Abstract
The idea of European integration and the motto ‘united in diversity’ can be seen as the connection between diverse European national cultures and the bridge between ‘old’ and ‘new’ Member States. On one hand, it is important to acknowledge that the rule of law is a necessary element of democratic survival in a multi-ethnic Europe. On the other hand, addressing the needs of minority groups in the post-war period in Croatia as the youngest Member State is a crucial component of rule-of-law reforms. Supporting minority rights can help to safeguard citizens respect for the rule of law and build confidence in a new, fragile justice system. Although pre-accession minority conditionality, proposed by the Copenhagen summit, has resulted in the implementation of international and European norms on minority rights in Croatian legislation, the lack of a monitoring mechanism after the accession has produced limited progress in the field of ethnic minorities protection.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
According to the 2011 Census, Croatia is inhabited mostly by Croats (90.42%). Among the ethnic minorities, the largest is the Serbian minority (4.36%), while other minorities each amount to less than 1% of the population (Albanians, Austrians, Bosnians, Bulgarians, Montenegrins, Czechs, Hungarians, Macedonians, Germans, Poles, Roma, Romanians, Russians, Ruthenians, Slovaks, Slovenians, Italians, Turks, Ukrainians, Vlachs, Jews). Members of national minorities are guaranteed the right to education in their language and script as defined by the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia, the Constitutional Act on the Rights of National Minorities and the Act on Education in the Language and Script of National Minorities. See: Croatian Bureau of Statistics, 2011. https://www.dzs.hr/hrv/censuses/census2011/results/htm/H01_01_04/h01_01_04_RH.html.
- 2.
The Copenhagen criteria are the rules that define which country is eligible to join the European Union. In 1993, following the former communist countries’ application for EU membership, the European Council adopted three main criteria that candidate countries must meet if they want to become members: the political criterion—stability of institutions that ensure democracy, rule of law, respect for human and minority rights; acceptance of EU policy objectives; the economic criterion—the existence of an efficient market economy, and the ability of market factors to cope with competitive pressures and market laws within the EU; the legal criterion—the adoption of the entire EU acquis. In addition to these three criteria, each country wishing to become a full member of the EU must meet the fourth, administrative criterion (Madrid criterion), which requires the adjustment of appropriate administrative structures in order to ensure the conditions for gradual and harmonious integration.
- 3.
European Council in Copenhagen (1993) Conclusions of the presidency, Copenhagen, SN 180/93, p. 12.
- 4.
Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the European Union, OJ C326/13.
- 5.
“[S]eparate educational facilities are inherently unequal” and therefore violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
- 6.
Civil Rights Act, 42 USCS § 2000e (1964).
- 7.
Resolution 2106 A/XX/ 21/12/1965.
- 8.
Article 1(1) International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
- 9.
In 1963, the UN General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and, two years later, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
- 10.
Vasiljević (2015), pp. 177–195.
- 11.
The Republic of Croatia is a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 6 October 1991 pursuant to the Decision on the Publication of Multilateral International Treaties to which the Republic of Croatia is a party on the basis of succession notifications. This decision was made by the Government of the Republic of Croatia on 30 September 1993 (Official Gazette - International Agreements, No. 12/1993); Decision promulgating the Act ratifying the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966, Official Gazette 7/1995.
- 12.
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 16 December 1966 (Decision on the publication of multilateral international agreements to which the Republic of Croatia is a party on the basis of notifications of succession, Official Gazette/International Agreements 012/1993).
- 13.
Council of Europe, Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, 1 February 1995, ETS 157.
- 14.
In addition, Article 14 of the ECHR is of a subsidiary nature as the ECtHR examines an alleged violation of Article 14 of the Convention in relation to an article containing substantive Convention law only if there is “clear inequality of treatment in the enjoyment of the right in question”, for this is the “fundamental aspect, of the case in question.” Read more in ECtHR, Airey v. Ireland Application No. 6289/73 (1979).
- 15.
Article 14 of the EC explicitly states discriminatory grounds, and, thanks to the so-called open-clause, “other circumstances”. Potential other grounds include: marital status (adoption), sexual orientation, legality or illegality at birth, professional status, and military status or military rank. Its Protocol 12 prohibits discrimination not only in relation to the rights contained in the ECHR, but also in relation to the rights protected by national regulations. However, the prohibition of discrimination within the meaning of Article 14 is not considered an independent substantive or substantive Convention right and is limited to the substantive Convention rights governed by Articles 2 to 13 of the Convention and the relevant provisions of the Protocols relating thereto. Norms of European primary and secondary law are independent in nature, but are limited in scope. The scope of Article 14 of the ECHR is limited if the circumstances of a particular case go beyond the scope of a Convention law, interpreted in accordance with the case law of the ECtHR, and then there is no possibility of invoking Article 14 of the Convention.
