EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 20.7.2021 SWD(2021) 726 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2021 Rule of Law Report







Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Slovenia Accompanying the COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 2021 Rule of Law Report







The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2021) 700 final} - {SWD(2021) 701 final} - {SWD(2021) 702 final} - {SWD(2021) 703 final} - {SWD(2021) 704 final} - {SWD(2021) 705 final} - {SWD(2021) 706 final} - {SWD(2021) 707 final} - {SWD(2021) 708 final} - {SWD(2021) 709 final} - {SWD(2021) 710 final} - {SWD(2021) 711 final} - {SWD(2021) 712 final} - {SWD(2021) 713 final} - {SWD(2021) 714 final} - {SWD(2021) 715 final} - {SWD(2021) 716 final} - {SWD(2021) 717 final} - {SWD(2021) 718 final} - {SWD(2021) 719 final} - {SWD(2021) 720 final} - {SWD(2021) 721 final} - {SWD(2021) 722 final} - {SWD(2021) 723 final} - {SWD(2021) 724 final} - {SWD(2021) 725 final} - {SWD(2021) 727 final}



Abstract The Slovenian justice system has seen some positive developments, including on issues raised in the 2020 Rule of law Report. In particular, the Constitutional Court ruling declaring as unconstitutional the rules governing parliamentary inquiries for lack of safeguards on judicial independence provides an important protection for judges. The judiciary initiated a discussion on improving the framework for disciplinary proceedings regarding judges. Appointments of state prosecutors are unjustifiably delayed and the failure to timely nominate European Delegated Prosecutors raises concerns. Challenges in proceedings relating to economic and financial crime cases remain. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the need to accelerate improvements to electronic communication tools. Access to court and prosecution documents has become a sensitive matter leading to a Supreme Court judgment and a legislative amendment. The legal and institutional framework for preventing and fighting corruption continues to improve. Legislative amendments have improved the independence, organisation and functioning of the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption although its human resources remain limited. The same amendments have also strengthened the legal framework on lobbying, protection of whistleblowers and declaration of assets. Nevertheless, concerns remain over the effective enforcement of the anti-corruption rules, e.g. on conflict of interest and whistleblowers. Furthermore, the previous strategy has largely been implemented but some actions remain pending and no new plan has been adopted. Although the number of prosecutions has increased, challenges remain, notably as regards the capacity for effective investigations, and the low number of convictions for corruption cases, especially for high-level instances. A series of risk-assessments during the COVID-19 pandemic were launched by the Government, particularly concerning the risk of corruption in public procurement. The situation of media freedom and pluralism has been deteriorating. The independence of the media regulator is ensured by law but challenges remain regarding resources for its broad spectrum of tasks and commitment to further strengthen its independence. A revision of the media and audiovisual services laws is still pending. Some concerns are still present on these drafts, however certain amendments proposed to the media law in 2020 could improve media ownership transparency. Allocation of state advertising is not regulated and is often non-transparent, especially in case of local media. Obtaining access to public information remains lengthy for the public and journalists. Online harassment of and threats against journalists are a growing source of concern, and several lawsuits against journalists with intimidating effects have been reported. Concerns have been raised by national and international stakeholders following the refusal by the authorities to finance the Slovenian Press Agency for 2021. No specific measures for the media sector have been taken relating to COVID-19 pandemic; but journalists could access general relief measures. Slovenia has not declared a state of emergency during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Communicable Diseases Act, amended four times since the beginning of the pandemic, has been the basis for the adoption of restrictive measures. Parliament continued to function, after quickly amending its Rules of Procedure to allow for online sessions. Financial independence of certain independent bodies has been protected by a Constitutional Court judgment. The Constitutional Court improved its efficiency, raised in the 2020 Rule of law Report, and played an active role in reviewing COVID-19 measures. To discuss the rule of law, the President of the Republic convened a first-ever meeting of all three branches of government. The civil society had to cope with several challenges affecting the enabling environment for non-governmental organisations. I.Justice System The Slovenian justice system has three levels, with Local and District Courts (dealing with civil, commercial and criminal cases) and Labour Courts and an Administrative Court at first instance, five Higher Courts at second instance (dealing with appeals to first instance courts decisions) and the Supreme Court at third instance (dealing with appeals to certain judgments of Higher Courts and of the Administrative Court). The Constitution provides for a Judicial Council, a sui generis body outside of the three branches of Government, which is tasked with protecting the independence as well as promoting and ensuring the accountability, efficiency and quality of work of the judiciary . Candidate judges are selected by the Judicial Council and then proposed for appointment by the National Assembly (Državni zbor - the first chamber of Parliament) . If the Judicial Council selects a candidate who has already been elected to judicial office, the candidate is promoted to the new judicial position by the Council itself. The State Prosecution, while being part of the executive power, is an independent authority, with the main powers regarding the career of state prosecutors and its functioning resting with the State Prosecutorial Council and the Prosecutor General. The State Prosecutorial Council is an independent and autonomous state body that performs the tasks of self-governance of the State Prosecution and participates in ensuring the uniformity of prosecution and safeguarding the independence and autonomy of state prosecutors. The Slovene Bar Association is an autonomous and independent body. It is responsible for supervising the professional activities of lawyers and deciding on disciplinary measures regarding its