No significant progress was made in 2025 in strengthening the media environment and media freedom in Croatia, according to the section of the 2026 Rule of Law Report on the state of the rule of law in the European Union, published by the The Civil Liberties Union for Europe (Liberties).

Liberties is a civil society NGO that promotes civil liberties across the EU and is built on a network of national civil liberties groups. Its member organizations operate in Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden, with a partner organization in Greece.

The 2026 report includes an analysis of EU-wide trends in the justice system, anti-corruption framework, media freedom, and checks and balances. It is based on 22 country reports following a common structure and reflecting the priority areas and indicators set by the European Commission for its annual rule of law monitoring cycle. Nearly 40 organizations contributed to drafting these reports. The 2026 edition places particular emphasis on the Commission’s recommendations and how, according to Liberties members, they have been implemented. Alongside new issues that emerged in 2025, specific shortcomings were identified.

According to the Croatia-focused section on media, although there were some formal initiatives, preparatory activities, and political discussions, these did not result in concrete structural changes or effective protection mechanisms in practice. Key problems identified in previous rule of law reports remain unresolved, pointing to continued institutional stagnation alongside increasing pressure on independent and critical journalism.

It is particularly concerning that recommendations related to the transparent allocation of state advertising and the protection of journalists from SLAPP lawsuits (strategic lawsuits against public participation) have still not been implemented, despite being repeated for several years. At the same time, there are clear signs of deterioration, including politically motivated pressure on critical and minority media, a rise in verbal and physical attacks on journalists, and a lack of effective accountability for perpetrators. The absence of mechanisms for early dismissal of unfounded lawsuits further reinforces the “chilling effect” on public-interest journalism. These problems are compounded by legal uncertainty, weak enforcement of existing regulations, the economic precarity of journalists (especially freelancers), and the politicization of regulatory bodies and governance structures.

Croatia’s decline in international media freedom rankings, as well as a high level of news avoidance among citizens, points to broader societal consequences. Although there have been limited positive steps—such as the launch of a platform for transparency of media ownership and financing, and awareness-raising activities on journalist safety and SLAPP lawsuits—these efforts are fragmented and largely procedural. They have not led to measurable improvements in journalist safety, independence, or media pluralism. Meaningful progress requires binding legal reforms, stronger enforcement mechanisms, and clear political will.

In the area of state advertising allocation, no concrete steps have been taken to improve the legislative framework or oversight mechanisms. Existing regulations are fragmented and do not ensure a unified, transparent, and fair system of fund distribution at national, regional, and local levels. Oversight is divided among several institutions, none of which has comprehensive authority, resulting in weak and inconsistent monitoring. In practice, there are no effective sanctions for rule violations, and enforcement is largely limited to general transparency obligations and ex post audits. Such a system disproportionately affects smaller and local media that depend financially on public funds, increasing their exposure to political influence. Despite years of warnings and recommendations, the lack of reform points primarily to a lack of political will rather than technical or legal obstacles.

Regarding SLAPP lawsuits, activities in 2025 were mostly focused on awareness-raising, education, and coordination among relevant stakeholders. Workshops were held, educational materials were developed, and expert working groups were active. While these measures improved understanding of the issue, they did not lead to concrete legislative changes. Mechanisms for the rapid dismissal of manifestly unfounded claims have not been introduced, nor have defamation laws been aligned with European standards. As a result, journalists continue to face a large number of court cases (around 700 active lawsuits), lengthy proceedings, and significant financial and psychological pressure. SLAPP lawsuits remain a systemic problem that negatively affects investigative and public-interest journalism.

The main obstacle to progress in this area is also the lack of political will. Although there has been no further deterioration through the adoption of more restrictive laws, the absence of reform means that existing problems persist and become entrenched.

A particularly concerning example of political influence on media financing is the case of the weekly newspaper Novosti, which saw its funding reduced despite an increase in the overall budget. The decision followed political pressure and represents a clear form of indirect censorship through financial mechanisms. Such cases have not been adequately addressed at the EU report level.

At the same time, the security environment for journalists has further deteriorated. In 2025, according to data from the Croatian Journalists’ Association, 27 cases of threats, attacks, and pressure were recorded, alongside an increase in hostile rhetoric by political actors toward critical media. Croatia has dropped in media freedom rankings, further confirming the negative trend.

Implementation of the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) is delayed, and the proposed law is considered insufficient, as it does not ensure the independence of regulatory bodies nor address key structural problems such as political influence over the governance of public media.

The Croatian Journalists’ Association (CJA) has publicly criticized legislative proposals, particularly the law implementing EMFA, noting that it fails to address fundamental issues such as political influence over appointments in public media. It advocates for stronger legal mechanisms against SLAPP lawsuits, including early dismissal procedures and protection of journalists from financial burdens. It also warns about politically motivated funding decisions, including the case of Novosti, highlighting the risks for minority and critical media. While it participates in public debates and campaigns to influence policy and raise awareness of the importance of media freedom, its impact remains limited due to weak institutional response and a lack of political will for reform.

The report also provides recommendations for 2026, proposing the adoption of binding legislation to establish clear, objective, and enforceable criteria for the allocation of state advertising at all levels of government, including mandatory public tenders, independent oversight, and effective sanctions for non-compliance. It further recommends that Croatia adopt binding legal reforms within a set timeframe to effectively prevent and sanction SLAPP lawsuits, including early dismissal mechanisms, rules on costs and compensation, and alignment of defamation laws with European standards on freedom of expression.