EUROPEAN COMMISSION Luxembourg, 13.7.2022 SWD(2022) 524 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2022 Rule of Law Report















Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Slovenia Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 2022 Rule of Law Report

















The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2022) 500 final} - {SWD(2022) 501 final} - {SWD(2022) 502 final} - {SWD(2022) 503 final} - {SWD(2022) 504 final} - {SWD(2022) 505 final} - {SWD(2022) 506 final} - {SWD(2022) 507 final} - {SWD(2022) 508 final} - {SWD(2022) 509 final} - {SWD(2022) 510 final} - {SWD(2022) 511 final} - {SWD(2022) 512 final} - {SWD(2022) 513 final} - {SWD(2022) 514 final} - {SWD(2022) 515 final} - {SWD(2022) 516 final} - {SWD(2022) 517 final} - {SWD(2022) 518 final} - {SWD(2022) 519 final} - {SWD(2022) 520 final} - {SWD(2022) 521 final} - {SWD(2022) 522 final} - {SWD(2022) 523 final} - {SWD(2022) 525 final} - {SWD(2022) 526 final} - {SWD(2022) 527 final}



Abstract The Slovenian justice system has seen some improvements in quality and efficiency, and regarding issues raised in the 2021 Rule of Law Report, such as the nomination of European Delegated Prosecutors. Improvements to the Judicial Council Act, including on disciplinary framework, are in preparation. However, concerns have been raised over the Minister of Interior’s powers to instruct the Police in individual cases, potentially affecting independent work of state prosecutors and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. Rules governing parliamentary inquiries lack safeguards on independence of judges and state prosecutors – as required by Constitutional Court judgments. The Government decreased, without consultation with judicial authorities, the previously agreed budget for courts, the Judicial Council and the State Prosecution. The Judicial Council launched procedures for constitutional review of salaries of judges. Work started on a new national anti-corruption strategy, but the timeline for adoption is not yet known. The resources of the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption are being increased. The Government aims to strengthen the rules on whistleblower protection. However, the number of prosecutions has decreased to their lowest level in recent years. The State Prosecution Service faced challenges, including on human resources and due to the short statute of limitation. Furthermore, institutions in the fight against corruption are concerned about continuing challenges to the independence of their work. Serious concerns exist regarding the independent work of the anti-corruption police, including the National Bureau of Investigation. The number of Police investigations of corruption has dropped. Several actions have been implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic with the aim to address the risk of corruption, especially in public procurement. Since the 2021 Rule of Law Report, the situation of media freedom and pluralism has not improved. The independence of the audio-visual media services regulator is ensured by law, however challenges remain regarding the commitment to strengthen its independence, particularly through the proposed amending legislation. The legislation aimed to transpose the Audiovisual Media Services Directive has been adopted. A regulatory gap for addressing high concentration of media raises concerns. After delays in payments which were considered by stakeholders as politically motivated and led to a number of staff leaving, the financial viability for 2021 and 2022 was ensured for the Slovenian Press Agency. Despite legal safeguards providing for the independence of public service media, there are challenges regarding their effectiveness in practice in limiting political influence. A hostile environment, online harassment of and threats against journalists are growing sources of concern, and several lawsuits against journalists with intimidating effect have been reported. The Constitutional Court reported an increase in cases related to COVID-19 pandemic measures. The law on public finances lacks safeguards on budgetary autonomy of certain independent bodies – as required by a Constitutional Court judgment. The share of laws adopted by urgent procedure in Parliament has decreased. The Human Rights Ombudsperson received an increased number of complaints, including those related to COVID-19 pandemic measures. The civil society faced challenges regarding negative narrative, but funding issues and limitations on freedom of assembly were resolved.



Recommendations In addition to recalling the commitments made under the National Recovery and Resilience Plan relating to certain aspects of the justice system, it is recommended to Slovenia to: ·Ensure that rules on parliamentary inquiries contain adequate safeguards for independence of judges and state prosecutors, taking into account European standards on judicial independence. ·Remove obstacles to the investigation and prosecution of corruption cases, including by ensuring the operational autonomy of the National Bureau of Investigation, increasing the resources of State Prosecution and revising the statute of limitation. ·Adopt and start implementing without further delay the anti-corruption strategy. ·Strengthen the rules and mechanisms to enhance the independent governance and editorial independence of public service media taking into account European standards on public service media. ·Establish legislative and other safeguards to protect journalists, particularly online, taking into account European standards on the protection of journalists. ·Ensure requisite safeguards for budgetary autonomy of the independent bodies. 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 and the Supreme Court at third instance (dealing with appeals to certain judgments of Higher Courts and of the Administrative Court). The Constitutional Court carries out constitutional review. 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 (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. Slovenia participates in the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). 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. Independence The level of perceived judicial independence in Slovenia continues to be average among both the general public and companies. Overall, 49% of the general population and 49% of companies perceive the level of independence of courts and judges to be ‘fairly or very good’ in 2022 . According to data in the 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard, the level of perceived judicial independence shows a positive trend for the fourth year in a row. Both figures have increased in comparison to 2021 (47% for the general public and 43% for companies), as well as in comparison to 2016 (47% for the general public and 37% for companies).