members. Slovenia participates in the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). Independence The level of perceived judicial independence has been continuously improving. The level of perceived judicial independence has further improved and is average among the general public (47% fairly and very good), and has, in 2021, also increased to average among companies (43%), showing a positive trend for the third year in a row, after no clear trend in 2016 and 2017 . Appointments of state prosecutors are unjustifiably delayed and failure to timely nominate European Delegated Prosecutors raises concerns. The Government is in charge of appointing a new state prosecutor on the proposal from the Minister of Justice, following a public vacancy and the selection of the candidate by the independent State Prosecutorial Council. The Government is required by law to issue a decision on appointment or non-appointment to all eligible candidates who applied for appointment or promotion. The unsuccessful candidates have the right to request judicial review before the Administrative Court, which has to decide within 30 days. Since the end of July 2020, the State Prosecutorial Council has submitted the names of 29 candidates to the Minister of Justice, who has then proposed them to the Government for first appointment or promotion. Until June 2021, only 14 of these have either been appointed or promoted, while there are no clear reasons for not taking decisions on the remaining 15 candidates. The nomination of the European Delegated Prosecutors of the EPPO has also been delayed, raising concerns that the national procedure has not been properly followed. In December 2020, the State Prosecutorial Council submitted the names of the two candidates to the Minister of Justice, and the Government did not put the item on the agenda of its sessions, despite the legal obligation to only take note and transmit the names to the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. On 27 May 2021, the Government declared the selection procedure as unsuccessful and instructed the Minister of Justice to publish a new vacancy, which was released on 9 July. According to the Council of Europe recommendations, the recruitment of public prosecutors must be carried out according to fair and impartial procedures embodying safeguards against any approach representing interests of specific groups, and their promotions are governed by known and objective criteria, such as competence and experience . The Constitutional Court declared the rules governing parliamentary inquiries unconstitutional for lack of safeguards on judicial independence. As stated in the 2020 Rule of law Report, in 2019, a Parliamentary Inquiry Committee opened an investigation to look into actions of prosecutors and judges in concrete criminal cases. However, the Constitutional Court later suspended the application of the Parliamentary Inquiries Act, on which the investigation was based, due to a risk to the independence of judges and prosecutors . In January 2021, the Constitutional Court found the Parliamentary Inquiries Act and the Rules of Procedure on Parliamentary Inquiry to be unconstitutional, insofar as they lack procedural safeguards for ensuring the independence of judges when establishing a parliamentary inquiry. The Court stated that the judiciary is not completely excluded from parliamentary control exercised through parliamentary inquiries, as the Parliament can examine, for example, trends in the judiciary or historic events which are also subject of judicial proceedings. However, the Court stressed that the Parliament cannot impede judicial proceedings, or in any way influence judges in concrete proceedings, including through an ex post discussion about legality or adequacy of individual judgments. In addition, judges cannot be called as witnesses or suspects to a parliamentary inquiry regarding these issues concerning either an open or a closed court case, as this would violate judicial independence. The Constitutional Court gave Parliament one year to remove the unconstitutional elements from the Parliamentary Inquiries Act. Until the established unconstitutionality is removed, the Judicial Council can request the Constitutional Court to check if a new parliamentary inquiry respects judicial independence. No legislative proposal has been tabled yet to address the established unconstitutionality. The judiciary initiated a discussion on improving the framework for disciplinary proceedings regarding judges. In March 2021, the Judicial Council prepared an analysis of the legal framework on disciplinary proceedings in respect of judges and its implementation, and proposed changes. Since 2018, the disciplinary proceedings have been under the competence of a Disciplinary Court. From 2018 until March 2021, disciplinary proceedings lasted 194 days, on average. The Judicial Council identified a number of issues requiring improvement, such as: establishing a special disciplinary procedure instead of using criminal procedure, updating the list of disciplinary offences, revising the right of the Judicial Council to initiate disciplinary proceedings, revising disciplinary sanctions to allow for more proportionality, and clarifying the limits on the length of suspension of a judge. The Supreme Court supports the initiative of the Judicial Council to amend the legislation in order to increase the efficiency of disciplinary proceedings. It is important that any potential reform of disciplinary proceedings is in line with EU law and takes in to account the Council of Europe recommendations. Quality The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the need to accelerate the necessary improvements to electronic communication tools in the justice system. The 2020 Rule of law Report stated that while Information and Communication Technologies for case management are advanced, the electronic communication between courts and parties remains less developed. In recent years, there has been some progress on expanding electronic communication. In a few areas, documents must be submitted to court in electronic form only, for example by public notaries and insolvency administrators (in the land registry, court registry cases and insolvency cases), and by debtors (in undisputed debt recovery). Since February 2021, social work centres must file applications in family law matters to court electronically, and the electronic auction system was launched irrespective of the sales method for all real estate, movable property and rights being sold in enforcement proceedings, insolvency-related proceedings, compulsory wind-up proceedings, non-litigious cases, criminal and misdemeanor offence proceedings. In criminal, administrative, and civil and commercial litigious cases, efforts