ZAGREB, 30 June 2022 - Prime Minister Andrej Plenković said on Thursday the US Supreme Court ruling, which leaves the legality of abortion to the federal states and has led to big divisions, would not impact Croatia as banning pregnancy termination would be contrary to a Constitutional Court ruling.

Speaking at a cabinet session, he said pregnancy termination was an extremely complex legal, ethical and medical issue on which it was often impossible to reach a consensus, but that it was necessary to consider the matter.

"This ruling won't impact Croatia. In Croatia, the right to pregnancy termination is regulated by law and the Constitutional Court has found that the law is in line with the Constitution."

As the Court's president Miroslav Šeparović said recently, banning pregnancy termination would be contrary to the Court's ruling, as would a referendum to restrict or ban pregnancy termination rights, Plenković said.

"In the political sense, there's no need to misinform people with the goal of scoring political points and there's no need to include in the Constitution regulations on an already existing right. We won't agree to such changes."

He called on the opposition to be constructive about this issue and to support changes to the constitutional law on the Constitutional Court, which he said were aimed at additionally protecting constitutional rights, those that cannot be decided in referenda.

Plenković said the ruling HDZ was a Christian Democrat centre-right party advocating the protection of life from conception, while also respecting a woman' right to choose and health.

"Our wish is that there are as few pregnancy terminations in our society as possible, that they are the exception, but statistics and other countries' experience show that this is not achieved by bans. Bans don't lead to fewer abortions, but can make them unsafe and dangerous for a woman's life and health."

Politics: For more, check out our politics section.

ZAGREB, 15 Feb 2022 - The Constitutional Court on Tuesday rejected an application by 35 opposition Members of Parliament and proposals by another 28 applicants who claimed that the introduction of COVID certificates in the public sector was unconstitutional and unlawful.

The court, however, partially upheld the application and proposals to evaluate whether the introduction of COVID certificates in the public sector was in line with the Constitution and the law with reference to the exemption of university students. The court quashed the possibility of an individual faculty deciding to oblige students to present a COVID digital certificate or evidence of a COVID test, vaccination or having recovered from COVID in order to enter the faculty.

The national COVID response team adopted a decision on 12 November 2021 and amended it on 25 January 2022 requiring COVID certificates or other proof of vaccination, testing or recovery for all employees in state and government institutions as well as anyone entering these premises.

The Constitutional Court reiterated its stances regarding Articles 16 and 17 of the Constitution and on the Sabor having the exclusive power to "activate" Article 17 on the powers of the response team to adopt measures and decisions regulated by the Law on the Protection of the Population against Infectious Diseases, the legal nature of those decisions and the principles based on which the court evaluates the constitutionality and legality of the response team's decisions.

Aim is to protect health and lives and curb the pandemic

With regard to the legitimacy of the aim, the court determined that the response team's disputed decision has the same aim, to protect the health and lives of citizens and to prevent and curb the pandemic.

In this particular case, that means to enable the undisturbed work of the public sector in COVID circumstances, while ensuring the safety of employees and visitors to public premises.

The court ruled that the decision on testing employees in the health and welfare sectors adopted on 21 December 2021 was appropriate and necessary to achieve the desired aim. The court reiterated that citizens have the option to choose whether to be vaccinated or tested.

The court rejected complaints regarding the inequality of the public sector compared to the private sector.

Four dissenting opinions announced

The court ruled that the reasoning to introduce the measures in the public sector was appropriate to enable the viability of the state and public administration and regional and local government units in providing public services, in that the scope and intensity of measures depends on the current epidemiological circumstances, which is determined by the COVID response team.

The ruling was adopted with four constitutional court judges voting against it. The dissenting opinions and the court's ruling will be made available on the court's website in due course, the court said in a press release.

January the 19th, 2022 - The Croatian taxi market is set to be regulated by the Constitutional Court following a considerable amount of time spent in turmoil following a law change made back in 2018.

As Poslovni Dnevnik/Darko Bicak writes, after the government managed to appease crises in the dynamic Croatian taxi market with the new Road Traffic Act 2018, the market has been relatively calm recently. However, the coronavirus crisis reduced the so-called market ''cake'', and back in 2020, taxi drivers started with the turmoil and protests once again due to certain provisions of this law, and at the end of last year, the state made a concession to taxi drivers regarding the age of the vehicle fleet and postponed stricter regulations until the year 2023.

