On December 10th, 2025 on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the adoption of the (European) Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, a conference was held in the University of Zagreb organized by the office of the Ombudsperson in Croatia.

The opening speech was delivered by Tena Simonovic Einwalter, the Ombudswoman of Croatia, one of the main organizers of the conference. She discussed the initial motivation for adopting the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The horrors of the WWII urged the world to take action against the vile terrors committed towards the human life. Einwalter emphasized the changing nature of the convention and pointed out that the document constantly adapts to the modern times and, therefore, the growing global challenges. She named disinformation, distrust towards the institutions, and unresolved questions of the past as examples of these challenges. In the end, she called for cooperation, constructive evaluation, and an honest dialogue among her colleagues regarding the implementation of one of the most impactful conventions of Europe and the World.

Damir Habijan, the Minister of Justice, Public Administration and Digital Transformation in Croatia, reiterated the point about the significance of the Convention in the post-war period. He claimed that the document symbolized a promise that the horrors of the WWII would not repeat themselves. He stressed that the ECHR became the first tool to defend individuals (instead of states) before the international tribunals and today, in the digital age, this tool has taken up new roles. The Minister highlighted the importance of the improvement of the conditions and the requirements that led Croatia to become, first, a part of the Council of Europe and then the European Union.

The Director of Programs at Human Rights House Zagreb Ivan Novosel discussed the cruciality of cooperation between the politicians and the independent bodies. He urged for the improvement of civic participation, the consideration of critical institutions by the political bodies, and the collaboration with the civil society organizations. Novosel called for a better implementation of the EHCR and the need for further education and trainings for the people working for the judicial institutions.

Milorad Pupovac, President of the Committee for Human Rights and the Rights of National Minorities in Croatia, reminded the audience that Croatia was created on the basis of Human Rights and Democracy and that the adoption of the Convention was a symbol of the maturity of the country, rather than a mere formality. Pupovac noted the possibility and the importance of the co-existence of traditional and modern values. He discussed the rights of the minority and remarked that the country is on a downwards trend in this regard, voicing his concerns about some of the young Croats engaging in unacceptable salutes. The member of the Parliament expressed the dedication of working with the Ombudsperson’s office and highlighted that the institution has been increasingly reinforced in the past decade. Although, the communication and the perception by the general public has not been improved.

The last speech delivered by Mato Arlović, Vice-President of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia, emphasized the value of the Convention that has proven itself in the 75 years of its existence. He noted that the document has been voluntarily implemented also by the states that are not part of the European Council or the EU. Arlović discussed the importance of peace in guaranteeing Human Rights and the role of Europe as the main guarantor and the centre of Human Rights.

The following panel discussion discussed mechanisms of defending the convention. It began with the question: ‘How can we balance tradition and adapting to the Convention?’, directed at Maša Marochini Zrinski, Judge of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia and a professor at the University of Rijeka. She responded that it is necessary to adapt general principles to concrete cases and cannot separate a single case because constitutional and convention rights are related. She pointed out that the Convention has never been changed, only amended through protocols. The principles have been adapted to modernity, they have been reinforced and adjusted to Croatian systems. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) interprets the Convention in the context of today. When examining if rights have been breached the principle of proportionality is used as well as the relation to reality. For individual cases they assess what they have or don’t have within the protection of the principles of the Convention. The laws which are complementary to the Convention are being used by the constitutional courts. The Convention standards are a minimum and as a minimum it is our responsibility to adapt and apply the standards to current realities.