are on-going to upgrade the case-management system by the end of 2023 to allow for electronic communication. Digital solutions to conduct and follow court proceedings remain limited particularly in criminal cases. The use of digital technologies for secure remote work is lacking particularly in State Prosecution and the lack of digitalisation on the side of the Police is contributing to delays especially in complex cases where criminal report arrives in paper form only. Considering that courts were dealing, for a period of more than four months since March 2020, more or less only with urgent matters, the judiciary and the Ministry of Justice cooperated intensively to supply additional video conferencing equipment and succeeded in tripling the current capacities in 2020 with additional purchases planned in 2021. The Supreme Court has informed the Ministry of Justice of the need to amend procedural laws in order to clearly prescribe conditions to establish the reliability of evidence in procedures that are conducted via videoconferences (such as the hearing of a witness). Access to court and prosecution documents was the subject of a Supreme Court judgment and a legislative amendment. The 2020 Rule of law Report noted that publication of first instance court judgments remains limited, particularly in civil and commercial cases, and that machine readability of published judgments is relatively low . The 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard shows no improvements in these two areas. In May 2020, the Supreme Court delivered a precedential decision in a case involving the right to access to information from a criminal case file . The Court held that the Criminal Procedure Act restricts the right to inspect a case file to persons with a legal interest (e.g. defendants and victims), and that the provisions of the Public Information Access Act do not apply to court and prosecution documents. Parliament responded by adopting an amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act which explicitly stated that the general access to documents regime under the Public Information Access Act applies . In line with this amendment, a person whose request to court or prosecution documents (either in an open or closed case) would be denied by a judge or a state prosecutor, respectively, can appeal to the Information Commissioner. According to the Supreme Court, this amendment has raised concerns about the appropriate balance of the right to public information on the one hand and the respect for the presumption of innocence of the defendants and the right of privacy of persons involved in criminal procedure on the other hand. The Ministry of Public Administration has established an inter-ministerial working group to examine the issue of access to court and prosecution documents and prepare proposals to regulate the matter in the Public Information Access Act. The Judicial Council and State Prosecutorial Council are benefitting from a slight increase in resources, but shortages remain. The 2020 Rule of law Report found that providing adequate resources for the Judicial Council and the State Prosecutorial Council is an important condition for the independent and effective functioning of these self-governance bodies. The Councils’ low administrative capacity also influences the quality of process for selecting judges and state prosecutors, particularly in terms of the reasoning of issued decisions and opinions and thoroughness of interviews. From 2022, the Judicial Council will be able to employ two additional staff members, a minimal increase in available resources. However, no additional staff members are envisaged for the State Prosecutorial Council. The available budget of the Judicial Council is increasing, while the budget of the State Prosecutorial Council has stagnated. It is to be noted that the overall budget for the justice system has been increasing for several years. Efficiency The efficiency of the court system slightly decreased, and challenges in economic and financial crime court cases, identified in the 2020 Rule of law Report, remain. In 2020, all courts received 11% fewer incoming cases and resolved 13% fewer cases, when compared to 2019. The total backlog of cases at the end of 2020 increased by 5%, compared to 2019. The average length of proceedings at first instance courts rose to around 20 months in litigious civil cases and stagnated at 11 months in litigious commercial cases. In appeal, due to mostly written procedures, these types of cases were resolved more quickly, namely in around 2.4 months in civil and 3.4 months in commercial cases, on average. When dealing with more complex money laundering offences, the length of trials in first instance courts decreased to 876 days in 2019 (down from 1 132 days in 2018), on average, and remains among the highest in the EU . In 2020, the average length in administrative cases at first instance increased to 13.7 months . II.Anti-Corruption Framework

The key law setting up the institutional and legislative framework to prevent and fight corruption in Slovenia is the Integrity and Prevention of Corruption Act (IPCA). The Act was amended in November 2020, with new provisions on the organisation and functioning of the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption as well as rules on lobbying and protection of whistleblowers, among others. The same amendments also updated the rules on conflicts of interest, assets declaration, lobbying and ‘revolving doors’. The Commission for the Prevention of Corruption is an autonomous and independent state body responsible for the fight against corruption. The Commission cooperates regularly with the police and special prosecutor’s office, but retains supervisory and administrative investigative powers and is responsible for overseeing the implementation of provisions on conflicts of interest, integrity, asset declarations, gifts and revolving doors. The National Bureau of Investigation is a specialised criminal investigation unit for the detection and investigation of serious crimes, in particular corruption as well as economic, financial and organised crimes. The perception among experts and business executives is that the level of corruption in the public sector remains relatively low. In the 2020 Corruption Perceptions Index by Transparency International, Slovenia scores 60/100 and ranks 11th in the European Union and 35th globally. This perception has been relatively stable over the past five years. The Integrity and Prevention of Corruption Act was recently strengthened. The Act was amended in November 2020, with provisions related to the appointment of the Chief and Deputy Commissioners of the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption. The amendments also define more