Now a new dawn of sorts has arrived where traditional taxi drivers who are members of the Croatian Chamber of Trades and Crafts (HOK) are asking for a review of the constitutionality of the law which came into force back in 2018. Namely, as was explained by HOK, it is disputable that, although the law provides the cities and municipalities in whose territory this transport takes place to make some rules, decisions can ultimately be made by the relevant ministry.

HOK pointed out that the introduction of paragraph 14 in Article 47 of the Road Transport Act restricts or deprives local self-government and regional self-government units of their rights, which violates one of the highest values ​​of the constitutional order of the Republic of Croatia as is proclaimed in Article 3 of the Constitution.

“The provision of Article 47, paragraph 13 of the Road Transport Act stipulates that the competent administrative body of the local self-government unit, ie the City of Zagreb, is obliged to decide on the application for a car taxi permit and issue that decision within 15 days. With this provision, the legislator gave local self-government units, ie the City of Zagreb, the authority to independently decide on the issuance of licenses for autotaxi transport in accordance with Article 129 of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia. However, paragraph 14 of the same article stipulates that if the competent body referred to in Article 13 does not decide on the request within the specified period, the Ministry will act on the request and issue an appropriate decision within the next 15 day period.

This provision implies that it restricts the right of local self-government units given to them by the provision of paragraph 13 so that it prescribes the return of authority by transferring it again to the state body or the competent ministry if the local self-government unit doesn't provide a response to the request within the prescribed timeframe,'' said Dragutin Ranogajec of HOK. He added that such a legal expression is a precedent in Croatian legislative practice because its general and wide application would mean derogating from administrative supervision, ie administrative procedure as an instrument of control through a two-stage procedure.

In order to avoid such situations in which local self-government units are stripped of their powers, the Constituent Assembly enacted a provision of Article 130 of the Croatian Constitution which stipulates that local and regional self-government units are independent when it comes to performing tasks within their scope and are subject only to the constitutional and legal review of authorised state bodies. In the case prescribed by paragraph 14, as those affected have duly pointed out, it isn't about the supervision of authorised state bodies over the work of local and regional self-government units, but instead about limiting or depriving them of a right granted to them by law, which violates one of the highest values ​​of the constitutional order proclaimed in Article 3.

"The Croatian Chamber of Trades and Crafts considers that the goal of the provision of paragraph 14, which presupposes speeding up the procedure for issuing licenses for autotaxi transport, is not a sufficient legitimate reason to limit the rights of local and regional self-government units, thus violating the provisions of Article 130 and Article 3 of the Constitution,'' believes Dragutin Ranogajec, head of the Chamber of Crafts.

For more, check out our dedicated business section.

December 21, 2021 - Constitutional expert Mato Palić believes that both issues that Most Party put to the COVID certificates referendum are unconstitutional, and as such will not pass.

Most party members said on Sunday that they had collected enough signatures for the referendum question, which touches on COVID certificates, and counting is now underway, reports Net.hr.

After all the signatures are counted, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia must decide whether the issue in the COVID certificates referendum is in accordance with the constitution, and constitutional expert Mato Palić told N1 television that there is nothing disputable in the COVID certificates.

"Judging by the previous practice of the Constitutional Court and the positions they have taken regarding the decisions of the Civil Protection Headquarters. There is very little chance, almost no chance, for them to make a Copernican turn, that is, to approach the restrictions of rights and freedoms in a different way. Especially taking into account the fact that we had stronger restrictions on rights and freedoms when we had a much better epidemiological picture'', Palic said.

"It is not realistic for them to completely change their position and make a decision that these existing restrictions are constitutionally disputable," he added.

So far, the Constitutional Court is acting correctly, claims Palić.

"The Constitutional Court interprets constitutional norms correctly. I don't think that the Constitutional Court has done anything so far, that is, it has made a decision that is disputable from the aspect of the correct interpretation of constitutional norms", he said and also touched on the Most initiative.

