11 MARTINDALE CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF PRIVATE ENTERPRISE ence fuels a sense of omnipresent corruption—even though everyday bribery rates are lower than citizens assume. Cases of lack of trust in the judiciary To illustrate the systemic nature of corruption and lack of transparency in the judicial system, the following three cases illustrate distinct forms of judicial corruption and distortion in Croatia. First, grand corruption involves wrongdoings on a large scale involving high-ranked political, judicial, or economic elites with significant net-worth, influence, and ability to take actions that distort institutions. Second, retail bribery refers to small-scale corruption by individual judges, clerks, police, or administration; it involves money or favors in exchange for favorable treatment (Conference of the States Parties, 2015). Third, systemic bias occurs when a judicial system consistently favors certain political parties, veterans, wartime actors, or ethnic groups and is built into institutional norms and networks (Subotić, 2005). These high-profile failures act as catalysts for a perception gap, where the visibility of corruption overpowers broader realities. Cases like these continue to dominate public conversation, providing a framework for how citizens interpret judicial independence—making the most extreme examples the standard by which the entire system is judged. Grand corruption: The case of Zdravko Mamić The trial of Zdravko Mamić, the former executive director of the soccer club Dinamo Zagreb, stands as an example of grand corruption in democratic Croatia. Mamić was indicted for embezzling approximately €15 million from the club through fictional player transfer contracts and tax evasion. Before the verdict, Mamić fled to Bosnia and Herzegovina and later publicly admitted to bribing three judges of the Osijek County Court, providing money, luxury watches, and paid vacations in exchange for favorable outcomes (European Court of Human Rights, 2023). He simultaneously argued that his trial had been unfair and exposed deep judicial malpractice, discrediting the process while implicating the judges. The televised trial attracted large audiences and was widely reported, which led many Croatians to conclude that the rule of law is a facade and that wealthy defendants can treat judges as purchasable service providers. The fact that the judges were investigated only after Mamić’s public statements further undermined confidence in judicial self-regulation and reinforced the image of a closed, self-protective circle (Innovations for Successful Societies, 2013). A single big-fish case became a powerful narrative that encouraged citizens to overgeneralize from an extreme example to the entire judiciary. Retail bribery: The case of judge Maja Šupe Retail corruption is illustrated by the case of judge Maja Šupe. A long-serving judge at the Šibenik Municipal Court, Šupe was indicted by the Bureau for Combating Corruption and Organized Crime (USKOK) for accepting a €15,000 bribe to acquit businessman Blaž Petrović in a land dispute case (USKOK Indicts…, 2023). Cash was offered for a specific verdict. Unlike Mamić’s embezzlement, the sum was modest but sufficient to purchase freedom from serious consequences. Justice carried a price tag accessible to local elites, and the municipal court setting—where ordinary citizens resolve everyday disputes—made the case particularly damaging to social cohesion. Media emphasis on “envelopes of cash” in local courts reinforced the view that merit and evidence could not win without veze, even though few Croatians report actually paying bribes (European Commission, 2025b). A single local scandal was thus amplified into a generalized expectation that the entire system is compromised. Systemic bias: Ramljak v. Croatia Ramljak v. Croatia demonstrates a more subtle form of corruption: a systemic conflict of interest. In that case, the European Court of Human Rights (2017) found a violation of Article 6 because a Supreme Court judge who had previously represented the state against Ms. Ramljak as state attorney later sat on the panel deciding her appeal. No cash bribery occurred, but the case exposed an insider justice dynamic in which prosecutors and judges rotate within a closed professional circle that favors state interests over individual rights. For many citizens, convictions were reinforced that the legal elite operates as a club that protects its own and that outsiders challenging the state cannot expect an impartial tribunal. Together with the Mamić and Šupe cases, Ramljak strengthened the narrative that connections decide outcomes, even if such conflicts of interest are not present in most cases. The perception gap and the triple threat Cases like these have deepened distrust between the public and the state. Recent data from the Eurobarometer 561 (European Commission, 2025b)
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTA0OTQ5OA==