Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Transformation of the Croatian Legal Aid System: From Normative to Functional Insufficiency

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Transformation of Civil Justice

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 70))

  • 435 Accesses

Abstract

The establishment of the Croatian legal aid system in civil matters was a consequence of Croatia’s accession to the European Union. Lack of comprehensive assessment of citizens’ needs and lack of systematic research on the costs of legal aid resulted in an insufficient normative background. Uncertainty and the lack of flexibility of some of the provisions of the Legal Aid Act effectively precluded many citizens from obtaining legal aid. Matters were such that the Croatian Constitutional Court intervened by abolishing some of the Act’s key provisions. The new Legal Aid Act was supposed to cope with all the identified problems. Simplification and increased flexibility of threshold rules, in combination with policy changes with regard to financing of legal aid providers, promised a greater possibility to access justice in civil matters. This contribution assesses the extent to which the normative transformation of the Croatian legal aid system was indeed successful in achieving the goals of recent reform attempts.

This contribution is the result of research supported by the Croatian Science Foundation (project no. 6988).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Some of the defendants were statutorily obliged to appoint defense counsel, while others could apply to the court for legal aid if they could not afford one. See Articles 65, 66 Criminal Procedure Act 97.

  2. 2.

    Legal Aid Act (2008).

  3. 3.

    Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia (2011).

  4. 4.

    Legal Aid Act (2013).

  5. 5.

    Legal Aid Act Final Proposal (2013) Vlada Republike Hrvatske, Zagreb. https://vlada.gov.hr/UserDocsImages//Sjednice/Arhiva//123.%20-%206.pdf. Accessed 7 June 2018. See specifically pp 24, 25.

  6. 6.

    Cf. Article 8 LAA 2008 and Article 14 LAA 2013.

  7. 7.

    Legal Aid Act Final Proposal (2013), 27, 28.

  8. 8.

    Report of the Ministry of Justice on the Functioning of the Judiciary (2016) Vlada Republike Hrvatske, Zagreb. https://pravosudje.gov.hr/vijesti/izvjesce-o-radu-sudova-za-2016-godinu/14727. Accessed 7 June 2018.

  9. 9.

    The number includes cases in which lawyers represented clients before the courts, administrative bodies, in ADR and special types of proceedings.

  10. 10.

    It could, however, be argued as to whether such inclusion was indeed effective. In a recent study, the number of waivers was shown to be more than five times smaller than the number of enforcement proceedings, which had been initiated due to the non-payment of court fees and which turned out to be unsuccessful for more than a year. Presumably, those court fees should have been waived, which shows that the waiver system does not function properly. See Brozović (2017).

  11. 11.

    Statement of the Commission on Legal Aid (2013), 17 September 2013. Unpublished.

  12. 12.

    A meeting was held in November 2014 to address the novelties in the system and to discuss various issues regarding the project proposals and their implementation.

  13. 13.

    CEPEJ (2014, 46).

  14. 14.

    CEPEJ (2016, 72).

  15. 15.

    CEPEJ STAT (2017). See specifically Quantitative data (for 2013, 2012 or 2014) for exact numbers and country-specific data (for 2013, 2012 or 2014) for methodology explanations.

  16. 16.

    CEPEJ (2016, 49).

  17. 17.

    Precisely, it spent 95.26% of its court budget on gross salaries in 2012 (CEPEJ 2014, 34) and 80.90% in 2014 (CEPEJ 2016, 37). The salaries of Croatian judges are below the European average and median (see CEPEJ 2016, 110).

  18. 18.

    CEPEJ (2016, 90). The number is slightly higher since Croatia has special misdemeanor courts, as well as a High Misdemeanor Court. If they are excluded, the number would still be high: 32.29.

  19. 19.

    Their number has increased over the years. In 2014, Croatia had 166.5 non-court officials for every 100,000 inhabitants, i.e. 2.5 times the European average (CEPEJ 2016, 149). If specialized misdemeanor courts are excluded, the number is 137.95, which still makes it double the European average.

  20. 20.

    Statement of the Commission on Legal Aid (2013), 17 September 2013. Unpublished.

  21. 21.

    See State Budget of the Republic of Croatia for 2018 Proposal (2017) Croatian Parliament, Zagreb. http://www.sabor.hr/prijedlog-drzavnog-proracuna-rh-2018. Accessed 7 June 2018.

  22. 22.

    Cf. Report of the Ministry of Justice on Legal Aid and Expenditure of State Funds (2014, p 13); Report of the Ministry of Justice on Legal Aid and Expenditure of State Funds, p 14; and Report of the Ministry of Justice on Legal Aid and Expenditure of State Funds (2016, p 14). All reports are published on the web page of the Ministry of Justice. https://pravosudje.gov.hr/vijesti/izvjesce-o-radu-sudova-za-2016-godinu/14727. Accessed 7 June 2018.

  23. 23.

    Cf. Arts. 45 and 46 LAA 2013.

  24. 24.

    Legal Aid Act Final Proposal (2008) Vlada Republike Hrvatske, Zagreb. http://www.sabor.hr/fgs.axd?id=11688. Accessed 7 June 2018. See specifically p 45.

  25. 25.

    Reports are hidden within numerous other reports thematically unconnected to legal aid. There is no hyperlink on the web page giving information on legal aid.

  26. 26.

    Translation by the author. Cf. Report of the Ministry of Justice on Legal Aid and Expenditure of State Funds (2015, p. 14) and Report of the Ministry of Justice on Legal Aid and Expenditure of State Funds (2016, p. 14).

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia

    Juraj Brozović

Authors
  1. Juraj Brozović
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juraj Brozović .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia

    Alan Uzelac

  2. Faculty of Law, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Cornelis Hendrik (Remco) van Rhee

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Brozović, J. (2018). Transformation of the Croatian Legal Aid System: From Normative to Functional Insufficiency. In: Uzelac, A., van Rhee, C. (eds) Transformation of Civil Justice. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 70. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97358-6_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97358-6_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-97357-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-97358-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation