Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Croatia: Developing Judicial Culture of Fundamental Rights

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Universalism of Human Rights

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 16))

  • 2406 Accesses

Abstract

The author discusses protection of fundamental rights before the Croatian Constitutional Court. It is argued that in absence of liberal tradition fundamental rights guarantees are not understood as liberal Abwehrreche, defending the core of individual liberty as against State intrusion, but merely as guarantees of positive law prescribed by the State. The paper presents the evolution of the Croatian constitutional jurisdiction in respect of fundamental rights and how it changed due to the demands of the ECHR. It is followed by the discussion of the three issues: indirect discrimination, right to an impartial judge, and principle of proportionality. The author suggests that, while the vocabulary of fundamental rights is becoming increasingly visible in Croatian law, there is still no evidence that fundamental rights are properly embedded into a liberal understanding of a State.

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 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
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.

    See Rodin (2009a, 37–47).

  2. 2.

    For Article 6(1) of the Convention see e.g. Rodin (2010, 1 et seq); for Article 10 of the Convention see Đurđević (2011, 152–189).

  3. 3.

    http://www.usud.hr/uploads/PRIMLJENI-RIJESENI%20PREDMETI-311209.pdf, visited on January 9th 2011.

  4. 4.

    See Article 62 of the Constitutional Court (Amendment) Act (2002), Official Gazette 29/2002 of 23 March 2002.

  5. 5.

    For recent decisions see e.g. U-III-1095/2006 and U-III-1090/2008, point 9 of the decision.

  6. 6.

    Decision No. 51585/99 of 26 July 2001. Particularly § 48 of the judgment.

  7. 7.

    Ustavni zakon o izmjenama i dopunama Ustavnog zakona o Ustavnom sudu (Constitutional Law Amending and Supplementing the Constitutional Law on Constitutional Court). Official Gazette 29/2002 of 22 March 2002.

  8. 8.

    Article 59a became Article 63, following publication of the consolidated version of the Act.

  9. 9.

    Application No. 20862/02 of 4 July 2002.

  10. 10.

    Zakon o sudovima (Law on Courts), Official Gazette 150/2005 of 21 December 2005.

  11. 11.

    Interim report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on reforms in the field of judiciary and fundamental rights (negotiation Chapter 23), Brussels, 2 March 2011, COM(2011) 110, 4.

  12. 12.

    Zakon o ravnopravnosti spolova (Gender Equality Act), Official Gazette 116/2003 as amended 82/2008.

  13. 13.

    Zakon o suzbijanju diskriminacije (Non-discrimination Act), Official Gazette 85/2008.

  14. 14.

    See e.g. judgment of the Supreme Court No. Revr 277/07-2.

  15. 15.

    Keyword search of the Constitutional Court’s web site using keywords “indirect discrimination” (Croatian: inidrektna diskriminacija; posredna diskriminacija) does not return any results.

  16. 16.

    Decision No. U-III-3138/2002, of 07. 02. 2007, published in the Official Gazette No. 22/2007 of 26 February 2007 (translated by the ECtHR, Grand Chamber, Oršuš and Others v Croatia, Application no. 15766/03, § 60 of the judgment); emphasis added.

  17. 17.

    According to my interpretation, there is disagreement between judges from post-communist States and judges from “old democracies.” To this point see: Rodin (2009b).

  18. 18.

    Decision No. U-III-3138/2002 point 7.3 of the decision.

  19. 19.

    The Constitutional Court relied on the beyond reasonable doubt standard expressed by the ECtHR in Ireland v. UK, judgment of January, 18, 1978, Series A, br. 25, 64–65, § 161.

  20. 20.

    See § 166.

  21. 21.

    Decision of the Constitutional Court No. U-III-41640/2009 of April 29, 2010. As the Constitutional Court specified in point 4.2. of its judgment, “…in the concrete case, Judge E.D. acted as a judge of the County Court in Pula which delivered the contested judgment (No. K-69/07-140 of March 19, 2008). The same judge, however, was a member of the non-trial chamber of the County Court in Pula that delivered the decision No. K-69/07-38 (Kv-385/07) of November 23, 2007, concerning extension of detention in respect of the appellant” (translated by Author). For an exhaustive analysis of this line of cases decided by the Constitutional Court in which the Constitutional Court found violation of Article 6(1) of the ECHR, see Rodin (2010).

  22. 22.

    Judgment of the Supreme Court of June, 2, 2010 No. I Kž-84/10-8 in case against Branimir Glavaš and others http://www.vsrh.hr/CustomPages/Static/HRV/Files/VSRH_I-Kz-84-2010-8.pdf visited on July 31, 2010. In words of the Supreme Court, “…that fact, standing alone, in absence of other negative indicators of his or her impartiality which were absent in this case, cannot be a reason to recuse a judge on grounds of Article 36(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act…” (translated by Author).

  23. 23.

    Judgment of the Supreme Court No. Kž-574/08-6 of January 21, 2009.

  24. 24.

    The constitutional provision giving effect to Article 6(1) of the ECHR.

  25. 25.

    Point 4.2 of the Decision.

  26. 26.

    Decision of the Constitutional Court No. U-III-2383/2005 of February 13, 2008.

  27. 27.

    Id., point 5 of the decision. This judgment is in line with the ECtHRts case law.

  28. 28.

    Decision of the Constitutional Court No. U-III-5423/2008 of January 28, 2009.

  29. 29.

    Id. point 6.2 of the decision.

  30. 30.

    Decision of the Constitutional Court No. U-III-3543/2009.

  31. 31.

