Reticence prior to the official negotiations on Chapter 23:

Representation of minorities in the local and regional self-government units, the state administration, judicial bodies and the public administration is a recurring key priority in the Accession Partnerships for Croatia (Council, 2004, Council, 2006a). Similarly, in the 2004 Opinion on Croatia’s application for membership in the EU, the European Commission notes that the minorities are still underrepresented in state administrative and judicial bodies, as envisaged by

the CLNM (EC, 2004b). Stakeholders at the national level confirmed the significance assigned to this condition highlighting that “the EU concentrated primarily on the proportional representation in the state administration”.214 At the same time, in the national documents prepared for the purposes of European integration there is little mention of the activities undertaken for the realisation of this EU condition. For example, even though Croatia had been preparing National Plans for Integration in the EU (NPIEU) since 1999, and the legal obligation for representation is dated since later 2002, until 2007/8 (see next section) there is no mention of any activities directed for the implementation of this policy.215

Stakeholders at the national level have confirmed that in the first years after the adoption of the law “most of the activities were focused on finding reasons why not to implement this law”.216 It was stressed that in this segment the European Commission and the representatives of the minorities have achieved less precisely because of the persisting resistance among the political elites to implement the constitutional and legal obligation for the application of article 22 of the CLNM.217 This is confirmed in a 2004 report on the implementation of the FCNM, in which the government acknowledged the obstacles that limit the realisation of the right to employment (Government of the Republic of Croatia, 2004). The report namely underlines problems that “are primarily the consequence of certain economic difficulties which affect all Croatian citizens, including members of national minorities. This assessment especially concerns the exercise of national minority rights in the war-devastated areas (employment, reconstruction)” (Government of the Republic of Croatia, 2004 p.3). In relation to this report, in 2004 the Advisory Committee Opinion on Croatia highlights that it “has not been informed of any positive, targeted Government programmes launched to counter the impact of the past discriminatory measures that Serbs in particular experienced in various fields of employment” (CoE, 2004 p.16). Similar assessments have been made in the shadow Reports submitted to the CoE on the FCNM implementation in Croatia (Center for Peace, 2004).

Author’s interview with civil servant in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Brussels, 5 December 2010.

215

These plans contain the planned activities of the Government for the realisation of the EU conditions.

216

Author’s interview with CSO representative, Zagreb, 14 June 2011. 217

Author’s interview with Member of Croatian Parliament, Zagreb, 2 May 2011, Author’s interview with CSO representative, Zagreb, 14 June 2011.

The lack of progress in this policy area has been noted by the EU in the 2006 Progress Report, where the Commission employed stronger language highlighting that “the political will to develop a long term strategy to implement the CLNM’s minority employment provisions is lacking” (EC, 2006a p.11). Since the implementation of these provisions was dependent upon changes in area legislation, in the same report the European Commission criticizes the newly adopted legislation also for only mirroring the provisions of CLNM without providing for more detailed regulation (EC, 2006a).218 The EU’s critique in relation to the newly adopted legislation is a response to the common ‘justification’ in Croatian political discourse on the difficulties in the implementation of the provision of the Constitutional Law as being too ‘vague’.219 In fact, local NGOs such as the Serbian democratic Forum expected that the representation should be ensured through laws, implementation acts and statutes of local and regional governments (Gjenero, 2006b). As a result, in 2006 the European Commission highlighted that “concrete action is now required to develop recruitment plans at all levels of state administration and, to set up civil servants registry to allow for systematic statistics collection. The Government needs to issue clear instructions on how to proceed” (EC, 2006a p.11).

The 2007 NPIEU is the first national strategic documents which mentions the employment of the minorities and foresees the “adoption of a mid-term employment plan in the state administration for a two-year period” as a priority for 2008-2009 (Government of the Republic of Croatia, 2007 p.32). Having in mind that Croatia has been preparing strategic documents for EU accession since the late 1990s, the mention in 2007 comes at a very late stage and without specific obligations on employment. The continuous weak enforcement of this provision is further criticized by the Commission in the course of 2007 both in the screening report for the Chapter 23: Judiciary and fundamental rights and in the 2007 Progress report. In the former, the Commission highlights that “in February 2007 a plan for recruitment to the state administration included for the first time global targets for the recruitment of national minorities. While the plan does not go into detail, it is a positive first step” (EC, 2007b p.26). In the Progress report of the same year it is noted that “a long-term strategy to implement the CLNM's

218 _{These entail the Law on Civil Service and the Law on Local and Regional Self-} Government, as well as in the Law on Courts and Law on State Judicial Council. 219

Author’s interview with a representative of the Ministry of Justice and a member of the negotiating team, Zagreb, 24 May 2011.

minority employment provisions is lacking [and] that detailed recruitment plans are missing at all levels of state administration” (EC, 2007a p.13). In response to this criticism, “the Central Office for Public Administration adopted the Plan of Admittance to the Civil Service for 2007 *…+ *which+ lays down the obligation of state administration bodies to abide in their employment policies by the provisions of the CLNM” (Government of the Republic of Croatia, 2008b p.66). Following the adoption of this document, the Commission assessed that “the plan for employment in the administration at County, Town and Municipality level is still not adequate” (EC, 2008a p.13). Before 2008 therefore the progress is to be considered as limited to the formal adoption of just one document with no effective signs of implementation confirming the notions of the ‘fake’ compliance with conditionality generally in the region (Noutcheva, 2007).

Stakeholders at the EU and national level including officials and civil society representatives confirmed this weak implementation record by highlighting that “there was no evident mobilisation of resources or any activities undertaken for the realisation of this legislative provision until late 2008”.220 In fact, a civil society sector representative stressed that “prior to 2008 the policy was largely ignored as it was expected that it would stir a lot of political problems”.221 The reluctance to deal with this provision has also been noted in local CSO studies. Research conducted in the war affected areas in 2006, where 20-30% of the population belong to the Serb community, shows that they represented around 9% of the employees in the public services (Gjenero, 2006b). Lastly, similarly as in Macedonia, a study on the application of the CLNM conducted in 2007 concludes that five years after the adoption of the CLNM a database of reliable official data has not been established which is an obstacle to the assessment of the application of the legal provisions of proportional representation of national minorities in the administration (Serbian Democratic Forum, 2007).222

220 _{Author’s interview with European Commission Official, Brussels 8 December} 2010. .

221

Author’s interview with CSO representative, Zagreb, 14 June 2011; 222

7.4.2 Post-2008: The accession negotiations as an impetus for “formal”