to reveal and publish, in the last few years.

That is why, for any democratic society, it is necessary to protect freedom of expression and media freedom, as much as and for as long as it is necessary. It is about rights and freedoms that are, without any exaggeration, a precondition of any democracy. Likewise, protecting them not only means providing a “defense” in court proceedings, but also creating a social environment in which every journalist, media, and activist can work freely and independently. SLAPP lawsuits and the self-censorship they can cause are a symbol of the opposite of these values.

To read the original Croatian version of this article on RTL, click here.

Wednesday, 7 April 2021

Amnesty International: Croatia Violent Towards Migrants, But Improves in Fighting Gender-Based Violence

ZAGREB, 7 April , 2021 - Amnesty International says in its report on human rights in 2020 that Croatia continued to be violent towards illegal migrants and that access to abortion was constrained, while commending improvements regarding gender-based violence and a ruling allowing same-sex couples to foster children.

"Aid organizations documented over 15,000 cases of pushbacks and collective expulsions, frequently accompanied by violence and abuse," AI says, singling out the case of 15 migrants allegedly beaten by police while being tied to a tree.

The Croatian Interior Ministry regularly denies allegations of migrant abuse.

Gender-based violence

"In January, legal amendments harmonizing the definition of rape in criminal legislation with international standards and increasing penalties for crimes of gender-based violence entered into force," AI says, adding that "the number of reported rape cases more than doubled" as the changes "significantly expanded the scope of the offence. Proceedings continued to be lengthy, lasting between three and five years."

"Due to the reclassification of domestic violence offences, the number of criminal prosecutions for such offences rose sharply. Nevertheless, in the majority of cases, domestic violence continued to be treated as a minor offence attracting minor penalties. Police and courts remained reluctant to enforce protective measures," AI says.

Sexual and reproductive rights

"Women continued to face significant barriers in accessing sexual and reproductive health services and information," AI says.

"The widespread refusal of individual doctors and some clinics to perform abortions on grounds of conscience, as well as prohibitively high costs of services and poor regional coverage of authorized providers, presented an insurmountable obstacle to women of lower social economic status."

A new law on abortion was not adopted, AI says, although the "deadline to replace an outdated law set by the 2017 Constitutional Court ruling expired in February 2019."

Roma discrimination

"Roma continued to face discrimination in all walks of life, including education, health, housing and employment," AI says, adding that due to lack of electricity and the internet, "many Roma children were unable to access any remote learning during school closures, thereby further deepening educational gaps between Roma and non-Roma pupils."

Freedom of expression

"Journalists investigating corruption and organized crime continued to face threats and intimidation," AI says, adding that according to the Croatian Journalists’ Association, over 900 lawsuits were filed against journalists in 2020 for “violation of honour and reputation”.

For more about politics in Croatia, follow TCN's dedicated page.

Friday, 17 April 2020

Croatia's Top Court: Politicians Can Talk Sh*t While at Work

April 17, 2020 — Want to insult someone in Croatia with limited legal repercussions? Win an election.

If one average Croat turns to another and shouts, "I f*ck your mother!", the recipient could prosecute for "defamation" and "insult". If an elected official, however, declares a colleague a "piece of sh*t" while both are at work, the nation's top court considers it political expression.

An elected official cursing out a colleague on the premises of the representative body does not constitute defamation or insult, the Croatian Constitutional Court decided, according to Jutarnji List.

The decision muddies the already-murky interpretation of Croatia's defamation laws. Up until now, insulting speech and cursing opened the door to legal proceedings, though the outcomes weren't always guaranteed. The laws are often used by politicians to silence unfriendly media coverage, or ornery citizens with thin skin and cash to burn on legal expenses.

The decision opens the floodgates to some of the Croatian language's best expressions. Politicians can now freely deploy these terms during legislative sessions and within government buildings.

The court's decision offers two legal hurdles to provide one with the freedom to curse without legal consequences: the speaker and recipient must both be elected officials, and the four-letter words must be uttered, shouted or angrily hissed while within a government building.

That means "I f*ck your mother!", "You piece of sh*t!" and “And I really do f*ck your mother!” all now belong in Croatia's political vernacular, but can still get one in trouble out on the street.

The Constitutional Court's decision came thanks to a complaint filed by the Independent Councilor of Korcula City Council, Tin Andrijic. In 2013, at a session of the City Council, he verbally attacked the director of the Korčula Sports Facilities Dalibor Antunović. Knowing that everything was transmitted by Radio Korcula, the councilman told Antunović, "I f*ck your mother!", "You piece of sh*t!" and “And I really do f*ck your mother!” among other things.

Antunović sued Andrijić for defaming his honor and reputation, a widely-interpreted legal premise that's a catchall for any speech or expression which makes a person feel like a "piece of sh*t", regardless of whether or not they are one.

Other western defamation and libel laws require a second hurdle: the speaker's intent to defame or hurt must be proven. Croatia's does not. The person calling someone a "piece of sh*t" is wrong simply if it makes the alleged "piece of sh*t" feel bad. Even their behavior may merit someone telling them "I f*ck your mother!"

The Dubrovnik Municipal Court ruled Councilman Andrijić committed the offense of insult and fined him HRK 5,000. In the proceedings, Andrijić invoked the immunity guaranteed by the Law on Local and Regional Self-Government, according to which a member of the representative body cannot be prosecuted or held accountable in any other way for voting, statements or opinions and opinions expressed at sessions of the representative body. The court dismissed his argument. 

"It was not a statement or an opinion or a position at a sitting of a representative body within the meaning of the said legal provision, but a mere curse and a pure insult, and such words have no purpose or meaning other than to offend and disparage," it wrote in its decision.

The Constitutional Court disagrees. It stated lower courts violated the constitutional right to a fair trial, and referred to a precedent set in a similar case, which said legislative immunity included such situations. The Constitutional Court's decision was not unanimous, however. Three constitutional judges opposed it and wrote separate opinions. Among them are two former SDP members, Josip Leko and Ingrid Anticevic Marinovic, and Judge Andrej Abramovic.

So if any citizens want to insult each other with full legal immunity, consider running for office.