- 16.
Handbook on European anti-discrimination law (2010), Fundamental Rights Agency, Vienna.
- 17.
ECtHR, Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Application No. 27996/06 & 34836/06.
- 18.
A problem could arise if the CJEU interpreted a provision of Directive 2000/43/EC with regard to specific measures in the way it interpreted a similar provision with regard to specific measures in the field of gender equality. For example, if it is about employment, then it would mean giving preference to the underrepresented group (if all the conditions from the tender are met), which is in fact a solution that is already regulated in the Croatian legal framework in Article 22(a) of the Constitutional Law on Protection of National Minorities.
- 19.
ECtHR, Timishev v. Russia, Application No. 55762/00 and 55974/00.
- 20.
ECtHR, Timishev v. Russia, Application No. 55762/00 and 55974/00, para 55.
- 21.
ECtHR, Timishev v. Russia, Application No. 55762/00 and 55974/00, para 56.
- 22.
ECtHR, Timishev v. Russia, Application No. 55762/00 and 55974/00, para 57.
- 23.
European Council in Copenhagen (1993) Conclusions of the presidency, Copenhagen, SN 180/93, p. 12.
- 24.
Sasse (2005), p. 9.
- 25.
Ibidem.
- 26.
Article 6 TEU stipulated that “The Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, as general principles of Community law”. Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union, OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, p. 13-390.
- 27.
Kochenov (2008), p. 39.
- 28.
Kochenov (2008), p. 79.
- 29.
ENAR (2020) Policy paper: #CovidImpact - Lifting structural barriers: A priority in the fight against racism, Brussels.
- 30.
Case 29/69 Stauder ECLI: ECLI:EU:C:1969:57.
- 31.
141 EEC and 19 TFEU, Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
- 32.
Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, OJ L 180, 19.7.2000, pp. 22–26.
- 33.
Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, pp. 16–22.
- 34.
Treaty Establishing the European Community (Consolidated Version), Rome Treaty, 25 March 1957.
- 35.
European Union, Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 26 October 2012, OJ L 326/47-326/390; 26.10.2012.
- 36.
The article obliged the Council of Ministers to take concrete action, so two directives and an action programme for the period from 2001 to 2006 were adopted.
- 37.
Article 13 TEC:
“1. Without prejudice to other provisions of this Treaty and within the limits of the powers conferred by it upon the Community, the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, may take appropriate action to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation”. Treaty establishing the European Community (consolidated version 1997), OJ C 340 of 10 November 1997.
- 38.
Article 21 of the EU Charter:
-
1.
Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.
-
2.
Within the scope of application of the Treaties and without prejudice to any of their specific provisions, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, pp. 391–340.
-
1.
- 39.
Council Directive 2000/43/EC adopting the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin [2000] OJ L 180 and Council Directive 2000/78/EC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation [2000] OJ L 303.
- 40.
ENAR (2017). Shadow report on racism & discrimination in employment in Europe 2013–2017.
- 41.
Petrova (2001).
- 42.
In 2007, the European Commission instituted proceedings against fourteen Member States for late or incomplete implementation of the Racial Equality Directive 2000/43 and against seventeen Member States for non-implementation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Directive 2000/78. The European Commission’s EU Action Against Discrimination Activity Report 2007–2008, sec. 2.1.1.
- 43.
Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law [2008] OJ L 328/55.
- 44.
Recommendation No. R (97) 20 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on “hate speech”, 30 October 1997.
- 45.
ECtHR, Le Pen v. France, Application No. 18788/09; Feret v. Belgium, Application No. 15615/07.
- 46.
“By publicly stating his intention not to hire persons of a certain racial or ethnic origin, the employer is, in fact, excluding those persons from the application process and from his workfloor. He is not merely talking about discriminating, he is discriminating. He is not simply uttering words, he is performing a ‘speech act’”, Opinion of the advocate general Miguel Poiares Maduro delivered on 12 March 2008 in case C-54/07 Feryn, ECLI:EU:C:2008:155, para. 16.
- 47.
For the purposes of Directive 2000/43/EC, “indirect discrimination exists if a seemingly neutral provision, criterion or practice would place persons of a particular racial or ethnic origin at a particular disadvantage compared to other persons, unless such a provision, criterion or practice is objectively justified by a legitimate aim, and the means to achieve it are appropriate and necessary”.
