Croatia/Municipal Civil Court in Zagreb/Pn-2730/2022-109
Country
Croatia
Year
2024
Decision/ruling/judgment date
Monday, December 23, 2024
Incident(s) concerned/related
Discrimination
Related Bias motivation
Religion
Groups affected
Muslims
Court/Body type
National Court
Court/Body
Općinski građanski sud u Zagrebu (Municipal Civil Court in Zagreb)
Key facts of the case
The plaintiff, a Muslim detainee, filed a lawsuit on 23 December 2014, claiming damages for inhumane and degrading conditions during his imprisonment and discrimination due to being served non-halal meals, which he argued violated his religious rights and human dignity. He was held in the Zagreb Prison from 6 January to 4 February 2011, then in the Zagreb Prison Hospital from 30 July 2012 to 30 October 2013, and finally in the Lipovica Correctional Facility until 18 April 2014. During his 3 years and 3 months in detention, he alleged violations of anti-discrimination laws, the Croatian Constitution, the Prison Sentence Execution Act, and Council of Europe's European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment standards.
Main reasoning/argumentation
The court examined whether the refusal to provide halal meals constituted discrimination based on religion. It considered national anti-discrimination laws and ECHR standards on religious freedom. The court analysed whether the prison's policies disproportionately affected the plaintiff’s religious rights without reasonable justification, highlighting the balance between institutional policies and individual rights.
Is the case related to the application of the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia, the Racial Equality Directive?
Key issues (concepts, interpretations) clarified by the case
The case clarified that the refusal to provide halal meals may constitute discrimination based on religion if it unjustifiably restricts religious rights. It highlighted the need to balance institutional policies with individual religious freedoms under the Anti-Discrimination Act and ECHR standards. The court emphasised that religious accommodations should be assessed against proportionality and necessity principles.
Results (sanctions, outcome) and key consequences or implications of the case
The court ruled on the plaintiff’s claim regarding religious discrimination and prison conditions, recognising the importance of accommodating religious dietary requirements. The case highlights the obligation of detention facilities to consider religious needs under anti-discrimination laws. It sets a precedent that public institutions must justify restrictions on religious practices using proportionality and necessity tests.
Key quotation in original language and its unofficial translation into English with reference details
"On smatra da je kod smještaja svakog zatvorenika, pa tako i smještaja tužitelja, vodilo se računa o tome da smještaj bude u skladu s čl. 14 st. 1. toč. 1. Zakona o izdržavanju kazne zatvora, odnosno primjeren ljudskom dostojanstvu i zdravstvenim standardima."
"He claims that in the accommodation of every prisoner, including the plaintiff, care was taken to ensure that the conditions complied with Article 14, paragraph 1, point 1 of the Prison Sentence Execution Act, meaning that they were appropriate to human dignity and health standards."
DISCLAIMERThe information presented here is collected under contract by the FRA's research network FRANET. The information and views contained do not necessarily reflect the views or the official position of the FRA.