The Ministry of Justice is preparing amendments to the Judicial Council Act, including regarding disciplinary framework on judges. The aim of the draft amendments is to introduce the possibility of a (semi) professionalisation of the function of the President and Vice-President of the Judicial Council, clarify the provisions regarding judicial control over the legality of the election of members of the Judicial Council from among judges, further strengthen the transparency and accountability of the Judicial Council, and address the unconstitutionality of the certain provisions on disciplinary proceedings regarding judges. The 2021 Rule of Law Report found that the judiciary initiated a discussion on improving the framework for disciplinary proceedings regarding judges. Both the Association of Judges and the Judicial Council provided comments on the draft amendments. The objective of the reform of disciplinary proceedings appears to be in line with EU law and takes into account the Council of Europe recommendations . The Government nominated the European Delegated Prosecutors, and the subsequent Government appointed most of candidates for state prosecutors. The 2021 Rule of Law Report set out concerns about the failure of Slovenia to nominate the candidates for the post of European Delegated Prosecutors in time. On 18 November 2021, the then Government eventually nominated the two candidates selected in December 2020 by the State Prosecutorial Council, which were then appointed on 23 November 2021 by the College of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. However, on 24 November 2021, the then Ministry of Justice submitted for discussion by the Government draft amendments to the State Prosecution Service Act that would change the rules for the nomination of the European Delegated Prosecutors and envisaged that the two already appointed European Delegated Prosecutors would be replaced by new candidates selected in accordance with this revised procedure. The Commission pointed out that the European Delegated Prosecutors were appointed for the five-year term of office provided for in Article 17 of the EPPO Regulation, with all the guarantees required to ensure their independence. As regards the state prosecutors, the 2021 Rule of Law Report found that the appointments of state prosecutors were unjustifiably delayed. On 2 June 2022, the new Government appointed/promoted 13 out of 20 candidate prosecutors who were awaiting a decision of the Government. Rules governing parliamentary inquiries lack safeguards on independence of judges and state prosecutors that were required by two Constitutional Court judgments. In 2019, a Parliamentary Inquiry Committee opened an investigation to look into actions of prosecutors and judges in specific criminal cases. Against this background, the Judicial Council and the State Prosecution challenged the constitutionality of the rules on parliamentary inquiries then in force and the Constitutional Court delivered two judgments. 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. In August 2021, the Constitutional Court found similar deficiencies in the rules in relation to safeguards for ensuring the independence of state prosecutors. The Constitutional Court gave Parliament one year to remedy the unconstitutional elements from the Parliamentary Inquiries Act (until January 2022 and July 2022 with regard to judgments on judges and state prosecutors, respectively). No legislative proposal has been tabled yet. Concerns have been raised over the Minister of Interior’s powers to instruct the Police in individual cases, potentially affecting independent work of state prosecutors and the EPPO. On 20 October 2021, the Parliament adopted, on a proposal from the Government, amendments to the Organisation and Work of the Police Act. Further to these amendments, the Minister of the Interior has the power to issue instructions to the Police even when the latter act in the framework of a criminal investigation, until the moment the state prosecutors demand in writing to take the lead of the investigations or issue written guidance to the police. These provisions may also apply to the relations between the Slovenian European Delegated Prosecutors and the Police. Previously, it was deemed that the state prosecutors were in charge of the investigation by default, from the moment the Police informed them of the criminal offence, and Minister/Police hierarchy could not intervene. On 23 June 2022, the new Government amended the Decree and removed the obligation to demand in writing to take the lead of the investigations and the obligation to issue guidance to the Police in writing. Quality Electronic communication tools in the justice system are being gradually improved, including in criminal justice, where room for improvement remains. Information and Communication Technologies for case management are advanced, particularly in courts. In 2021, as part of an EU funded project, the Supreme Court launched the Archeia system, which enables a centralised, long-term storage of digital content. The 2021 Rule of Law Report found that the COVID-19 pandemic exposed the need to accelerate the necessary improvements to electronic communication tools between courts/prosecution and parties. According to the 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard, in 2021 the digitalisation improved, particularly regarding procedural rules enabling the use of electronic communication in civil/commercial cases and in internal electronic communication of State Prosecution. Room for improvement remains on electronic communication in criminal cases and for communication of external actors with the State Prosecution. In criminal, administrative and civil