"Politicians always speak from the position of some kind of rhetoric in public space in a way that goes to their mill. What is undeniable is the fact that the Constitutional Court did not question the acts passed by the Headquarters, except for the part of the decision related to the ban on work on Sundays. As for the referendum itself, I think that both issues are unconstitutional, and the first one refers to the amendment of Article 17 and the second one refers to the amendments to the Law on Protection of the Population on Infectious Diseases ", he explained.

For more on COVID-19, follow TCN's dedicated page.

ZAGREB, 20 Nov, 2021 -  The Constitutional Court has upheld several appeals against the rule of permitted maximum age limits on taxi vehicles and on vehicles used for private hire in Croatia, the Večernji List daily reported on Saturday.

The age limit was introduced by the transport ministry only on taxi vehicles and on private hire vehicles with up to 8 seats, whereas other categories in the provision of passenger transport services were exempted from that limit.

The age limit would have been taken effect in 2023, and in the event that it had been confirmed by the constitutional court, taxi vehicles and private hire vehicles, older than seven and five years respectively, could no longer be used in transport of passengers as of 2023.

The applicant appealed against discrimination as the age limit rule was applicable for other categories of vehicles in passenger transport services.

For more on lifestyle, follow TCN's dedicated page.

For more about Croatia, CLICK HERE.

July 5, 2021 - Gay rights in Croatia still have challenges ahead, but even if all problems are resolved, Pride should remain a commemorative event. A look at the history of gay culture in Croatia and the current climate in this Zagreb Gay Pride 2021 Analysis by TCN reporter Ivor Kruljac.

Zagreb Pride is the oldest pride in Croatia. First held in 2002, it attracts more and more people every year, from LGBTQ members, straight people that support gay rights to NGOs, human rights activists, and even politicians from the left and liberal specter. Over the years, the event grew from a one-day pride to Pride month, full of educational and entertaining events regarding LGBTQ issues and a chance for people with the same preferences to meet and celebrate who they are.

Pride month is marked in June in honor of the 1969 Stonewall Uprising in Manhattan.

„The Stonewall Riots, also called the Stonewall Uprising, began in the early hours of June 28, 1969, when New York City police raided the Stonewall Inn, a gay club located in Greenwich Village in New York City. The raid sparked a riot among bar patrons and neighborhood residents as police roughly hauled employees and patrons out of the bar, leading to six days of protests and violent clashes with law enforcement outside the bar on Christopher Street, in neighboring streets, and in nearby Christopher Park. The Stonewall Riots served as a catalyst for the gay rights movement in the United States and around the world“, reminds History.com.

When it comes to LGBTQ in Croatia, as you can expect with the ideological divide Croatians generally experience, there are mixed feelings on the issue.

From street violence to a family event  

Participating in the first Pride in 2002 required that if you are a man loving a man ready to openly admit it, you had to have balls.

The attacks by skinheads and other „morally concerned citizens were fierce and violent. Participants truly needed police protection which was provided but also needed to be careful to not get hit by the incoming rocks that were thrown among the participants.

Police arresting violent skinhead at the first Zagreb Pride in 2002, screenshot / Zagreb pride

But, at least for Zagreb, the situation got better and more open. Today, pride is the forthcoming celebration of love and freedom, and entire families can be seen to join the picnic at Ribnjak park to teach their children tolerance and that people are not sick or different from others because of their sexual preference. Other larger cities in Croatia, such as Split, slowly but surely, do follow that path too, and Rijeka, the pinnacle of liberal Croatia, is also a very gay-friendly city.

Of course, a political counterstrike is expected and quite strong. The first most notable one was the 2013 referendum, where it was voted that the Croatian constitution declares marriage as a „community between a man and woman“. The goal was to deny LGBTQ couples the same rights as enjoyed by straight people.

However, the bill on life partnership outplayed that attempt.

In the meantime, LGBTQ couples can also adopt children in Croatia, as Constitutional Court concluded that gay couples fostering children is not against the Croatian Constitution.

That decision and along with the general openness of Croatia towards LGBTQ was followed by a controversial carnival in Imotski where an effigy of a gay couple was burned. President Zoran Milanović demanded an apology from the organizers, and SDP's MP Arsen Bauk filed charges against the organizers.

