The Croatian Journalists’ Association (CJA) is calling on the Government to decriminalize all offenses against honor and reputation. This has been our demand for years. By removing these offenses from the Criminal Code, the pressure from lawsuits, particularly SLAPP lawsuits against journalists and media, would be alleviated, said Hrvoje Zovko, president of the CJA, at a press conference in the Journalists’ Home, where the CJA reiterated the necessity of decriminalizing defamation and slander.
Zovko stated that the CJA welcomes the establishment of expert groups dealing with SLAPPs, but the CJA’s demand remains unchanged.
Nothing has been done in this regard. We appreciate the efforts, but we would appreciate concrete actions even more. If the Government, and I particularly emphasize the Ministry of Culture and Media and the Ministry of Justice, cares about reducing judicial prosecution of female journalists, male journalists, and media—which is, by all parameters, the worst in Europe, especially in the category of judges as prosecutors—then they will decriminalize the mentioned offenses. We demand that the Government abolish them, and there is no room for negotiation, said the president of the CJA, adding that in Croatia, female and male journalists bear double legal responsibility for published texts—both civil and criminal.
Although the current Media Act, which has been in force for 20 years, stipulates that the publisher is responsible for what is published, in judicial practice, private prosecutors who consider themselves aggrieved by the publication of colleagues’ texts initiate civil lawsuits against them, Zovko noted, adding that it is clear as day that the goal of such lawsuits is to intimidate and financially ruin fellow journalists.
Zovko pointed out that journalists in court must prove the truth of their claims, which is an additional form of harassment, and it often happens that journalists lose cases for publishing truthful information.
The current Government, like the one before it, has shown no interest in implementing the decriminalization of defamation and slander, Zovko assessed, reminding that the Croatian Journalists’ Association and the Center for Democracy and Law “Miko Tripalo” conducted an expert analysis of 1,333 lawsuits filed between 2016 and 2023.
The result is that more than 40 percent of the total number of lawsuits have at least one SLAPP indicator. This data shows that the Ministry of Culture and Media and the Ministry of Justice are incorrect when they say that there is a small number of SLAPP lawsuits. On the contrary, the number of SLAPPs is horrifically high. In our annual surveys, where the figures range from 800 to 1,000 lawsuits, we have never claimed that all lawsuits are SLAPP, but a large portion is, Zovko stated.
By decriminalizing these offenses, the Government would show that it truly cares and is interested in ending the judicial persecution of journalists and media. A new wave of lawsuits has just arrived, and we will discuss that later. The CJA will always stand by its colleagues and provide them with full support, Zovko concluded, noting that numerous lawsuits and judicial persecution against journalists, combined with increasingly poor working conditions, lower salaries, various agreements between publishers and certain advertising corporations, provide strong fuel that leads to the erosion of journalistic and media freedoms in Croatia and serves to intimidate all those who wish to write critically.
Member of the CJA Executive Board Goran Gazdek spoke about his case and the hearing he expects on September 2, regarding the lawsuit filed against him and also against Executive Board member Branko Mijić by former director of Croatian Radio and Television Branko Bačić. This is a typical SLAPP lawsuit in which the defendants are targeted simply because, in March 2021, while serving as vice presidents of the CJA, they spoke about the state of affairs at HRT, triggered by the dismissal of Hrvoje Zovko and a warning to Maja Sever over an interview with the weekly Nacional.
Facts about the situation at HRT were presented, and we simply reiterated them in the CJA’s statement. A SLAPP lawsuit in this case means we must neglect our work, seek lawyers, spend time in court, and waste days proving that everything we wrote is true, Gazdek said, adding that SLAPP lawsuits particularly impact journalists in local communities, where powerful individuals or those who believe they are powerful often target them.
Melissa Skender, Secretary General of the CJA, spoke about international implications and the call from the organization Article 19 to the Croatian Government to decriminalize defamation and slander.
This call confirms that civil laws are quite sufficient if someone wants to defend their reputation and honor from journalists and the media, Skender said, adding that the decriminalization of defamation and slander is being sought, and all cases raised based on the aforementioned two provisions of the Criminal Code should be suspended.
It must be emphasized that the criminalization of defamation as such is a disproportionate and ineffective measure for protecting the reputation of others. It represents an unjustified restriction on the right to freedom of expression. Moreover, these criminal offenses are not defined by a criminal provision. They are also punishable by a fine and are considered a socially dangerous offense if committed through media dissemination, Skender noted, adding that the threat of criminal prosecution, often in combination with the abuse of civil lawsuits for defamation, restricts journalism and stifles public discourse.
Decriminalization should be accompanied by a deep reform of civil legislation, including measures to curb strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs), and a change in the approach to their application in judicial practice. The dual burden of criminal prosecution and civil procedures drags journalists into prolonged and costly proceedings. The chilling effect that these measures produce on the right to freedom of expression makes them evidently unnecessary in a democratic society. The relevant criminal provisions do not contain a definition of defamation and slander, opening the door to numerous interpretations and abuses. Such restrictions create unpredictability and thus challenge the element of legality. Although civil laws on defamation are certainly a better measure for protecting someone’s reputation than criminal sanctions, they must also be drafted and enforced in a way that does not discourage public debate. States must implement measures against the abuse of civil defamation laws by government officials and politicians to stifle criticism, investigative journalism, or any other dissemination of information on matters of public interest, Skender emphasized, adding that legitimate concerns for protecting reputation should be balanced with measures that consider the public interest and should not be addressed through criminal sanctions.
The best international practices favor resorting to, where appropriate, alternative non-criminal measures. These may include issuing retractions, apologies, or corrections, as well as the right of reply. Such measures should generally be voluntary and should not violate media freedoms, particularly editorial freedom and independence. Instead of restricting the free flow of information and discouraging discussion on matters of public interest, such measures represent a better-aligned response to an unjust attack on someone’s reputation, allowing for the correction, clarification, or direct rebuttal of false claims made as defamatory. Most importantly, to remedy the actual damage to reputation caused by defamatory statements, priority should be given to legal remedies that do not involve monetary penalties. The right to correction or reply, as long as it does not infringe on editorial freedom, can resolve the core of the defamation case: correcting or explaining factually inaccurate information without restricting freedom of expression, Skender stated, reiterating the recommendations from Article 19, which call for Croatia to urgently decriminalize defamation and slander and to implement a comprehensive anti-SLAPP reform, starting with effective enforcement of the EU Anti-SLAPP Directive. Additionally, legitimate concerns about defamation should primarily be addressed through measures that exclude criminal liability.