clearly the different administrative investigation procedures before the Commission and the rules that apply to it when conducting these, as well as expedited minor offence proceedings, and other public law proceedings, including the procedural rights of investigated persons, and the possibility to appeal its decisions. These procedural rights have been inserted to respond to the judgments of the Administrative Court and Supreme Court, which highlighted deficiencies regarding rights of persons who are subject to administrative proceedings before the Commission. Integrity provisions related to gifts, lobbying and supervision of asset declarations have also been included . By its time of expiration, the national anti-corruption strategy has largely been implemented, but some actions remain pending and no new plan has been adopted so far. The implementation report of the third national strategy against corruption (2017-2019) , adopted in April 2020, indicates that while a large share of actions have been implemented, others remain pending, notably actions in areas related to developing integrity tools in specific sectors (such as state property, foreign affairs, science, education and sports) . The Ministry of Public Administration, which is responsible for monitoring the implementation of the strategy, reported that it is working on the implementation of the remaining actions, together with other public institutions (such as the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Health, as well as the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption). A new anticorruption strategy post-2019 has not yet been proposed. The Commission for the Prevention of Corruption was strengthened, including its independence, although fully-fledged effectiveness remains to be reached. The Commission remains the autonomous state body for the prevention of corruption. Following the amendments to the Integrity and Prevention of Corruption Act, the Commission has enhanced its independence through the new appointment procedure for its leadership: the chief Commissioner and its two deputies. The amendments provide new criteria for improving the transparency of the procedure for the appointment of the leadership. The amendments envisage a nomination committee (instead of the selection committee), which nominates the candidates and excludes candidates with a political background. Additionally, the nomination committee conducts a personal suitability assessment of the candidates. The President of the Republic now appoints the leadership based on a list of candidates presented by the nomination committee . Concerning the administrative investigation procedure, the amended Integrity and Prevention of Corruption Act has clarified and strengthened the rights of the individuals under examination of the Commission, including the possibility to contest the decisions issued by the Commission. As regards resources, the Commission has, as of April 2021, a staff of 40 officials (i.e. the Chief Commissioner, two deputies and 37 public servants). However, full staffing remains to be completed . The Commission plans to hire five additional officials per year in 2021 and 2022 . This is made possible because of an increase of financial resources of around EUR 200,000 per year since 2019. Nevertheless, due to general restrictions in public spending, the Commission was not allowed, until May 2021, to hire additional staff or redistribute resources despite having been allocated the necessary budget . Despite these improvements, the Commission continues to experience some challenges linked to technical (i.e. data analysis) skills and resources. Challenges remain with regard to the investigation of economic and financial crime and the leadership of the National Bureau of Investigation. The resources available to the police (the number, seniority and specialization of police officers) remain a challenge that, according to the authorities, affects the quality and length of investigations, particularly in economic and financial crime cases. The lack of resources in some police districts also leads to delays regarding requests by state prosecutors for follow-up investigations. Reports indicate allegations of political interference in investigating and prosecuting authorities, in particular in relation to the National Bureau of Investigation , which is a specialised criminal investigation unit established in 2009 for the detection and investigation of serious crimes, in particular corruption as well as economic, financial and organised crimes. In October 2020, following an Administrative Court ruling on the illegality of the dismissal of the former Director, and pending an appeal process, the Government launched a public competition for filling the position of the Director. In June 2021, there was still an acting Director in charge. The turnover of four different Directors in the last 14 months seems to have delayed the functioning of the National Bureau of Investigation. Concrete results of the investigations by the Bureau into high-level corruption cases are lacking. While the number of prosecutions has increased, the adjudication of cases before courts remains low, especially regarding high-level corruption. In 2020, the number of prosecutions of corruption cases increased compared to the previous year (298 in 2020, compared to 185 in 2019, i.e. an increase of about 62%) . As regards courts, in 2020 there were only 15 adjudications in corruption cases (including two sentenced with imprisonment) , none of which concerned high-level cases . This represents a further decrease in the number of adjudicated corruption cases. In some high-level cases, the courts have not held a court hearing for more than a year and a half. The Specialized State Prosecutor’s Office (SSPO) is competent to prosecute criminal offences related to corruption in the public and private sector. The SSPO directs the work of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), the General Police Directorate (GPD) and the Criminal Police Sectors (CPS) of regional police administrations. The SSPO relies on 28 state prosecutors, dedicated to handle a variety of criminal cases. A lack of skilled human resources (in particular state prosecutors) affects the prioritisation of high-level cases. The State Prosecution has also indicated shortcomings in relation to expertise on financial and data analysis. The examination of financial data is delegated to the Police or the Anti-money Laundering Office (financial investigation unit - FIU). However, due to the the lack of human and technical resources in the police mentioned above, delays from the Police in finalising investigations represent a challenge for the SSPO. Other challenges reported by the SSPO relate to institutional fragmentation (with similar roles allocated to different entities), the late detection of financial crimes, the lack of specialisation of judges, and shortcomings in electronic communication with the Police . In addition to lacking expertise and resources, challenges in the prosecution of corruption arise due to the statute of limitation. Apart from shortcomings in relation to expertise and resources in State Prosecution indicated above, according to the authorities the statute of limitation presents an additional challenge for the prosecution of corruption. Statute of limitation for corruption offences is generally ten years. There are no plans to amend the statutory limitation . In addition, by decision of the President of the Supreme Court, the prosecution of all cases (including corruption cases) had been suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic, unless there was a risk that the alleged crime would be statute-barred in the next six months . Declaration of assets was extended to additional categories of officials, but their publication remains a challenge. The amended Integrity and Prevention of Corruption Act has expanded the list of persons required to file their asset declaration, in order to include national councillors and supervisors of state-owned enterprises, in addition to high-level, elected and appointed officials . The Commission for the Prevention of Corruption is responsible for monitoring the financial declarations of public officials, and has recently teamed up with the Ministry of Public Administration in order to launch a new electronic declaration platform. Due to human resources constraints of the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption, and in light of the number of declarations received (about 4 500 declarations and 4 300 other related submissions yearly), verifications are performed on a random sample of the declarations. Examinations indicate that inaccuracy of declarations (incomplete or erroneous) is limited and trivial, with no need to submit criminal notifications to the State Prosecution . In 2020, only three officials of the Commission worked on verification of asset declarations of 18 470 officials who are obliged to file the declarations, which performed 16 supervisions regarding 923 natural persons and 67 courts. While the amended Integrity and Prevention of Corruption Act has extended the list of officials that are obliged to declare their assets, it has also reduced the list of officials whose declarations will be published. Despite the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption having started to improve its IT system and online platform in order to align with the publication requirement of the law, asset declarations of public officials have not yet been published. Provisions on preventing and managing the conflict of interests were strengthened, although their effective implementation remains a challenge. Under the Integrity and Prevention of Corruption Act, any public officials who, prior to taking office, performed an activity or held an office that is incompatible with their current office, must cease to perform the activity no later than 30 days from the date of their election, appointment or the approval of their mandate. The amended Integrity and Prevention of Corruption Act has extended post-employment restrictions for public officers taking positions in the private sector. The Commission for the Prevention of Corruption can initiate a procedure for assessing the incompatibility of office if it considers that the performance of that activity is likely to present a disproportionate risk to the objective and impartial discharge of the duties of the office or jeopardise its integrity. In May 2021, the Commission sent an initiative to the Government to unify the regulation of conflicts of interests and violation of integrity for all officials, which would, according to the CPC, improve the supervision, equality of treatment of officials, and allowed procedures regarding integrity concerning former officials. The CPC is currently processing high-profile cases related to alleged conflicts of interest. Provisions on lobbying for public officers and elected persons continue to improve. Officials and public employees at the national and local level must report contacts with lobbyists, to both their employer and the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption. The Commission processes and publishes the lobbying-related data on its webpage (called Erar) , together with the information contained in the registry of lobbying. According to the amended Integrity and Prevention of Corruption Act, also the lobbyists (which now include interest groups, in addition to individual lobbyist), must publish an annual report. Transparency of public data, especially related to public expenditures, remains in place. The webpage Erar is also used to publish data, other than lobbying-related data, on public administration, including public procurement transactions and information. It is currently estimated that Erar contains data on approximately 200 million financial transactions, from the year 2003 onward, by both the national government and local agencies. Chest (or Skrinja) is another administrative online platform for users to obtain data and reports on public sector wages . In 2020, the Court of Audit audited the financial operations of 13 political parties (for 2018 or 2019) and delivered six positive opinions and seven opinions with reservations, including recommendations on improving financial operations and increasing transparency (e.g. regarding loans, contributions). In 2020, ethics rules for members of the Parliament were adopted. The Council of the President of the Parliament is responsible to monitor the implementation of the code of ethics and, in case of misconduct, may issue sanctions . Since the adoption of the code of ethics, one sanction for a minor breach was imposed on a member of Parliament. Despite the existing legal provisions for the protection of whistleblowers, the effective enforcement remains overdue. The Integrity and Prevention of Corruption Act has a chapter solely dedicated to the protection of whistleblowers. However, the number of whistleblowing reports and demands for protections under the Act remains low . Also, although the Act indicates the possibility to nominate persons to receive reports of unethical or illegal conduct within the public institutions, it appears that this type of officials are either not nominated, or not fully operational . Nevertheless, at least one high-profile case was initiated during the pandemic following information filed by a whistleblower . According to the State Prosecution, the existing provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding protected witnesses cannot be applied to whistleblowers if these are also considered as suspects (e.g. in a corruption case). Several actions have been implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic aimed to assess, prevent and deter the risk of corruption, especially in public procurement. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption has issued a series of guidelines in order to detect and deter the risk of corruption, in particular related to public procurement procedures. At the request of Parliament, the Court of Audit has concluded a nation-wide audit report on procurement of COVID-19 medical devices, which was issued in February 2021. The findings revealed 13 cases with suspicions of corruption, which were then transmitted to the prosecutor’s office. In 2020, the National Review Commission for public procurement reported some cases of breach of the public procurement procedures, which led to opening new cases. Since January 2021, it is possible to file online requests for the review of public procurement procedures, whose decisions are also published online . In this context, the Ministry for Public Administration started a public consultation process regarding the amendment of the public procurement act, and the Ministry of Health established a working group for the preparation of recommendations to amend procurement legislation for a more effective procurement of medical equipment . III.Media Pluralism and Media Freedom In Slovenia, the legal framework for freedom of expression and information is established by the Constitution, while media plurality is ensured through specific secondary legislation. The media regulator, the Agency for Communication Networks and Services (AKOS), is an independent authority, which is legally and functionally distinct from the Government. The rules on transparency of media ownership require companies to declare to the competition authorities the ownership or management influence above a certain threshold. A considerable change in ownership requires also the agreement of the competent ministry. Legislation to transpose the Audiovisual Media Services Directive is pending . The independence of the Agency for Communication Networks and Services is provided by law, but challenges remain regarding its resources and commitment to strengthen its independence. Additional resources were granted to the Agency for Communication Networks and Services (AKOS) to fulfil its new tasks following the upcoming transposition of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive. However, it is yet to be determined whether the additional resources are sufficient for the Agency to fully perform the broad variety of tasks it has been entrusted with . The lack of safeguards against political interference also remains a concern . Therefore, the Media Pluralism Monitor (MPM 2021) assesses the independence and effectiveness of the media authority at medium risk . The status of AKOS is guaranteed by the Electronic Communications Act , and the Agency draws its enforcement powers in the audiovisual media field from the Mass Media Act and the Audiovisual Media Services Act . In 2020, the Government proposed a revision of the Mass Media Act, envisaged to be completed by the end of 2021. The revision of the Audiovisual Media Services Act, which includes the transposition of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive, is still ongoing, and the Government plans to complete it by the end of 2021 . In June 2020, a public consultation on the revision of the Audiovisual Media Services Act was launched, a revision which included an explicit provision on the Agency’s independence. However, the current version of the draft act, which the Government submitted to the Parliament in March 2021, does not contain such provision. Therefore, it is still doubtful whether the commitment of the authorities to strengthening the independence of the Agency will in fact achieve this result. In October 2020, the Government proposed a law to merge eight regulatory bodies, including AKOS , into two agencies. This proposal raised concerns about the independence of the regulator . In April 2021, the proposed law failed to receive the support in the Parliament and therefore its parliamentary procedure ended. Slovenia has specific provisions on transparency of media ownership, but concerns remain regarding the effective identification of the ownership structures. Publishers or broadcasters are obliged to report whenever individual ownership or management stakes in the company reach 5% or more. The information on media ownership is published in the Media Register, which is publicly available on the Ministry of Culture’s website. In July 2020, the draft amendments to the Mass Media Act were published by the Government, which would strengthen the regime on transparency of media ownerships by removing the minimum threshold of 5%, except for companies organised as joint stock companies. This amendment, if adopted, would improve the transparency of media ownership. However, as noted by the MPM 2021, the ultimate beneficial owners are currently not always identifiable in the Register. The conclusion about media ownership transparency in Slovenia is therefore of medium risk. A two-year study by investigative journalists has identified opaque integrated ownership structures, particularly in the case of multiple cascading owners, which makes it difficult to determine the final owner or the person exercising the influence over the media outlet . As regards news media concentration, the Mass Media Act has a threshold of an ownership stake of more than 20 percent, to limit cross-media concentration, however the MPM 2021 reports a lack of data and the absence of a regular analysis to be able to assess the situation. Instances of political interference in media have been reported. The MPM 2021 assessed the political independence of media in Slovenia to be at high risk. Concerns were raised about possible changes in the funding of the public service broadcaster as envisaged by draft amendments to the Mass Media Act and about pressure on the national press agency, which were considered by stakeholders as politically motivated . In particular, following some delays in the payment of 2020 funding to the Slovenian Press Agency (STA), the Government Communication Office (UKOM) did not pay the agency’s funding for 2021. Upon request of the Slovenian authorities, on 29 April 2021, the European Commission stated that the EUR 2.5 million funding granted by Slovenia to the Slovenian press agency to fulfil its public service mission is fully in line with EU law. However, these funds have not yet been disbursed. Concerns have been raised by different stakeholders regarding the overall situation of media pluralism in Slovenia.