Counting pluses and minuses, the report on Croatia being the 39th best country for LGBTQ visitors still seems to uphold. No changes for the better, but at least Croatia is still in the top third for this category of tourists.

 Haters strike back

2020 and 2021 sadly saw the uprise of violence towards LGBTQ in the Croatian capital. Apart from the occasional tearing down or burning of the rainbow flag, Croatia was shocked with an attempt of burning a man in Maksimir Forest Park as well, with his sexual preference being the sole motive for the attack.

 On the other side, this year's pride felt to start stronger than ever. The newly elected mayor Tomislav Tomašević joined the parade, along with stating that Zagreb is a city that is open to everyone. This year arranged a bit differently to adhere to corona measures; around 2500 participated in the event.  

„Twenty of our prides made our city and our republic a better, more democratic, and joyous place for the life of all citizens“, was the main message of the 20th edition of Zagreb Pride.

As reported by Index.hr, the Zagreb Pride association representatives stated that the Croatian LGBTIQ community „became a powerful, responsible and self-aware part of the country, but that the fight isn't over“.

„Our constitution and our laws still do not include in a complete and fair way. Our streets and squares are still not free of hate. We didn't forget nor we will forget victims of homophobic and fascist rampage in this year and all previous years“, stated Zagreb Pride.  

Sadly, while Pride itself went without issues, participants of the pride who walked the streets of Zagreb after pride with rainbow flags faced a series of physical attacks on several locations in Zagreb.  

A week ahead of Pride, conservative MOST Party parliament member Nikola Grmoja complained that commercials displayed during EURO 2020 commercials were LGBTQ propaganda and that kids need to be protected from it and announced that he might include it in his anti-pedophile package. Grmoja's statement caused strong disagreements among the Croatian public, with several people (including celebrities) teasing him that if he wants to start battling pedophilia, he should start from church (as Grmoja is quite clerical). Božo Petrov, president of the MOST party, added more fuel to the fire when he supported Grmoja, stating that „minorities can't dictate what my children can learn in school“. He added that minorities need to be aware that they are minorities and that „we tolerate that," sparking more enrage from the public, with many comparing MOST to the controversial Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban.

Zagreb Pride linked the post-Pride physical attacks with Petrov and Grmoja's public statements, and Petrov and Grmoja announced they would sue Zagreb Pride for slender.

Nikola Grmoja, screenshot N1

The Law: "Gay is OK". Popular opinion: "Do it in your homes, not on the streets".

In this political escalation, what does the average Croatian think? Looking at the comments on social networks, it seems the majority of Croatians don't mind gays being gays and living how they like (even if they are not always happy with legal rights the LGBTQ community received). But, one sentiment in that „tolerance“ is particularly worrying.

„Live in your house however you want it. You don't have to wave around, like its a best thing ever“, said one of the online comments on Index.hr beneath the news on Petrov and Grmoja.

So it seems the public does not understand why Pride is important. First of all, as evident, the political climate is such that the battle for equality truly isn't over in Croatia, and Pride is the best way for the community to express what issues LGBTQ still face in Croatia. Additionally, pride month is also educational and supportive, and public presence show to other people who feel the same that they are not alone, as they might feel lonely and unable to find people who feel the same in everyday life.

© Zagreb Pride

But, even if the law and constitution give the same rights and solves the problem of intolerance of LGBTQ people completely, does that mean that Pride should then be canceled? Well, Croatia won its independence and the war in the nineties. Does that mean we should stop commemorating the Homeland War? Or is it nice to honor and celebrate the victory and triumph over all obstacles Croatia had to face in its independence? Pride is a cultural, commemorative event honoring those who were or still are victims and oppressed for their sexual preference, either in Croatia or in the world. Croatia is a democratic country. Every group, national, ethnical, racial, religious, etc. should have the right to gather and honor its heroes. The right to gather and honor its tragedies and their dates and connect with other people who feel the same. If political elites are so concerned with keeping Croatians in Croatia, then they can't afford to discriminate or attack part of Croatian society solely based on their sexual preference. A preference that, unlike being violent or intolerable, can't be chosen.

