The Case of Hringur’s Finger

Office of the President 24 November 2023

On Tuesday, 14th November, an incident occurred in Liberland.

Liberland, as you likely know, is a territory not recognised under Croatian jurisdiction. Over the past decades, the government of the Republic of Croatia has repeatedly and categorically denied that Gornja Siga (Liberland) is, or ever has been Croatia, and that for important reasons of maintaining the political balance of powers with Serbia.

The Croatian Border Police accused Hringur, a settler in Liberland, of a misdemeanour for an obviously trivial act – making a middle finger gesture at a camera. Said camera had previously been identified by the Border Police as the property of the Croatian Forestry (Hrvatske Sume s.r.o.).

Apparently, a police officer of the Border Police saw the gesture on the camera and interpreted it as directed against the Border Police. This act was understood as vulgarity against an official institution (against the Border Police itself), leading to a charge under Article 17, paragraph 1 of Croatia's Law on Misdemeanors against Public Order and Peace:

Those who belittle or insult state authorities, i.e. official persons, on the occasion of or in connection with the performance of their duties or their lawful orders, will be punished for the violation with a fine in the amount of 700.00 to 4000 euros or a prison sentence of up to 30 days.

Let us make a few observations:

The incident took place in Liberland, where the law of Croatia isn’t applicable
There is no jurisdiction of the Border Police to prosecute;
Hringur had no idea he was showing the middle finger at the police as he couldn’t know that the police would watch him through a Croatian Forestry-installed camera.
This legal ambiguity intensified when Hringur refused a 650 EUR fine, leading to an expedited court session at the Municipal Court in Osijek on the day of the accusation. The short notice for the court session raised concerns about the ability to secure adequate legal representation and whether or not this was a deliberate attempt to deny such legal counsel.

Hringur asked for a translator into Danish, whom the court couldn’t provide on such short notice. As a result, the court hearing was rescheduled for 22nd November 2023, 13:00.

In response to this unusual legal scenario, a peaceful gathering was organised to support the rule of law in Croatia and attend the court session. This to showcase solidarity with Hringur, support the rule of law in Croatia, and demonstrate the physical presence of Liberlanders and their intention to build their country.

Despite the previous written efforts of Hringur’s lawyers, who argued both the lack of police jurisdiction and the obvious absence of intention on Hringur’s part, since he had no idea he was insulting the Border Police, the court session started with the judge presenting the parties with a guilty verdict and this time, Hringur would have to pay 3000 EUR.

The defence empathically insisted that Liberland is not Croatia and is outside of Croatia’s jurisdiction. The witness for the prosecution countered by stating that an “agreement” between Serbia and Croatia creates this jurisdiction.

Hringur’s lawyer easily countered this: An exchange of diplomatic notas, nota bene one not readily available to the public, is not a source of binding legal norms upon private persons. There cannot be secret laws, nor can rights and obligations be created or modified except on the basis of a law, albeit possibly indirectly (law -> regulation -> judicial practice, for example).

The prosecution retorted that the original accusation doesn't mention any bilateral agreement and that the court simply finds the defendant guilty regardless, because "there is danger he will repeat the offense, mainly due to members of the so-called Liberland habitually committing various violations in [Gornja Siga]; in addition to the Croatian police, the State Inspectorate is also active."

Jurisdiction holds paramount importance in law, serving as the foundation upon which all other legal frameworks are built. For it to be valid, it must be firmly rooted in established law, which is not the case here. The Prosecutor's approach, which casually overlooks the critical point of establishing jurisdiction, appears overly simplistic upon analysis. Furthermore, the prosecution shifts to an argument suggesting guilt by association, implying that because some Liberlanders may have committed violations, all are culpable. This logic is fundamentally flawed for two reasons: firstly, the acts of the other settlers are violations only if there is jurisdiction, but jurisdiction is precisely in doubt here; and secondly, it relies on the notion of collective guilt—essentially presuming guilt by mere association with a group. Liberland is neither a criminal organization nor a recognized extremist group, making this line of reasoning untenable in a court that upholds the principles of the rule of law.

As a bottom line, most of those "acts of violations" are misdemeanour indictments by a misdemeanour order, and all have been appealed against; this makes the defendant innocent until the court decides; therefore, technically speaking, there are not that many violations which have legal force, and the very core of the Prosecutor's argumentation is critically incorrect.

The witnesses report that the court proceeded in an orderly manner. Hringur and Liberland are waiting until Monday for the final verdict.

Liberland’s legal experts feel confident that even if that is “guilty”, there is sufficient legal basis for an appeal to overturn the verdict. The law is on our side. In the trivial and shallow reading of the law's text, our position's correctness might not be so clear, which leads to the current challenges. When experts become involved and genuinely examine the matters with in-depth knowledge and in good faith, Liberland’s side clearly prevails.

It seems plausible that Croatian officials might also recognise this issue to some extent. Otherwise, one finds it hard to explain why, out of 70 cases connected to Liberland, with 58 being directly related to activities within Liberland, there has been a noticeable delay in their processing, with little to no communication from the Court regarding their status. And why the authorities have chosen this particular “finger” case to conduct the process almost immediately.

In any case, any such a process is an important milestone for Liberland. We are committed to approaching each case with thorough preparation and expertise.

Meanwhile, it is essential for us to exercise patience as we await the opportunity to present our arguments in a Croatian judicial setting that possesses the requisite level of expertise to argue our position to its logical conclusion: the unobstructed establishment of Liberland.