- 48.
ECtHR, Orsus and others v. Croatia [GC] Application No. 15766/03.
- 49.
ECtHR, Orsus and others v. Croatia [GC] Application No. 15766/03, para 66.
- 50.
ECtHR, Orsus and others v. Croatia [GC] Application No. 15766/03, para 184.
- 51.
ECtHR , Orsus and others v. Croatia [GC] Application No. 15766/03, para 185.
- 52.
For the purposes of Directive 2000/43/EC, harassment is discrimination in the event of undesirable behaviour related to racial or ethnic origin aimed at or affecting a person’s dignity and creating an environment in which there is intimidation, hostility, degradation, humiliation or assault. In that context, the concept of harassment may be determined in accordance with the provisions of the national law and practice of the Member States. Encouraging discrimination against persons on the grounds of racial or ethnic origin is also considered discrimination, and the directives do not insist on the existence of intent.
- 53.
Article 22(a) of the Croatian Constitutional Act on Rights of Ethnic Minorities introduced a specific measure to increase the number of members of ethnic minorities in the public sector.
- 54.
Case C-42/97, European Parliament v Council of the European Union. Council Decision 96/664/EC - Promotion of linguistic diversity of the Community in the information society - Case C-42/97, ECLI:EU:C:1999:81; C-137/84 Mutsch ECLI:EU:C:1985:335, C-274/96 Bickel & Franz ECLI:EU:C:1998:563.
- 55.
Case C-617/10 Ackerberg Fransson ECLI:EU:C:2013:105.
- 56.
Case C-64/16 Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portuguese protiv Tribunal de Contas; Case C-284/16 Achmea ECLI:EU:C:2018:158; Case C-216/18 PPU LM ECLI:EU:C:2018:586; Case C-621/18 Wightman ECLI:EU:C:2018:999; Case C-619/18 R Commission v. Poland ECLI:EU:C:2018:1021.
- 57.
Pech (2009), p. 42.
- 58.
The rule of law is also one of the principles guiding the EU’s external action (Article 21 TEU).
- 59.
Pech and Kochenov (2019).
- 60.
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council “A new EU Framework to strengthen the Rule of Law” COM (2014) 158 final.
- 61.
Ibidem.
- 62.
Case C-619/18 Commission v. Poland ECLI:EU:C:2018:1021.
- 63.
The first, and so far the only, use of the Rule of Law Framework began a dialogue with Poland in January 2016.
- 64.
Zalan (2020).
- 65.
Case 294/83 Les Verts ECLI:EU:C:1986:166, para 23.
- 66.
Case C-506/04 Wilson, ECLI:EU:C:2006:587.
- 67.
Case C-64/16 Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses ECLI:EU:C:2018:117; Case C-49/18 Escribano Vindel ECLI:EU:C:2019:106.
- 68.
“In terms of the composition of a judicial body and the appointment, length of service and grounds for abstention, rejection and dismissal of its members as well as of the disciplinary regime governing judges.” Case C-216/18 PPU LM, ECLI:EU:C:2018:586.
- 69.
Case C-619/18 R, Commission v. Poland ECLI:EU:C:2018:910.
- 70.
Šimonović (2012).
- 71.
Corstens (2014).
- 72.
Council of Europe (2019) Report of the Committee of Experts presented to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in accordance with the Article 16 of the Charter, Fifth Report: Slovenia.
- 73.
The Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM) was established as a transitional measure under the Accession Treaty with Bulgaria and Romania on 1 January 2007, operating in the so-called third safeguard clauses formally introduced by a Commission decision of 13 December 2006. For the first time in the history of the EU, the new Member States were placed under a supervisory mechanism after accession.
- 74.
European Parliament resolution of 25 October 2016 with recommendations to the Commission on the establishment of an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights (2015/2254(INL)).
- 75.
European Parliament resolution of 14 November 2018 on the need for a comprehensive EU mechanism for the protection of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights (2018/2886(RSP)).
- 76.
“Establishing an EU mechanism on democracy, rule of law and fundamental rights”. Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/theme-area-of-justice-and-fundamental-rights/file-eu-mechanism-on-democracy-the-rule-of-law-and-fundamental-rights.
- 77.
Croatian Constitution, Article 14, Official Gazette No. 41/01.
- 78.
The Constitution guarantees members of all national minorities the freedom to express their nationality, the freedom to use their language and script and cultural autonomy.