    The ECtHR refers to Fey v Austria, (judgment of February 24, 1993, Series A no. 255, p. 12, §§ 27, 28 i 30) and Wettstein v Switzerland (Application no. 33958/96, § 42, ECHR 2000-XII).

  32. 32.

    Decision of the Constitutional Court No. U-III-41640/2009 of April 29, 2010, see point 4.1 of the decision.

  33. 33.

    See § 20 of the judgment.

  34. 34.

    Odluka o proglašenju promjene Ustava Republike Hrvatske (Decision on Promulgation of Amendment of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia), Official Gazette No. 113 of November 16, 2000.

  35. 35.

    See e.g. Decision No. U-I-673/1996, of April 21, 1999, Official Gazette 39/1999.

  36. 36.

    Decision No. U-III-4584/2005. The decision was adopted by the chamber composed of Judges Klarić (president), Hranjski, Kos, Krapac, Matija, Mrkonjić, Potočnjak, Račan, Rajić, Sokol, Šernhorst and Vukojević.

  37. 37.

    Case No. Gž-5194/05 of September 20, 2005.

  38. 38.

    Translated by Author.

  39. 39.

    Ustavni zakon o izmjenama i dopunama Ustavnog zakona o Ustavnom sudu, (Constitutional Court Amendment Act) Article 25, Official Gazette 29/2002.

  40. 40.

    See e.g. BVerfGE 80, 137 (Reiten im Walde).

  41. 41.

    Decision No. U-III-59/2006 of November 22, 2006, Official Gazette 132/2006.

  42. 42.

    See cases D.H. v. Czech Republic and Oršuš v. Croatia cited above.

References

  • Ćapeta, T. 2005. Courts, legal culture and EU enlargement. Croatian Yearbook of European Law and Policy 1: 23–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Đurđević, Z. 2011. Pravo na slobodu izražavanja i Čl. 10 Konvencije. In Kompatibilnost hrvatskih zakona i prakse sa standardima Europske konvencije za zaštitu ljudskih prava i temeljnih sloboda, 152–189. Zagreb: CMS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodin, S. 2005. Discourse and authority in European and post-communist legal culture. Croatian Yearbook of European Law and Policy 1: 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodin, S. 2009a. Stabilization and association agreement – A hostage of dualist inertia. In Croatia on the path to the EU: Political, legal and economic aspects, ed. T. Bruha, B. Vrček, and A. Graf Wass von Czege, 37–47. Hamburg: Europa-Kolleg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodin, S. 2009b. Functions of judicial opinions and the new member states. In The legitimacy of highest courts’ rulings, ed. N. Hulls and J. Bomhoff. The Hague: Asser Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodin, S. 2010. Pravo na nepristrani sud u praksi Europskog suda za ljudska prava i Ustavnog suda Republike Hrvatske. Novi Informator No. 5869–5870, 1 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uzelac, A. 2010. Survival of the third legal tradition? Supreme court law review. 49 S.C.L.R. (2d), 377–396.

    Google Scholar 

Cases of the European Court of Human Rights

  • Castillo Algar v. Spain – Rep. 1998-VIII, fasc. 95 (28.10.98)

    Google Scholar 

  • De Haan v. the Netherlands – Rep. 1997-IV, fasc. 44 (26.8.97)

    Google Scholar 

  • D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, ECHR 2007-IV – (13.11.07)

    Google Scholar 

  • Fey v. Austria – 255-A (24.2.93)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauschildt v. Denmark – 154 (24.5.89)

    Google Scholar 

  • Horvat v. Croatia, no. 51585/99 (Sect. 4), ECHR 2001-VIII – (26.7.01)

    Google Scholar 

  • Mežnarić v. Croatia (no. 1), no. 71615/01 (Sect. 1) (Eng) – (15.7.05)

    Google Scholar 

  • Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, ECHR 2005-VII – (6.7.05)

    Google Scholar 

  • Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98 (Sect. 1) (Eng) – (26.2.04)

    Google Scholar 

  • Oršuš and Others v. Croatia, no. 15766/03 (Sect. 1) (Eng) – (17.7.08)

    Google Scholar 

  • Oršuš and Others v. Croatia [GC], no. 15766/03 – (16.3.10)

    Google Scholar 

  • Piersack v. Belgium – 53 (1.10.82)

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaviček v. Croatia (dec.), no. 20862/02, ECHR 2002-VII – (4.7.02)

    Google Scholar 

  • Wettstein v. Switzerland, no. 33958/96 (Sect. 2), ECHR 2000-XII – (21.12.00)

    Google Scholar 

  • Zarb Adami v. Malta, no. 17209/02 (Sect. 4), ECHR 2006-VIII – (20.6.06)

    Google Scholar 

Judgments Croatian ordinary courts

Judgment of the Supreme Court No. Revr 277/07-2

Decisions of the Croatian Constitutional Court

Administrative decisions

  • Administrative decision No. PRI 342-35/05-03/48, urbroj: 530-03-02/03-05-7

    Google Scholar 

Other documents

  • Interim report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on reforms in the field of judiciary and fundamental rights (negotiation Chapter 23), Brussels, 2 March 2011, COM (2011) 110, 4.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

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

    Siniša Rodin

Authors
  1. Siniša Rodin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Siniša Rodin .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Faculty of Law, University of Regensburg, Universitätstraße 31, Regensburg, 93053, Germany

    Rainer Arnold

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Rodin, S. (2013). Croatia: Developing Judicial Culture of Fundamental Rights. In: Arnold, R. (eds) The Universalism of Human Rights. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 16. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4510-0_23

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation