The President of the Municipal Court in Virovitica, Krunoslav Gernhard, rejected a request by Drago Hedl, a journalist with Telegram, to take photographs during a court hearing involving prominent HDZ politician Josip Đakić. Telegram had previously reported that Đakić is a serial plaintiff who has repeatedly received compensation for emotional distress in proceedings before the Virovitica court.
In response, the Croatian Journalists’ Association (CJA) addressed a letter to the President of the Municipal Court in Virovitica, requesting an explanation for the decision.
Dear President of the Municipal Court in Virovitica,
We are writing on behalf of the Croatian Journalists’ Association (CJA), the umbrella organisation representing journalists in the Republic of Croatia and a member of the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) and the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), requesting an explanation of your decision to reject the request submitted by our colleague Drago Hedl, a journalist with Telegram and Vice-President of CJA, to photograph the hearing in criminal case K-62/2023, held on 5 June 2026.
The plaintiff in the case was Josip Đakić, a long-serving HDZ Member of Parliament and President of the Croatian Association of Homeland War Veterans (HVIDRA).
In your decision rejecting our colleague’s request, you stated, among other things, that:
“The presiding judge does not object to granting permission; however, the request does not specify, nor is it apparent from the case file, why photographing the hearing would be significant in terms of the public interest.”
A few days later, in response to an additional inquiry from our colleague, you replied in a single sentence:
“The reasons for both decisions are set out in their explanations.”
We therefore ask on what criteria you concluded that there was no public interest in photographic coverage of these proceedings. We are also interested in learning on what legal basis the President of the Court determines what does and does not constitute public interest, and how you explain the fact that the same court reached the opposite conclusion on an identical request submitted by another journalist.
Our colleague Goran Gazdek, a journalist and member of the CJA Executive Board, submitted a request to photograph the same hearing. His request was approved in a decision signed by Željka Jurić, Deputy President of the Court. The reasoning stated:
“The presiding judge does not object to granting permission, and as this is a public criminal proceeding, the request is granted.”
We are enclosing a copy of that decision.
In our view, such inconsistent treatment in virtually identical circumstances requires a clear and reasoned explanation. Rejecting Drago Hedl’s request creates the impression of arbitrariness, unequal treatment of journalists, and restrictions on media coverage of proceedings that are unquestionably of public interest.
It is particularly concerning that the case involves a public criminal trial concerning a long-serving Member of Parliament and President of HVIDRA. In such circumstances, the public interest in media coverage can hardly be disputed.
The Croatian Journalists’ Association believes that no convincing or sufficient explanation has been provided for this decision. We therefore expect your clarification regarding the criteria used to reject our colleague’s request and the reasons why another journalist was granted permission in the same case while Drago Hedl was not.
The Croatian Journalists’ Association will continue to inform the public and the competent authorities about such unjustified restrictions on journalists’ work and the public’s right to information and will not allow this case to be forgotten.
Sincerely,
Hrvoje Zovko
President, Croatian Journalists’ Association
Chiara Bilić
Vice-President, Croatian Journalists’ Association
Response of the President of the Municipal Court in Virovitica
The President of the Municipal Court in Virovitica, Krunoslav Gernhard, responded to CJA’s letter regarding the refusal to allow Telegram journalist Drago Hedl to photograph the hearing.
His response reads:
Dear Sir/Madam,
Contrary to the opinions and positions expressed in your letter, both decisions contain all the legally required elements and provide clear reasoning. Therefore, no additional explanation is either necessary or possible.
However, I must draw your attention to several inaccurate claims contained in your letter, particularly those concerning “unequal treatment” and “restrictions on the public’s right to information.” There is no basis for such assertions.
A request to photograph court proceedings must be submitted properly and in accordance with Article 395(3) of the Croatian Criminal Procedure Act, since photographing constitutes an exception to the general rule. If such a request is not submitted correctly and is therefore rejected, the journalist may still attend and report on the hearing, subject to the permission of the presiding judge.
Kind regards,
Krunoslav Gernhard
President of the Municipal Court in Virovitica