Two days after the Constitutional Court's decision to suspend the Family Law, the so-called "crown of Milanka Opačić's ministerial mandate" within the Department of Social Policy and Youth, the BaBe association, with its legal team of experts in the field of family law, convened a press conference. The conference was held at the House of Human Rights and received exceptional attention from all leading media outlets, aware of the importance of the issues discussed.
The organization's president, Sanja Sarnavka, and eight lawyers provided an analytical and critical review of the Family Law and praised the Constitutional Court's decision. They also reminded everyone present of their previous involvement with the aforementioned law, as they themselves had submitted a number of objections to the law's articles in the proposal for a review of its constitutionality.
Given that the Family Law affects the entire structure of society, it was emphasized several times during the conference how important it is to treat it responsibly. Great attention to all the details of this law is necessary and necessary, precisely because of the facts that concern us all.
In addition, the confirmation of the quality of the work of the BaBe association is confirmed by this decision of the Constitutional Court, because it also involves the proposals they submitted a year ago. The seriousness of the Constitutional Court's approach is evidenced by the fact that the Act itself contains a total of 563 articles, and the decision to suspend is the result of the disputed 130 articles on a total of 338 pages. This confirms that the Constitutional Court consulted (and took into account their opinion, ed.) all departments of family law in the Republic of Croatia, as well as practitioners, before making such a decision.
"We have made many criticisms, saying that the old law from 2003 with minor changes could have been of better quality, that it would have been better if funds had been invested in the implementation of the old law. After the debate in Parliament on the subject at the time, Minister Opačić did not listen to the criticism and stated that she felt like she was among the children who had not finished reading their textbook, and today she says that there may have been omissions. It is precisely her approach that is scandalous," said Sanja Sarnavka.
The Minister's argument these days was limited to referring to the decisions of the European Court of Justice. She emphasized that it was not possible to amend the 2003 Act, but rather that the need to write a completely new Act was the result of the instructions of that supranational body. However, one of the lawyers, a member of the BaBe legal team, Ines Bojić, refuted Minister Opačić's arguments, claiming that so far, a change in the law has been requested in only one judgment of the European Court and that the focus should be on the functioning of institutions, and that the old law is good and of high quality.
Among the many objections raised during the conference, it is important to highlight the one made by lawyer and former Ombudsperson for Children, Ljubica Matijević Vrsaljko, who warned that the closure of the Special Guardianship Center, which must cease operations due to suspension, would cause great harm to vulnerable groups. In addition, she emphasized that the suspended law looks like a list of nice wishes that are inapplicable in practice due to contradictions and vagueness, which further complicates the implementation of necessary measures for the profession. Everything is further problematic because the new Ombudsperson, Ivana Milas Klarić, has shown solidarity with the authorities. Another reason for her lack of criticism is the conflict of interest she found herself in because she herself was part of the team that wrote the Law, which prevents her from being a corrective to the authorities at this moment, which is her job.
All the speakers at the conference, while presenting and answering numerous questions from journalists, agreed that there is nothing revolutionary new in this law, except that it is poorly and contradictory. The Scandinavian model, which legal expert Branka Rešetar, who was part of the team that drafted the law, claims was the model for this suspended one, is, according to the experts from the BaBe team, inapplicable in Croatia due to the huge differences in the infrastructure and personnel of the two systems. They are incomparable.
Considering that the predecessor of the current Ombudsperson, Mila Jelavić, Ivana Milas Klarić, also submitted 85 objections to the law, and Klarić not even one, it gives an additional stamp to this initiative of both the profession and activists. The dubious engagement and productivity of the Ombudsperson is evidenced by the comment that she and her predecessor are different people. The Ombudsperson is an institution that must perform its task impartially. What does personality have to do with it?
We will see whether governments (whichever are currently in power) will be more receptive to suggestions and criticism from professionals and practitioners in the future.
The decision of the Constitutional Court is attached.
constitutional_court_decision.pdf