Note: This is a chapter from the Ombudswoman’s 2020 Annual Report, submitted to the Croatian Parliament in February 2021. The epidemic’s impact on human rights and equality is also described in numerous other chapters: “Health”; “Discrimination in Health”; “Labour and Civil Service Relations”; “Discrimination in Employment”; “Pensioners and Older Persons”; “Age-Based Discrimination”; “Social Welfare”; “Discrimination Based on Financial Status”; “Expression in Public Space”.

The COVID-19 epidemic, like any crisis situation, is inseparable from human rights — the rights to health, life, access to information, work, education, social security, freedom of movement, privacy, peaceful assembly, and others — and their protection is one of the key means of combating the greatest public health challenge the modern world has ever faced. However, in this context, the protection of human rights also entails limitations, as prescribed by the Constitution and international legal frameworks.

The Civil Protection System Act and the Act on the Protection of the Population from Infectious Diseases

With the emergence of the new infectious disease COVID-19, the Republic of Croatia found itself for the first time facing a situation of a global pandemic and a nationwide epidemic, which by the end of 2020 affected nearly all aspects of life, with an uncertain end even in 2021. Following the World Health Organization’s declaration of a pandemic on 11 March 2020, the Minister of Health, based on the Act on the Protection of the Population from Infectious Diseases (APPID) and upon the proposal of the Croatian Institute of Public Health (CIPH), declared an epidemic across the entire country. Previously, on 4 March, the Minister had declared a danger of an epidemic, and on 21 February had established a quarantine. To prevent the spread of the infection, the entire healthcare system and civil protection system were activated due to the significant threat to the health, lives, and safety of citizens. However, it soon became apparent that the APPID and the Civil Protection System Act (CPSA) were not fully applicable under the new circumstances, which prompted their amendments.

Shortly after the declaration of the epidemic, it became evident that the Act on the Protection of the Population from Infectious Diseases and the Civil Protection System Act were not fully suitable for the new circumstances, prompting legislative changes.

On 20 February, the Government appointed the Chief, Deputy Chief, and 25 members of the National Civil Protection Headquarters (NCPH), in accordance with the 2019 Rulebook on the Composition, Working Method, and Conditions for Appointment of the Chief, Deputy Chief, and Members of Civil Protection Headquarters. The first session of the NCPH was held on 25 February, and since then, it has continuously functioned as the Government’s most important operational body for preventing the spread of the disease. The leadership of the Headquarters, by function, was assigned to the Minister of the Interior and Deputy Prime Minister, with the Deputy Chief being the Head of the Directorate of Civil Protection of the Ministry of the Interior. The members included representatives of central government bodies, the Croatian Firefighting Association, the State Hydrometeorological Institute, the Seismological Service, Croatian Waters, the Croatian Red Cross, the Mountain Rescue Service, and the CIPH. The Minister of Health and the Director of the Dr. Fran Mihaljević Clinic for Infectious Diseases also took part in NCPH press conferences, although they were not formal members, nor were representatives of local and regional self-government units.

Furthermore, although under the CPSA a disaster is defined as a situation caused by natural and/or technical-technological events that, due to their scope, intensity, and unexpectedness, endanger the health and lives of a large number of people, high-value property, and the environment, and cannot be prevented or mitigated by all operational forces of a regional civil protection headquarters, the Government did not declare a disaster. Additionally, there was no alternative mechanism within the existing CPSA to adopt decisions that would be binding for all local and regional civil protection headquarters.

The category of a major incident was also inapplicable, as the epidemic had been declared across the entire territory of the Republic of Croatia, not just in certain parts. Consequently, the Government first decided to amend the CPSA to ensure the implementation of decisions made by the NCPH at the regional and local levels, since some local and regional civil protection headquarters sought to apply epidemiological measures differently from those set by the NCPH. Arguing that it was acting to effectively curb the spread of the epidemic, the Government proposed — and the Croatian Parliament adopted, through an urgent procedure and by a two-thirds majority on 18 March — a new Article 22a of the CPSA, enabling the NCPH to adopt decisions and instructions to be implemented by local and regional civil protection headquarters. According to the opinion of the Institute of Public Administration on the state of Croatian public administration in 2020, the centralisation of decision-making by the national headquarters, established to ensure vertical coordination, led to further centralisation and a continued diminishing of the importance of local autonomy.

The suspension of public transportation hindered access to healthcare and social services in remote areas, particularly for older persons who are at an increased risk of poverty.

Based on Article 22a, the National Civil Protection Headquarters (NCPH) issued four decisions on 19 March: a Decision on the temporary ban on crossing the borders of the Republic of Croatia, a Decision on measures limiting social gatherings, business operations in retail and service sectors, and the organization of sports and cultural events, a Decision on border crossings designated for the transit of freight vehicles through Croatian territory, and a Decision prohibiting ships engaged in international navigation that are subject to self-isolation or quarantine from entering Croatian seaports and inland ports.

Due to the Decision on the prohibition of leaving one’s place of residence or permanent stay in Croatia, which was in effect from 23 March to 11 May, with several amendments, we received numerous complaints from citizens unable to visit their properties in another county or go on holiday. Specifically, the issuance of travel passes was inconsistent; in the same situation, some household members were granted passes, while others were denied without explanation. Even after repeated urgings, the local civil protection headquarters did not provide the Ombudswoman with an explanation of such decisions, and the issue was only resolved once the passes were abolished. At the same time, this Decision restricted access to public services for residents of rural areas and islands. Many municipalities lack a post office, shop, or pharmacy, requiring residents to obtain passes to reach these services. Additionally, the suspension of public transportation made access to healthcare and social services more difficult in remote areas, particularly for older persons at heightened risk of poverty.

In August, the NCPH began issuing decisions for specific regions of Croatia at the proposal of county-level headquarters—starting with towns and municipalities in the Imotski region and, by the end of the month, extending to areas of Brod-Posavina and Split-Dalmatia counties—based on the local epidemiological situation. According to Government data, by 13 January 2021, the NCPH had issued 271 decisions, 244 of which came after the amendments to the Act on the Protection of the Population from Infectious Diseases (APPID), based on Articles 47 and 22a of the Civil Protection System Act (CPSA). In addition to these legislative amendments and NCPH decisions, the Croatian Institute of Public Health (CIPH) had published by the end of 2020: 30 general guidelines, 17 healthcare-specific instructions and recommendations, 30 related to education, 11 for the social welfare system, 56 for the economy and social activities, five for border crossings, and four for religious gatherings. However, these were not legally binding unless incorporated into NCPH decisions or legislative amendments, which did not simplify the already complex decision-making and crisis management framework. It is therefore unsurprising that the Ombudswoman received many citizen inquiries and complaints, as people struggled to navigate the new circumstances.

The epidemic also led to changes in the operation of state and public services. On 19 March, the Government issued a Decision on the organization of work in state administration bodies during the COVID-19 epidemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which restricted operations in state bodies and public services not regulated by special legislation to essential and urgent tasks, and mandated remote work for essential personnel. This Decision was repealed in May. Following a deterioration in the epidemiological situation in October, the Government issued a new Decision, under which the Minister of Justice and Public Administration, in early November, issued Guidelines on measures to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 epidemic and to ensure regular operations in state administration bodies. This prompted several complaints from civil servants regarding the insufficient regulation and implementation of remote work. A new version of the Guidelines was issued by the Minister in late November, following the Ombudswoman’s recommendation to align them with the applicable Decision on essential epidemiological measures, which restricted gatherings and introduced other necessary measures and recommendations to prevent COVID-19 transmission, adopted by the NCPH on 25 October.

Many NCPH decisions restricted fundamental rights and freedoms—ranging from freedom of movement and assembly to the right to privacy—leading to discussions in the Croatian Parliament and among legal experts about whether Article 17 of the Constitution should have been applied and a state of emergency declared.

The first decisions, as well as most subsequent ones issued by the NCPH, limited fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and international instruments—such as freedom of movement and assembly, and the right to privacy. On 26 March, the Ombudswoman warned the Croatian Parliament, the Office of the President, and the Government that such measures must be proportionate, strictly necessary given the specific circumstances, limited in duration, and confined to the extent required by their purpose.