No progress has been noted regarding the governance over state advertising. As reported in the 2020 Rule of Law Report, no transparent and clear set of principles are in place when advertising are distributed to media outlets by national, regional and local governments . According to a recent investigation and other sources , this situation is particularly non-transparent for municipal media. Advertising by companies, in majority or fully owned by the state, also seems non-transparent as they often decline to share such information by invoking legal provisions protecting business secrets . In 2020, the Government published recommendations for the implementation of advertising campaigns by ministries and government services, which suggested distributing funds among the media evenly, regardless of their performance on the media markets (MPM 2021). The distribution of support funds for media pluralism is considered to be transparent. Funds are granted by a commission appointed by the Ministry of Culture, and the information on the allocated funding is published on the recipients’ websites . The economic conditions of media have worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic. Economic uncertainty for the media sector has increased, also due to the Ministry of Culture’s temporary suspension of payments for the annual tender for co-financing of media content that took place in 2020, even though the funds were later fully disbursed . Some stakeholders were concerned about the economic conditions of journalists, especially freelancers . No specific measures have been taken to alleviate the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on media outlets. However, journalists could access the general support measures provided by the Government . In 2020, the Ministry of Culture released the annual funds, through a competition, this year amounting to EUR 2.7 million with the aim of supporting media pluralism and diversity of media content; however, some concerns were raised by stakeholders regarding possible risks of political influence over the distribution of such funds. Journalists continue to face obstacles to access public information and documents, especially due to lengthy procedures. The right to information is enshrined in the Constitution and regulated by the Access to Public information Act. However, the process of obtaining public information is often long considering the involvement of all relevant authorities taking part in the process. While the Information Commissioner regularly intervenes when journalists are prevented from accessing public information and documents by state administration , this frequent use of the appeal system considerably increases the Commissioner’s workload . In addition, the Administrative Courts, which review decisions of the Information Commissioner, do not prioritise such cases in practice, despite a legal obligation to do so. This has led to delays in judicial review proceedings, which are comparable to regular cases . The MPM 2021 attributed medium risk to the protection of the right to information, compared to the low risk in the MPM 2020, due to the frequent misuse of the exceptions to the right to information and the lengthy procedures. Online harassment and lawsuits targeting journalists continue to increase, while physical attacks are rare . The freedoms of expression and information are enshrined in the Constitution, and relevant judicial mechanisms are in place. However, the MPM 2021 assessed the protection of freedom of expression to be at medium risk . Some physical attacks against journalists were reported in October and November 2020, and February 2021, during protests – the perpetrators have been identified and are under investigation . The Council of Europe’s Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists published 12 alerts concerning Slovenia since October 2020. The alerts mainly relate to the harassment of journalists and lawsuits brought against journalists . Several cases of lawsuits against journalists and media outlets with intimidating effects were registered during the last year. Online harassment and threats against journalists, especially targeting female journalists, including from some politicians, continue to be numerous . Furthermore, many perpetrators of online attacks remain anonymous, and journalists tend to report online harassment less frequently than physical threats . As a positive development, following a judgment of the Supreme Court, the Supreme State Prosecution changed its legal opinion on the interpretation of Article 297 of the Criminal Code following the Supreme Court judgment, allowing prosecution of offences perpetrated against journalists also according to this provision.



IV.Other Institutional Issues related to Checks and Balances Slovenia has a parliamentary system of government with an imperfect bicameral structure, where only the National Assembly (the first chamber of the Parliament), and not the National Council (the second chamber of the Parliament), adopts laws . Draft legislation can be tabled by the Government, any member of the Parliament or at least 5000 ‘voters’. The Constitutional Court carries out ex post constitutional review, including in concrete cases on the basis of a constitutional complaint. In addition to the justice system and other bodies, the Human Rights Ombudsperson and the Advocate of the Principle of Equality are also in charge of the protection of the rights of individuals. The Parliament continued functioning during the COVID-19 pandemic. In April 2020, an amendment to the Parliament Rules of Procedure removed the obstacles for online sessions of parliamentary committees and of the plenary. Also due to these amendments, the Parliament worked normally throughout 2020 and adopted 78 laws, which is comparable to previous years. As examined in the 2020 Rule of law Report, laws may be adopted in a shortened or an emergency procedure, which is decided by the Collegium of the President of the Parliament. In 2020, 31% of all laws were adopted according to the regular procedure (30% in 2019), 32% of laws were adopted according to the urgent procedure (18% in 2019), and 27% of laws according to the shortened legislative procedure (31% in 2019). These data show that the combined share of urgent or shortened legislative procedure did not change substantially. Issues exist as regards the consultation of the civil society by the Government on draft laws. In particular, public consultations are either not carried out at all, are too short, or without any specified deadline for comments. The Communicable Diseases Act, amended four times since the COVID-19 pandemic started, has been the basis for restrictive measures, as no state of emergency has been declared. Numerous measures were adopted in the period between March 2020 and February 2021, mostly on the basis of the Communicable Diseases Act, which enforced temporary restrictions or prohibition of movement, public gatherings, use of certain services (certain business activities), public services (education, judiciary, administrative services), use of protective equipment, quarantine, and public passenger transport services. The measures were mostly adopted in the form of ordinances and orders, less frequently in the form of decisions and acts. Such measures were usually adopted by the executive branch of power, most frequently by the Government and rarely by individual ministers. On 3 June 2021, the Constitutional Court declared as unconstitutional part of article 39 of the Communicable Diseases Act, which empowered the Government to limit