Learn more about LGBT rights in Croatia and what LGBT tourists should know on our TC page.

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

ZAGREB, 6 June, 2021 - Danijel Ferić, the Social Democratic Party's (SDP) candidate for Istra County Prefect, who was defeated by Boris Miletić of the Istrian Democratic Party (IDS) by a slim margin of a few dozen votes, on Sunday announced a complaint against the State Electoral Commission's (DIP) decision.

The Constitution Court has a 48-hour deadline to respond to the objections to be lodged by Ferić and the SDP on Monday.

On Saturday, DIP affirmed the victory of IDS leader Boris Miletić in the election runoff on 30 May for the new Istria County prefect. During its hours-long session the commission partially upheld the objections made by Ferić and SDP observers on the count of the votes after last Sunday's election runoff.

As a result, Ferić, was given 17 more ballots, and Miletić three more ballots than they had after the count of votes immediately after the polling stations were closed. Thus, of 52,574 valid ballots Miletić and the candidate for his deputy, Tulio Demetlika, won 26,308, while Ferić and his deputy Antonella Degrassi mustered 26,268 ballots, or 40 fewer ballots. There were 2,056 invalid ballots or 3.76%.

Ferić told a news conference in Pula today that the constitutional complaint would refer to the DIP's refusal of the SDP request to check the allegations that people who actually had not been in the town of Labin during the election runoff being were registered voters who exercised their right on that day.

Ferić insists that the election runoff for the Istria County prefect were contaminated and particularly in the towns where the IDS was in power: for instance, Pula, Labin, Rovinj and Pazin.

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

For more about Croatia, CLICK HERE.

ZAGREB, 21 April, 2021 - A constitutional complaint by the parents and eight siblings of Afghan migrant girl Madine Hosseini, who died in 2017 after she fell under a train near the Croatian-Serbian border, regarding their application for protection in Croatia, has been granted, Večernji List daily said on Wednesday.

The Constitutional Court established that the Ministry of the Interior (MUP) and administrative courts did not establish with sufficient certainty that Serbia was a safe third country and that asylum seekers would not be at risk of being returned to their country of origin.

A complaint filed by the second wife of Madine's father and children has also been granted, so decisions of the High Administrative Court were quashed for a total of four adults and ten children aged one to 15 from Afghanistan and the case was returned to the Administrative Court in Osijek. All of them were represented by lawyer Sanja Bezbradica Jelavić.

After Madeine's death they were returned to Serbia, but in 2018 they re-entered Croatia and applied for international protection. The father and husband who filed the constitutional complaint said that the Taliban had threatened him because he had worked as a police officer and driver for the US military in Afghanistan, so in fear of them, since he had been wounded in one attack, he managed to flee with his family.

After they illegally entered Croatia, MUP rejected their asylum request by applying the safe third country institute. The explanation was that the Serbian constitution guaranteed fundamental human and minority rights.

Administrative courts also confirmed that Serbia's legal framework guaranteed an efficient and fair procedure of international protection, even from chain refoulement. The fact that they had not been exposed to inhumane or similar treatment in the year and a half they stayed in Serbia was also taken in to account.

However, the lawyer said that the evaluation of Serbia as a safe third country had not taken into account the fact that over the past 10 years refugee statuse had been granted to only 47 persons and subsidiary protection to 62, which was negligible in relation to the number of refugees.

The constitutional judges too ruled that it was not enough to examine the legal framework for asylum seekers but also the real situation, Večernji List said.

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

ZAGREB, 23 March, 2021 - The Constitutional Court on Tuesday concluded that the Croatian President can select a nominee for the Supreme Court Chief Justice only from those applicants who sent their applications for that post after the State Judicial Council (DSV) publicly advertised the position. 

After receiving requests to test the constitutionality of the provision regulating the selection procedure under which the DSV advertises the position for the Supreme Court President, the Constitutional Court, which considered this issue, said that the provision concerned does not restrict the head of state's constitutional powers whereby he/she can nominate the candidate for the said post while it is the parliament that appoints the Supreme Court head.

The Constitutional Court says that the head of state is authorised to nominate one of the applicants who have sent their applications following the DSV's public advertisement.