At the same time, some Council of Europe member states had already notified derogations from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) under Article 15 after declaring a state of emergency, while others declared a state of emergency without such notification. Croatia neither declared a state of emergency nor notified a derogation from the ECHR. Debates in the Croatian Parliament, as well as among legal and academic experts, focused on how decisions restricting fundamental rights and freedoms should be made—i.e., whether Article 17 of the Constitution should have been applied. The Constitution foresees two models for restricting human rights: the regular procedure under Article 16 and the emergency procedure under Article 17. Three proposals were submitted to initiate a constitutional review of the compatibility of Article 22a of the CPSA with the Constitution, as well as three proposals to review the constitutionality of Articles 10, 13, 14, and 18 of the amendments to the APPID. In September, the Constitutional Court ruled on these matters by Decision U-I-1372/2020 et al., with five dissenting opinions, rejecting the proposals and concluding that it is exclusively for the Croatian Parliament to decide whether to apply Article 16 or Article 17 of the Constitution. The Court held that the Constitution does not require the Parliament to adopt laws and decisions/measures restricting fundamental rights and freedoms solely on the basis of Article 17.

Shortly after the CPSA, in April, the first amendments to the APPID were adopted, followed by additional amendments in December. Unlike the CPSA, however, neither set of amendments to the APPID was passed by a two-thirds majority. On the occasion of the urgent April amendments, the Ombudswoman again cautioned against new restrictions on human rights and freedoms, especially freedom of movement. These amendments introduced a new institutional co-decision-making model involving the NCPH, the Ministry of Health, and the CIPH, transferring authority from the Minister of Health to the NCPH, legalizing previously adopted NCPH decisions, and stipulating that the Government declares an epidemic while the Minister of Health declares an epidemic threat. A new epidemiological measure was also introduced: “isolation of individuals in their own home or another suitable place – self-isolation,” which could be classified as either specific or security isolation, the latter requiring publication in the Official Gazette. The powers of sanitary inspectors to enforce the APPID were expanded, and new offences and stricter fines were introduced.

The second set of APPID amendments, adopted in December through an urgent procedure, introduced three new security measures: the obligation to properly wear a face mask or medical mask, the prohibition or restriction of public events and/or gatherings, and the prohibition or restriction of private gatherings. Oversight of the implementation of all security measures was expanded to include Ministry of the Interior staff (police officers and civil protection inspectors), all labour inspectors of the State Inspectorate, and inspectors of other state administration bodies. New fines were introduced for legal entities, responsible persons in legal entities, self-employed individuals, and private individuals who failed to comply with the prescribed safety measures. The measure prohibiting or restricting private gatherings raised particular concern from the standpoint of protecting the right to privacy and the inviolability of the home, as further detailed in the chapter on the right to privacy.

Due to these new restrictions—some of which placed an additional burden and fear on certain individuals—and the deteriorating epidemiological situation, public trust in institutions, especially the NCPH, eroded significantly. According to research by Promocija Plus, between June and November, the percentage of citizens who trusted the measures adopted by the NCPH fell from 76.6% to 41.9%. Vaccination was also widely discussed, with some citizens expressing resistance. However, although the APPID was amended twice, mandatory immunization for COVID-19 was not introduced. The first person vaccinated in Croatia was a resident of a care home for the elderly in Zagreb, on 27 December, and the vaccination campaign continued with consent. Ahead of the winter holidays, on 23 December, inter-county travel passes were reintroduced, prompting complaints from citizens who could not visit family members in other counties—such as children living with a non-custodial parent. However, the passes were lifted as early as 30 December, the day after a devastating earthquake, which by the end of 2020 had drawn nearly all the attention of both institutions and the public. The COVID-19 epidemic thus temporarily receded from public focus.

Among the later proposals submitted to the Constitutional Court for a constitutional review of four NCPH decisions—including the Decision on the temporary ban and restriction of border crossings into the Republic of Croatia—the Court ruled on 3 February 2021, by Decision U-II-5920-2020 et al., that the conditions for a substantive review were not met, again issuing the ruling with three dissenting opinions.

The epidemiological measure of isolating individuals in their own home or other suitable space – self-isolation.

“…And now we come to the part concerning the violation of my human rights – the right to freedom of movement. My isolation, which officially began on the day I was registered as a COVID-19 patient, ended on 8 April. Since no one from the Institute of Epidemiology contacted me, on 9 April I took the initiative and requested a certificate confirming that I was released from isolation measures. However, I was informed by the Institute that both my husband and I had been placed under an extended isolation measure for another 15 days, until 21 April. I asked on what basis this was decided, and they responded: according to the measures of the Crisis Headquarters.

I did not accept that response and instead requested to be tested, so it could be confirmed whether I was negative and free to return to normal life, or still positive, in which case I would accept the continuation of isolation measures. The staff member said she would refer my case to the on-duty epidemiologist, who then rejected the request and passed the responsibility to my general practitioner. She also came up against a bureaucratic wall – everyone invoked the measures, but showed little regard for the individuals affected.

She submitted a formal request for our testing but believes it will likely be ignored, and that if testing does happen, it will only be after the new isolation period expires.

And now I ask you: who has the right to deny me freedom of movement without proving that I am sick and a danger to others? The only reason for imposing this additional enforced isolation was to save money on testing. Twenty days ago, the procedure was logical and appropriate. After 15 days of isolation, two tests were conducted 24 hours apart. If both were negative – which was often the case – individuals were considered healthy and released from what effectively was confinement.

To cut costs on testing, they chose the path of least resistance, disregarding human rights, psychological impacts, humanity, and basic compassion. We were herded into our homes like sheep until the point in time deemed safe by them – which, according to the latest research, is 25 days from the onset of symptoms.

I ask you and the competent authorities: who has the right to take away 15 days of my life at the age of 71?”
(Complaint received on 14 April 2020.)

The new epidemiological measure “isolation of persons in their own home or other appropriate space – self-isolation” was introduced into the Act on the Protection of the Population from Infectious Diseases in April, both as a special (Art. 12, 20, 21, and 22) and as a security measure (Art. 47), but without definitions and distinctions between these terms.

When it comes to a special measure, Article 21 of the Act prescribes that it can exceptionally be ordered when appropriate conditions exist, according to the epidemiological assessment of the Croatian Institute of Public Health, the County Institute of Public Health or the assessment of a doctor of medicine specialist in epidemiology or other specialties, for persons who are found to be ill, suspected of being ill with COVID-19, healthy persons who have been in contact with infected persons, and those arriving from areas affected by the disease. According to Government data, by January 15 it was imposed in 223,097 cases, with the duration initially being 14 days, later shortened to 10 – isolation in mid-September and self-isolation at the end of October.

When it comes to a security measure, Article 47 of the Act stipulates that it can be ordered by the Minister of Health upon the proposal of the Croatian Institute of Public Health, and on March 15 he passed the Decision on the special security measure of isolation in one’s own home or other appropriate space (self-isolation), which was ordered for all persons entering the Republic of Croatia from certain countries. This decision was changed and supplemented seven times, so depending on the epidemiological situation, the list of countries was changed. In the latest amendment dated May 27, it was determined that this measure is ordered for persons who are, based on an epidemiological survey and/or questionnaire, assessed to have been in contact with a confirmed case of COVID-19.

The application of the “epidemiological measure of isolation in one’s own home or other appropriate space – self-isolation” caused the most problems and ambiguities, as well as legal uncertainty. It was ordered as isolation for the sick and as self-isolation for their contacts. We received the first complaints already in March, and as the measure was applied more often, the number of complaints increased. Namely, citizens were not adequately informed about the imposition and duration, they did not receive a decision or confirmation, and some remained in the records of persons in isolation/self-isolation even after it had expired, putting them in an uncomfortable position and at risk of committing an offense.

There were also several complaints from cross-border workers, Croatian citizens employed in Slovenia, who were again ordered self-isolation at the border upon each crossing, so they were not allowed to leave their homes in Croatia, while in Slovenia they could move freely.