Ksenija Turković, former Vice-President of the European Court of Human Rights, Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb was asked what challenges the ECHR has faced and what challenges are to come. She responded that the court is a living instrument, it has had its ups and downs throughout the past 75 years; changed, weakened, and reinforced over time. The view from outside is often insufficient to realize what institutions are facing on the inside. Although the ECHR has made tremendous efforts to regulate procedures and efforts to protect and improve human rights the majority of criticism has to do with the huge number of unsolved cases. Before it wasn’t really possible to see how the court tackles decisions but President Spielmann has now made the court very transparent. They are working to change the way the court is amending their internal procedures. They are improving communication with the public. When all is done within meetings and decisions have been made, they’re communicated to states who can then comment. Comments are being recognized; then certain procedures are addressed in court. Judges are encouraged to do this, which wasn’t the case with previous presidencies, dialogue with domestic courts is important for communication. “Domestic courts must be brave” – she urged the national institutions and expressed concerns regarding the huge backlog of 60,000-70,000 cases which is more than others have ever dealt with. All is interconnected and implementation within court is a huge problem; the court doesn’t follow up and many cases are returned and end up with the General Assembly. There needs to be more dialogue and Croatian courts must be braver to establish dialogue of human rights through judgements.

Additionally, there is an issue with political resistance at the state level. States are concerned about their sovereignty. Since 2013 we are seeing increasing conflict between states and the court. States are increasingly claiming the court is overreaching and overprotecting human rights. The new matters of human rights which we are about to face are questions of how we will deal with intervention or intervene a new protocol. There is a rising decrease of Human rights on domestic levels. Human rights are being disregarded and violated; civil society is being attacked and having a hard time protecting human rights.

Štefica Stažnik, Agent of the Republic of Croatia before the European Court of Human Rights, explained about significant cases relevant for Croatia. She mentioned the case with Slovenian fisherman when Slovenia tried to use the case to introduce its interpretation of agreements and make arguments pertaining to cross border issues. Or the case with the Slovenian Ljubljana Bank regarding Croatian deposits in Slovenia before the fall of Yugoslavia. Stažnik emphasized the diverse range of cases in Croatia.

Ioulietta Bisiousli, Director of the European Implementation Network (EIN) shared experiences with the implementation of court judgments in general and in the public of Croatia. She mentioned that the Convention is the crown jewel of regional and international human rights instances. Delayed or structural implementation has gradually become a problem. Issues have persisted over decades because concerns are not addressed and problems keep coming up.

Natalija Labavić, Attorney-at-law, shared experiences on court judgement and how the judgements have had to look for satisfaction at the European court. She mentioned the protection of LGBT rights and on the basis of sexual orientation. Dignity should be given and belongs to people as human beings. She was asked; ‘What do you think should be done for these cases to stop appearing at ECHR or to achieve protection a national level or not even be initiated?’ Her response highlighted that if someone comes to you with this discourse it should be immediately recognized as a hate crime. There is clearly not sufficient or good education to recognize hate and then process it in the correct way. There needs to be more education so hatred as a motive can be recognized.

Zrinski was additionally asked where we need to put in more effort and responded that there is no single answer. The constitutional court and ECHR often face problems with the right to a fair trial. It is a systemic issue. When a lawyer prepares a lawsuit or case for court the precedings differ between constitutional and national courts. Legislation must be changed and implemented to address the systemic problems. Every challenge has a solution but some take more time to implement.

When asked how to deal with measures or general measure to implement court decisions Stažnik suggested writing to counselors, ministers, and national bodies to implement change. She highlighted that human rights should not be an optional subject in law school and questioned if human rights are covered on final exams. Knowledge must be disseminated and implemented within education in Croatian institutions.

Bisiousli addressed Croatia’s status from the EIN 2024 annual report which highlights that the average implementation of Croatia is low but in general, Croatia is considered an ally in times of the implementation record and is above the EU average. Although they may be ‘addressing a tree but missing the forest’. The EIN also does not have the necessary connection with civil society organizations to reach conclusions in the field.

Lastly, Turković stated there will be needs for consensuses. We cannot make judgements only in our own case of law and need to look at national law. We must form partnerships in order to achieve standards.

The conference was concluded by Einwalter who recognized three prevalent topics throughout the meeting: education, cooperation, and political will. She reiterated the idea that human rights should be obligatory in law schools. If you are made aware of human rights you will be better at implementation.