- 79.
Croatia ratified the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities in October 1997 and submitted its first report in March 1999. In April 2001, the Advisory Committee issued a position forming the basis for a 2002 resolution of the Council of Ministers. The Act on Ratification of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, Official Gazette - International Agreements, No. 14/1997.
- 80.
With the Stabilization and Association Agreement with the European Union, the Republic of Croatia undertook to adopt a new constitutional act on the rights of national minorities. At its session on 13 December 2002, the Croatian Parliament adopted a Decision on the promulgation of the Constitutional Act on the Rights of National Minorities, which created a normative framework for the full protection of the rights of persons belonging to national minorities.
- 81.
The new Constitutional Act was attached to Croatia’s candidacy for membership in the European Union in February 2003.
- 82.
Croatian Constitutional Court Decision No. U-I-3786/2010; U-I-3597/2010 and U-I-120/2011.
- 83.
The Act on the Use of Languages and Scripts of National Minorities in the Republic of Croatia (OG 51/00, 56/00 - correction), the Act on Education in the Language and Script of National Minorities (OG 51/00), the Act on the Election of Representatives to the Croatian Parliament OG 116/99, 109/00, 53/03, 69/03 - consolidated text), the Act on the Election of Members of Representative Bodies of Local and Regional Self-Government Units (OG 10/02, 155/02, 45/03, 43/04, 40/05 and 44/05 - consolidated text).
- 84.
The Anti-Discrimination Act prohibits discrimination based on race or ethnicity, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other belief, national or social origin, property status, trade union membership, education, social status, marital or family status, age, health status, disability, genetic inheritance, gender identity, expression or sexual orientation.
- 85.
The Roma population is the most excluded minority group, and inequalities for Roma girls start early and increase with age. As many as 78 percent of Roma girls drop out of school early, compared to 60 percent of Roma boys. Only six percent of the female Roma population complete secondary or higher education, compared to 24 percent of the male Roma population. With a high 82 percent for women and 72 percent for men, Croatia has the second highest rate of Roma outside education, work or training in Europe after Spain (World Bank Report, Croatia 2019).
- 86.
Annual Reports of the Ombudsperson for Human Rights for 2018 and 2019. Available at: https://www.ombudsman.hr/en/.
- 87.
Zagreb Municipal Civil Court, Pn-1726/13-29 and Varaždin County Court, Gž-399/2017.
- 88.
Šimunić submitted an application to the ECtHR, claiming that the decisions of domestic courts violated the following rights from the European Convention: the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention, nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege of Article 7 of the European Convention because the incriminated expression is not prohibited by any domestic law or regulation, the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention, the right to an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention, the prohibition of discrimination under Article 14 and the prohibition of systematic discrimination referred to in Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention. The ECtHR did not find a violation of its Article 6 because the two (different) judgments of the domestic courts in relation to this issue submitted by the applicant as evidence of his claims did not constitute evidence of obvious and profound discrepancy in the case law. The ECtHR did not find a violation of Article 7 of the ECHR (nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege) as the applicant had not exhausted all domestic remedies in this respect before raising this complaint before the ECtHR (there was no appeal).Furthermore, deciding on the alleged violation of Article 10 of the European Convention, the ECtHR did not assess whether the term “For Home” constituted an offence based on hatred of a minority and thus contrary to the values guaranteed by the Convention, but stressed that the domestic courts in this case had conducted a thorough procedure and established all relevant facts, in particular that they conducted an analysis and context of the meaning of that term. The domestic courts found that the term had a meaning and context directed against the rights protected by the Convention. The applicant’s conviction in the misdemeanour proceedings constituted State interference with his right to freedom of expression, but according to the ECtHR this interference was based on law (the Act on the Prevention of Disorders at Sports Competitions) and had a legitimate aim. In view of the above, as well as the fact that the State’s interference was, in the ECtHR’s view, necessary in a democratic society, the applicant’s complaint that his right to freedom of expression had been violated was declared manifestly ill-founded. The ECtHR also ruled that the other complaints related to alleged discrimination were unfounded. In its conclusion, the ECtHR particularly noted that the applicant, as a well-known footballer, should have been aware of the negative impact of his behaviour and should have refrained from such behaviour, especially in front of a large number of spectators. ECtHR, Šimunić v. Croatia, Application No. 20373/17.
- 89.
On 27 January 2016, the High Misdemeanour Court upheld the first-instance conviction and increased the fine from HRK 5000 to HRK 25,000, Judgement of the Croatian High Misdemeanour Court Jž-188/2016 of 27 January 2016. The Constitutional Court did not accept the freedom of expression as constitutionally relevant in the specific case (item 7), which accepts the reasoning of the High Misdemeanour Court in the specific case. Croatian Constitutional Court decisions No. U-III-1296/2016.and U-III-2588/2016.
- 90.
Ombudsperson for Human Rights, ‘Annual Report 2013’, p. 33.
- 91.
Plan of employment of members of national minorities in civil service in state administration bodies from 2011 until 2014, Official Gazette 65/11.
- 92.
Plan of employment in the civil service in the state election committee of the Republic of Croatia for 2013, Official Gazette 5/13, Plan of employment in civil service in state administration bodies and expert services and offices of the government of the Republic of Croatia for 2013 Official Gazette. 50/13, 76/13 and 128/13.
- 93.
Milošević (2014).
- 94.
Nestic et al. (2019).
- 95.
ECRI, Fourth Report on Croatia (2012), published on September 2012. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/government-comments-on-the-fourth-report-on-croatia/16808b57ca.
- 96.
ENAR Shadow Report 2009/2010 in the Republic of Croatia. Available at: http://cms.horus.be/files/99935/MediaArchive/publications/Croatia.pdf.
- 97.
Pilar I., Research: prevalence and characteristics of discrimination on the Croatian labour market—survey among unemployed persons and employers, Croatian Bureau for Employment and Institute for Social Sciences.
- 98.
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council (2010) Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2010–2011, COM(2010) 660, Brussels, p. 7.
- 99.
Bojinović Fenko and Urlić (2015) compared the frequency of use for the term ‘minority/ies’ in the two respective Reports the Commission’s Progress Reports on Croatia mentioned the topic of minorities 356 times which is more than 300 per cent of the frequency in its Progress Reports on Slovenia (111 times). As they claim, this can be explained by the difference in the de facto situation in practice as regards the respect of minorities in the two states, since the standard of minority protection in Slovenia has been viewed positively.
- 100.
Bučar (1999), p. 342.
- 101.
Boduszyński (2013), pp. 45–46.
- 102.
The European Council (2011, p. 12) on the basis of a proposal by the Commission refers to monitoring up to accession as a “necessary assurance to Croatia and current member states” and concludes the paragraph with a warning that it may otherwise, “acting by qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, take all appropriate measures”, meaning also to put a hold on the accession process. The same provision is included in the Croatian Accession Treaty to the EU (Title IV, Art. 36, point 1, Para1 and point 2).
- 103.
Croatia 2010 Progress Report accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2010–2011, COM(2010) 660, Brussels 09 November 2010.
- 104.
This is backed by the following evidence: the difference in the Commission’s initial assessments of the two applicant states, the frequency of reference to political criteria and minority/ies in Vol. XVIII, No. 66 - 2012 XXI (72) - 2015 121 the Commission’s Progress Reports, the Commission’s (non)persistence in monitoring the case of the ‘erased’ in Slovenia vs. a design of a special negotiation chapter for Croatia on Judiciary and Fundamental Rights, the difference in thoroughness of the EC’s final remarks on the political criteria before the states’ accession, the invention of benchmarks and track-record to assess Croatian implementation of accession criteria, the European Council Conclusions exposing political criteria for Croatia more often and with negative conditionality compared to Slovenia and finally, the invention of the monitoring mechanism during the ratification process with a possibility of withholding entry. European Commission (2011) Interim report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on reforms in Croatia in the field of judiciary and fundamental rights (negotiation chapter 23), COM (2011) 110, 2 March.
- 105.
Vasiljević (2020).
- 106.
National Programme for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights for the period from 2013 to 2016, Government of the Republic of Croatia, 2013.
- 107.
Secis v Croatia, Application No. 40116/0 (2007), Oršus and others v Croatia, Application No. 15766/03 (2008), Skendžić and Krznarić v Croatia, Application No. 16212/08 (2011).
- 108.
Human Rights House Croatia (2019) Human rights in Croatia: overview of 2019, Zagreb.
- 109.
Ombudsperson for Human Rights, ‘Annual report 2013’, pp. 1–3.
- 110.
Mesić and Bagić (2011).
- 111.
Vasiljević (2013).
- 112.
According to the Ombudsperson’s annual reports, the representation of national minorities is unsatisfactory, as the representation of national minorities is 3.5% and it is necessary to achieve 5.5% of the total number of employees in these bodies. Annual Report of 2018.