or prohibit freedom of movement or freedom of association. The majority of measures were published in the Official Journal and those that were not, were assessed by the Constitutional Court from the viewpoint of constitutional provisions on the necessity of publication. Based on statutory powers, measures were also adopted by municipalities, but only in the field of their jurisdiction. Financial independence of certain independent bodies has been ensured by a Constitutional Court judgment. In December 2020, the Constitutional Court found parts of the Public Finance Act to be unconstitutional insofar as they prescribed the procedure to define the budget of the National Council (the second chamber of the Parliament), the Constitutional Court, the Human Rights Ombudsperson and the Court of Audit . This judgment emphasised the financial autonomy and independence of the four mentioned independent institutions, established by the Constitution. Previously, these bodies submitted their suggestions for budget to the Ministry of Finance, which was not obliged to follow the proposed amount. The Government and the Parliament are now required to guarantee the budget for these institutions without influencing its amount. The Constitutional Court improved its efficiency and played an active role in reviewing COVID-19 pandemic measures. The 2020 Rule of law Report found that due to an increase in constitutional complaints, the Constitutional Court’s backlog and length of proceedings continued to rise. In 2020, despite a large increase in incoming initiatives and requests for constitutional review (+55% compared to 2019) and with the incoming constitutional complaints decreasing (-26% compared to 2019), the Court resolved 26% more cases than in 2019. For the first time since 2015, the Court was able to process almost all incoming cases. However, since the Court focused on older cases, the average length of proceedings increased to 530 days for constitutional review cases (nearly 500 days in 2019) and to 571 days for constitutional complaints (420 days in 2019). Since March 2020 until June 2021, the Constitutional Court received 188 cases related to COVID-19 pandemic measures, among which 185 initiatives and requests for constitutionality review and three constitutional complaints, and was able to already resolve 123 initiatives and requests and three constitutional complaints, delivering four judgments (one partial). In March 2021, the question of impartiality of Constitutional Court judges has been raised by Parliament, which invited the President of the Constitutional Court to discuss this matter. The President replied that it would not be in accordance with the Constitution if Parliament would discuss open cases before the Constitutional Court or would expect from the President to defend the Constitutional Court or himself in relation to the judgments delivered. Human Rights Ombudsperson gained A-status accreditation and has been active in monitoring restrictive measures related to the COVID-19 pandemic. In January 2021, the Human Rights Ombudsperson became an “A Status” national human rights institution, in compliance with the Paris Principles, following efforts to gain this status since 2015. The GANHRI Sub-Committee on Accreditations recommended a proper formalisation and application of an appointment process of deputies as well as some other improvements in legislation . The Ombudsperson played an active role in monitoring the COVID-19 pandemic measures by gathering all restrictive rules in force and presenting them in a consolidated and readable manner on its website. The Ombudsperson also contacted the executive a number of times and was also involved in the drafting of the COVID-19 pandemic measures, in particular to ensure their compliance with human rights and fundamental freedoms. To discuss the rule of law, the President of the Republic convened a first-ever meeting of the legislative, executive and judicial powers. In October 2020, the President of the Republic gathered, for the first time, the highest representatives of all three branches of government to discuss the rule of law and the division of powers. The meeting was attended by the President of the National Assembly, Prime Minister, President of the National Council, President of the Constitutional Court, President of the Supreme Court, Minister of Justice and the Prosecutor General. Such an initiative could contribute to foster a culture of dialogue and loyal cooperation between state institutions. The civil society space has been challenged. In December 2020, Slovenia’s civic space was downgraded to ‘narrowed’ also due to the restrictions adopted to cope with the pandemic, which had an impact on the enabling environment for the civil society. Smear campaigns against non-governmental organisations, especially on social media, have been reported . During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Ombudsperson found cases of laws, measures and practice that could negatively affect civic space and reduce human rights defender’s activities. Attacks to the civic organisations’ financial and economic viability, including by reducing funds, have been noted . It appears that civic society organisations dealing with migrants, media literacy, human trafficking are particularly concerned . Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order* * The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2021 Rule of Law report can be found at https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/upholding-rule-law/rule-law/rule-law-mechanism/2021-rule-law-report-targeted-stakeholder-consultation . Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (2021), Media pluralism monitor 2021.

European Commission (2020-2021), EU Justice Scoreboard.

Annex II: Country visit to Slovenia The Commission services held virtual meetings in April 2021 with: ·Ministry of Justice ·Ministry of Public Administration ·Ministry of Culture ·General Police Directorate (Economic Crime division) and National Bureau of Investigation (NPU) ·Constitutional Court ·Supreme Court ·Judicial Council ·Court of Audit ·State Prosecutorial Council ·State Prosecution (Prosecutor General, Supreme State Prosecution Office, Specialised State Prosecution Office) ·Commission for the Prevention of Corruption ·National Review Commission

·Agency for Communication Networks and Services (AKOS) ·Human Rights Ombudsperson ·Parliament Secretariat ·Association of Journalists and Publicists (Ms Irena Zagajšek) ·Association of Journalists ·Faculty of Media (Full prof. Borut Rončević, Full prof. Matevž Tomšič) ·Union of Slovenian Journalists ·Pod črto ·Transparency International Slovenia ·Peace Institute ·National NGO umbrella network (CNVOS) ·Judges’ Association ·Bar Association * The Commission also met the following organisations in a number of horizontal meetings: ·Amnesty International ·Center for Reproductive Rights ·CIVICUS ·Civil Liberties Union for Europe ·Civil Society Europe

·Conference of European Churches ·EuroCommerce ·European Center for Not-for-Profit Law ·European Centre for Press and Media Freedom ·European Civic Forum ·European Federation of Journalists ·European Partnership for Democracy ·European Youth Forum ·Front Line Defenders ·Human Rights House Foundation ·Human Rights Watch ·ILGA-Europe ·International Commission of Jurists ·International Federation for Human Rights ·International Planned Parenthood Federation European Network (IPPF EN) ·International Press Institute ·Netherlands Helsinki Committee ·Open Society European Policy Institute ·Philanthropy Advocacy ·Protection International