Complaints about the imposition of isolation and self-isolation continued to arrive until the end of November, when, due to a very bad situation and an increase in the number of patients, new restrictions were introduced. Epidemiologists of the Croatian Institute of Public Health and county institutes were no longer able to inform all citizens about isolation and/or self-isolation, and violations of the measure became increasingly common. Therefore, in December, county institutes established call centers for contact tracing, and in November, the Croatian Institute of Public Health, together with the Medical Faculty in Zagreb, established a call center with volunteer medical students.

Despite legal amendments, numerous recommendations and instructions from the Croatian Institute of Public Health, complaints still showed that the application of the measure of isolation/self-isolation was not fully clarified even at the beginning of 2021. Citizens most often complained that they did not receive a decision or confirmation and therefore could not file a complaint. The State Inspectorate confirmed this in its statement, since it acts as a second-instance body only on complaints against decisions issued by the sanitary inspection of the Inspectorate (Art. 68 and 69 of the Act), but not when the measure is ordered by an epidemiologist (Art. 21 of the Act), which was the most common in complaints.

This measure was also the subject of constitutional complaints, and the Constitutional Court in Decision U-I-1372/2020 et al. from September 2020 concluded that due to the urgent nature of preventing the spread of COVID-19, it is acceptable to issue a verbal decision. However, in two dissenting opinions, Constitutional Court judges considered that the right to appeal under Article 18 of the Constitution is violated for persons in self-isolation.

According to the statement of the State Inspectorate, from the beginning of February, border sanitary inspectors were issuing and delivering decisions at border crossings by which all persons coming from affected areas were placed under health surveillance, and from February 1 to March 14, 11,963 decisions were issued for health surveillance and home quarantine measures, against which an appeal could be filed. However, we are not aware of any such decision or appeal.

Despite legal amendments, numerous recommendations and instructions from the Croatian Institute of Public Health, complaints still indicate that the application of the measure of isolation/self-isolation was not fully clarified even at the beginning of 2021.

However, after March 15, when the Decision of the Minister of Health on the special security measure of isolation at one’s own home (self-isolation) for persons entering the Republic of Croatia came into force, sanitary inspectors no longer issued and delivered decisions. Instead, the border police officer handed each passenger at the border crossing a leaflet with instructions on behavior after entering Croatia, with a reminder of the obligation to comply with the Decision of the Minister of Health, and at the same time entered the start and end date of self-isolation, including for cross-border workers.

At first, the State Inspectorate stated that this measure after March 14 was determined by the border police, although the Ministry of the Interior only had the authority to assist sanitary inspectors in conducting surveillance. This practice continued until the end of the year, and we repeatedly warned both the State Inspectorate and the Ministry of the Interior that the border police are not authorized to determine the measure of self-isolation under the Act on the Protection of the Population from Infectious Diseases, and that despite the acceptability of issuing the measure orally, it must be clearly known who is determining self-isolation for passengers crossing the border, including cross-border workers. With the amendments to the Act from December, supervision of the implementation of security measures from Article 47(2) is also carried out by police officers, inspectors of the Civil Protection Directorate, all inspectors of the State Inspectorate, as well as inspectors of other competent bodies, but sanitary inspection control at the border still remains under the jurisdiction of border sanitary inspectors, which is not applied in practice.

The impact of the COVID-19 epidemic on the freedom of public assembly

Given that on March 19 a Decision was adopted on measures restricting social gatherings, work in trade, service activities, and the holding of sports and cultural events, and on March 21 the Decision on strict restriction of staying on streets and other public places, many cultural, religious, and political events were canceled, and social gatherings were either banned or the number of attendees was limited. Civic initiatives and organizations turned to new ways of communication and expression, so the organization of public gatherings was coordinated via social networks and mobile apps, and most protest activities moved online. For example, in Zagreb during April, “balcony protests” were organized where citizens expressed dissatisfaction with the City’s management after the earthquake by whistling and banging pots and lids. However, self-organization was not only protest-based — citizens also launched support and aid actions during moments of fear and uncertainty, sending messages of encouragement to healthcare workers through applause and cheers from balconies and windows.