- 113.
“It is established that in a statement broadcast on Radio Soundset Plavi on 15 March 2013, the defendant Z.M. violated the dignity of the plaintiff Ž.J. on the basis of national origin.” Zagreb Municipal Civil Court, Pn-1726/13-29 and Varaždin County Court, Gž-399/2017.
- 114.
Croatian Constitutional Court decisions No. U-III-1296/2016. and U-III-2588/2016.
- 115.
Judgement of the Croatian High Misdemeanour Court Jž-188/2016 of 27 January 2016.
- 116.
ECtHR, Šimunić v. Croatia, Application No. 20373/17 (2019) in which the ECtHR ruled that it was inadmissible, finding that the term “For Home” did not enjoy protection under the right to freedom of expression. The ECtHR did not find a violation of Art. 6 of the European Convention because the two (different only in terms of the misdemeanour sentence imposed) judgments of the domestic courts on this issue submitted by the applicant as evidence of his claims did not constitute evidence of obvious and profound discrepancy in the case law.
References
Boduszyński MP (2013) The trials and triumphs of Europeanization in Croatia: the unbearable weight of structure and state-building? In: Elbasani A (ed) European integration and transformation in the Western Balkans; Europeanization or business as usual. Routledge, Oxon and New York, pp 39–53
Bojinović Fenko A, Urlić A (2015) Political criteria vs. political conditionality: comparative analysis of Slovenian and Croatian European Union accession process. CIRR XXI/72:107–137
Bučar B (1999) The issue of the rule of law in the EU enlargement process: aspects of Slovenian-Italian relations. In: Benedek W, Isak H, Kicker R (eds) Development and developing international and European law: essays in honour of Konrad Ginther on the occasion of his 65th birthday. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main, etc., pp 339–353
Corstens G (2014) Human rights and the rule of law, EUI LAW, Centre for Judicial Cooperation DL
Fredman S (ed) Discrimination and human rights: the case of racism. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Kochenov D (2008) EU enlargement and the failure of conditionality. Pre-accession conditionality in the fields of democracy and the rule of law. Kluwer Law International BV, The Netherlands
Mesić M, Bagić D (2011) Minority return to Croatia – study of an open process. UNHCR
Milošević S (ed) (2014) Neostvarena prava i promašene politike: zastupljenost nacionalnih manjina u državnoj upravi, pravosuđu i policiji. Serb National Council, Zagreb
Nestic D et al (2019) The employment and social situation in Croatia, Directorate General for Internal Policies, European Parliament
Pech L (2009) The rule of law as a constitutional principle of European Union. Jean Monnet Working Paper Series 4:1–79
Pech L, Kochenov D (2019) Strengthening the rule of law within the European Union: diagnoses, recommendations and what to avoid, RECONNECT Project Policy Brief
Petrova D (2001) Racial discrimination and the rights of minority cultures. In: Fredman S (ed) Discrimination and human rights: the case of racism. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Pilar I, Research: prevalence and characteristics of discrimination on the Croatian labour market – survey among unemployed persons and employers. Croatian Bureau for Employment and Institute for Social Sciences
Sasse G (2005) EU conditionality and minority rights: translating the Copenhagen criterion into policy. EUI Working Papers RSCAC 2015 16:1–20
Šimonović I (2012) Dolazi li razdoblje ljudskih prava i vladavine prava? Revus, Revija za ustavno teorijo in filozofijo prava. https://journals.openedition.org/revus/2289
Vasiljević S (2013) Gender equality and the non-discrimination principle in the context of Croatian accession to the EU. Heinrich Boll Stiftung, Zagreb
Vasiljević S (2015) Equality, non-discrimination & fundamental rights: old habits die hard! In: Vinković M (ed) New developments in EU labour, equality and human rights law. Josip Juraj Strossmayer University, Osijek, pp 177–195
Vasiljević S (2020) Temeljna prava i vladavina prava u EU: izazovi prije i nakon pridruživanja. HAZU, Zagreb
Zalan E (2020) Paper tiger? EU roars in the first rule of law report. https://euobserver.com/political/149593
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Vasiljević, S. (2022). EU Minority Conditionality and the Rule of Law: The Case of Croatia. In: Krešić, M., Banović, D., Sampedro, A.C., Pleps, J. (eds) Ethnic Diversity, Plural Democracy and Human Dignity. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 99. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-97917-1_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-97917-1_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-97916-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-97917-1
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)