The latest conclusion of the Constitutional Court was adopted with nine votes in favour and four votes against it. These four judges have announced their dissenting opinions, while four of the nine judges who voted for this conclusion have also announced the publication of their supporting opinions.

The Constitutional Court has received a few requests to review the constitutionality of the Courts Act which stipulates the procedure for the appointment of the Supreme Court President.

The issue has grabbed limelight since President Zoran Milanović decided not to select any of the three applicants who sent their applications after the State Judicial Council advertised the position.

After the expiry of the public call, Milanović proposed law professor Zlata Đurđević, insisting that the law regulating the procedure is not in line with the Constitution.

In the meantime, lawyers Sandra Marković and Jadranka Sloković have sent a request to the Constitutional Court to test the constitutionality of the said legislation, after a request for the review of its constitutionality was also forwarded by filmmaker Dario Juričan, who ran in the presidential election in 2019.

Constitutional Court president Miroslav Šeparović told Hina on Friday that the court would decide on Tuesday whether the latest request would be put on its agenda as a separate item or whether it would be discussed together with Juričan's proposal.

Milanović insists that it is his constitutional right to nominate the person he chooses. The decision of the parliament speaker not to add Milanović's motion to the parliament's agenda concerning professor Đurđević, who was not among the three applicants, prompted President Milanović to criticise the legislature for defending the status quo and "untouchable" top officials in the judiciary.

Last Friday, the parliament confirmed the opinion of the Committee on the Constitution that no mistake was made by Speaker Gordan Jandroković when he asked President Milanović to supplement his motion on the nomination of the Supreme Court president.

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

ZAGREB, Dec 13, 2020 - The Constitutional Court rejected the lawsuit by former prime minister and Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ) leader Ivo Sanader in the Planinska case, due to which he is serving a six-year prison sentence.

With this decision all legal means of challenging the verdict before national courts have been exhausted.

The verdict in the Planinska case, in which Sanader was charged with receiving a commission of HRK 17.5 million after the state bought a building in Zagreb's Planinska Street from the company of former HDZ MP and butchers chain owner Stjepan Fiolic during his term as prime minister, was handed down by Zagreb County Court in 2017 and upheld by the Supreme Court in April 2019.

The Supreme Court increased Sanader's sentence to six years in prison, after which the former prime minister was sent to Zagreb's Remetinec jail.

In the trial, Fiolic admitted that he brought HRK 10 million and another one million euros (approx. HRK 17.5 million in total) to Sanader's home in a cardboard box. The property of Fiolic's company was purchased by the regional development ministry, led by former minister Petar Cobankovic, who made a plea bargain with the prosecution before trail and was sentenced to one in year in prison. He did not go to prison but did community service.

Apart from them, the trial chamber in this case also convicted Mladen Mlinarevic, for whom it established that he inflated the value of the building in Zagreb's Planinska Street owned by Fiolic before it was purchased by Cobankovic's ministry.

In the rejected constitutional complaint, Sanader repeated that he was a victim of political persecution and that Fiolic and Cobankovic had reached agreements with the prosecution and received lighter sentences. In the complaint, Sanader called Cobankovic a "false witness" who spoke in court as instructed by the prosecution.

He also claimed that the equality of arms principle had been violated as several criminal proceedings had been conducted against him at the same time. In addition to the constitutional complaint, he also filed a motion to delay enforcement procedures and to postpone his imprisonment.

In the meantime, in November, Sanader was sentenced in a retrial to eight years in prison and ordered to return HRK 16 million in the Fimi Media case, after the non-final verdict from 2013 was quashed by the Supreme Court.

Sanader is also waiting for the Supreme Court's decisions on several more non-final verdicts. He has been sentenced pending appeal to six years for taking a bribe from the Hungarian energy group MOL, and MOL CEO Zsolt Hernadi was sentenced to two years in prison. If the verdict becomes final, Sanader will have to return €5 million to the state.

He has also been sentenced pending appeal for taking a kickback from the Austrian Hypo bank, and he has been acquitted pending appeal for the sale of electricity from the HEP provider to a company owned by Rober Jezic at prices below the market price.