Although restrictions on the right to public assembly are allowed, among other reasons for the protection of public health, they must be necessary and prescribed by law, and their scope and application must be proportionate to that aim. Furthermore, the provisions must be precise, otherwise they could be interpreted differently, which brings the risk of infringing on the right to public assembly. Contrary to this, in the Decision on strict restriction of staying on streets and other public places, a strict limitation was introduced on staying in public places where a “larger number of people” could gather, without clarifying what that means.

Moreover, after the Decision on necessary epidemiological measures limiting gatherings and introducing other necessary epidemiological measures and recommendations to prevent the transmission of COVID-19 through gatherings was adopted on November 20, a proposal was submitted to the Constitutional Court to initiate proceedings to assess its compliance with the Constitution and law. However, the Constitutional Court, in Decision no. U-II-5920-2020 et al. from February 2021, again by majority vote and with three dissenting opinions, rejected the proposal, stating that the Decision in question was in force from November 28 to December 21, 2020, and since it was no longer in force, the conditions for deciding on the merits of the matter did not exist.

The decisions of the National Civil Protection Headquarters (CZRH) on limiting the number of participants at public gatherings in open or closed spaces were amended more than 20 times, while the Croatian Institute of Public Health simultaneously issued instructions and recommendations for preventing infection, specifying a different maximum number of participants for certain events. Frequent changes and unclear measures and recommendations, among other things, led to increased dissatisfaction and fear, further highlighting the already damaged trust in institutions, especially the Civil Protection Headquarters. Therefore, at the beginning of September, and then again in November, several protests were held regarding the measures related to limiting social gatherings, maintaining physical distance, and the obligation to wear masks. On that occasion, we received several complaints from citizens who expressed concern about the approval and holding of events and protests during the epidemic, based on which investigative procedures were initiated.

Given the measures adopted by the “Headquarters” regarding mandatory distancing, adherence to hygiene measures, wearing masks, reduced working hours of hospitality venues, nightclubs, theaters, and cinemas — how is it possible that today’s gathering at Ban Jelačić Square was allowed?
If gatherings of more than 100 people are prohibited, why was there no intervention?
Will the organizers be penalized?
Or, considering the money invested by “unknown donors,” is someone being favored again?
Or does the Headquarters really have no credibility and is just talking nonsense?
How many people were endangered today, if the statements by Dr. Markotić are true?

For example, in a complaint regarding the “Festival of Freedom” held in early September in Zagreb, which was registered as a public protest in accordance with the Law on Public Gatherings, it was emphasized that the measures on physical distancing and the limitation of the number of participants were violated. According to the statement from the Civil Protection Headquarters of the Republic of Croatia, an inspection carried out by the Regional Office of Civil Protection in Zagreb determined that there were fewer than 1,000 protesters and that no violation of the measures was established. However, although the limit of 1,000 people for outdoor events at the time of the protest applied to professional artistic performances, cultural programs, and events—and not to public events and gatherings for which the limit was 500 people outdoors—the Directorate of Civil Protection stated that the Inspection Service treated the protest as a type of event, since a well-known musician performed as a DJ, attracting a large number of citizens passing through the square. Additionally, since the boundaries of the protest area were not clearly defined and there was a large movement of people that day, they stated that the organizer could not keep track of attendees, nor do they have information about whether anyone was infected at the gathering.

Although a limit of 500 people was in place for public events and gatherings in open spaces during the protest at the central square in Zagreb, the Inspection Service treated the protest as a type of event, for which the limit was 1,000 people, because a well-known musician performed as a DJ.

We also received a complaint regarding gatherings held to mark holidays and public non-working days, in accordance with the Law on Holidays, Memorial Days and Non-Working Days. Namely, since October 25, the Decision on necessary epidemiological measures restricting gatherings and introducing other necessary measures and recommendations to prevent the spread of COVID-19 through gatherings was in effect. On November 9, the Headquarters adopted a Decision on amendments to the same, which introduced an exemption from the limit on the number of people attending an event until November 30, in order to allow for the commemoration of November 18—Remembrance Day for the Victims of the Homeland War and the Victims of Vukovar and Škabrnja. This once again raised questions regarding the (epidemiological) criteria for prescribing exceptions to restrictions, and thus legal certainty, further undermining public trust.

This is also evidenced by research conducted by the Faculty of Political Science, which stated that the high level of public trust—where citizens initially assessed the measures as timely, appropriate, and effective—likely encouraged compliance, even though the measures were restrictive and almost overnight changed everyday habits. However, the public’s later perception that the measures were motivated by political rather than expert arguments, as noted in the research, led to a decline in trust in the Headquarters and thus in the necessity of following preventive measures.

Furthermore, enforcement of inspections regarding decisions by the Headquarters on public gatherings, as well as the sanctioning of organizers of public gatherings when they are private individuals, also proved problematic. Although both the Headquarters’ decisions and Article 72.a of the Law on the Protection of the Population from Infectious Diseases designate DIRH inspectors as responsible for monitoring the implementation of safety measures and ensuring compliance with recommendations and instructions, in its statement, DIRH explicitly stated that its inspections are not competent to sanction participants and/or organizers. Thus, the organizer of a protest in November, which gathered about 300 citizens—most of whom did not wear masks or maintain the required distance—could not be held accountable under either the Civil Protection System Act or the Law on the Protection of the Population from Infectious Diseases, as no penalty is prescribed. Also, the misdemeanor provisions of the latter law do not apply to persons who fail to comply with the Headquarters’ measures, as they only explicitly sanction individuals for violating self-isolation or quarantine, not wearing masks, or organizing private gatherings. The organizer may eventually be held liable for a misdemeanor for failing to take measures to ensure public order and peace, in accordance with the Law on Public Gatherings.

Although the epidemic significantly affected the freedom of public assembly and the manner in which it is expressed, alternative forms of protest still enabled citizens to enjoy this right, which contributed to the justification of temporary restrictions or bans. However, the longer such restrictions last, the more the significance of the right to public assembly diminishes. Therefore, there is a risk that citizens without internet access or sufficient digital literacy will be unable to participate in alternative forms of protest during prolonged restrictions on the right to public assembly, and such cases will be particularly difficult to justify.

Parliamentary Elections in Croatia

“Starting from the fundamental international and European documents embedded in our society, as well as the Constitution that everyone is obliged to respect and which guarantees us certain rights, we demand: That we, persons infected with COVID-19, be enabled to vote in the upcoming elections for members of the Croatian Parliament, either by mail, electronically, or in the same way as those who have been placed under self-isolation due to close contact—that is, outside the apartment/house.”

The epidemic significantly affected the conduct of the parliamentary elections in July. Although epidemiological measures somewhat complicated the pre-election campaign, the limitation of political rights contained in the Technical Instruction of the State Election Commission (DIP) titled “Voting on Election Day and Ensuring the Protection of All Participants at Polling Stations” was particularly concerning. This instruction deprived voters diagnosed with COVID-19 of the right to vote guaranteed by Article 45 of the Constitution, which led to multiple complaints. Namely, they were denied access to the polling stations and at the same time could not vote outside of them either.

Consequently, based on requests for supervision of legality and constitutionality, the Constitutional Court in Decision U-VII-2980/2020 dated July 3, 2020, stated that citizens diagnosed with an infectious disease have the right to demand the exercise of their voting rights according to rules on voting outside polling stations adapted to the nature of the potential risk of infection and aligned with the requirements of health safety and protection of other participants in the election process.

Accordingly, DIP amended the Technical Instruction and enabled patients to exercise their voting rights in such a way that the ballot was filled out by a person authorized by the voter and submitted to the members of the election board.

Recommendations:

  1. To the Civil Protection Headquarters of the Republic of Croatia (Stožer CZRH) and the Minister of Health to consistently and non-discriminatorily determine epidemiological measures and to timely inform citizens about them;
  2. To the Ministry of the Interior, State Inspectorate, and other TDU whose inspection services supervise the implementation of epidemiological measures to carry out inspections consistently and without discrimination.

More about the impact of the epidemic on human rights and equality during the past year can also be found in these chapters of the Ombudswoman’s Report for 2020:

The full Ombudswoman’s Report for 2020 can be found here.