and commercial cases, accelerated efforts are under way to upgrade already by end 2022 the computerised case management system to allow electronic communication. In 2021, the Ministry of Justice established a working group to coordinate the implementation of electronic operations in criminal matters. Several necessary adjustments in communication between the Police, the State Prosecution and courts have been identified, and the court rules have been amended. A number of projects to upgrade the electronic communication tools have commenced, particular in the criminal area. As regards electronic communication between the Police and the State Prosecution, the channel for criminal notifications which exists since 2017 saw its features extended in 2021. As regards electronic communication between courts and State Prosecution, it is planned to be extended to all types of criminal cases by end of 2023. Online access to published judgments remains limited as regards decisions of first instance courts. Amendments requiring the Supreme Court to publish also first instance court judgments are in preparation. The Government decreased the previously agreed budget for courts, State Prosecution and Judicial Council without the customary consultation with judicial authorities. According to a well-established practice, the Ministry of Finance (in cooperation with the Ministry of Justice) prepares the draft budget for the justice system based on input from and in consultation with the judiciary, and the Government submits the agreed proposal to Parliament in full transparency. In November 2020, Parliament adopted the 2022 budget. In June 2021, some judicial authorities agreed with the Ministries of Finance and Justice on a higher budget, in view of preparations of amendments to the 2022 budget. However, on 30 September 2021, the Government proposed to Parliament the Amendments to the 2022 budget, which reduced the previously agreed revisions by 17% for the Judicial Council, 4% for the State Prosecution and 1.2% for the courts. The judicial authorities were not informed of the revised proposed budget nor invited to parliamentary discussions on it, contrary to the established practice. The European Parliament called on Slovenian Government to ensure sufficient funding for the judicial authorities. Council of Europe recommendations provide that Councils for the Judiciary, the courts themselves and/or judges’ professional organisation may be consulted when the judicial system’s budget is being prepared. It is to be noted that the overall budget for the justice system has been increasing for several years. The Judicial Council launched a procedure for constitutional review of salaries of judges. In 2021, the Constitutional Court was seized first by the Association of Judges and subsequently by the Judicial Council in relation to the salaries of judges. In particular, the Judicial Council and the Association of Judges consider that the current salary system applicable to judges is unconstitutional due to the imbalance of the salary grades of the judiciary compared to the salary grades of the legislative and the executive branches. They also stated the imbalance is affecting the independence of the judiciary guaranteed by the Constitution. According to the Judges’ Association, the current salary system makes it difficult to attract and retain judges in the judiciary. The imbalance between the public sector salary system and the salary system applicable to judges leads to situations where officials working in courts (judicial advisers) sometimes have a higher salary than a judge. Efficiency There were some improvements in efficiency, but the challenges identified in past Reports persist on length of trials related to money laundering offences. According to the 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard, the estimated time needed to resolve has increased in 2020, particularly in litigious civil and commercial cases. According to Supreme Court data, in 2021, the courts in total received 8% more cases and resolved 10% more cases than in 2020, with the total backlog of cases at the end of 2021 decreasing by 8%. In 2021, the average length of proceedings mostly increased or stagnated at first instance courts, and decreased at second instance courts. As regards criminal courts, the number of cases in which the statute of limitation was reached has more than halved from 2019 to 2020. Nevertheless, the average length of trials in first instance courts in more complex money laundering offences increased to 925 days in 2020 on average (876 days in 2019) and remains among the highest in the EU . The President of the Supreme Court established a working group consisting of Supreme Court and appeal court judges with the task of analysing the challenges regarding adjudication of cases, including on financial and economic crime, particularly those related to efficiency. 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 Commission for the Prevention of Corruption is an autonomous and independent state body, responsible for the prevention of corruption through administrative oversight of rules on integrity and conflicts of interests. The Commission continues to cooperate regularly with the police and special prosecutor’s office. The National Bureau of Investigation is the specialised criminal investigation unit for the detection and investigation of serious crimes, including corruption. Previously an autonomous body, it was moved in 2021 under the management authority of the General Police Directorate. The perception of public sector corruption among experts and business executives is that the level of corruption in the public sector is relatively high. In the 2021 Corruption Perceptions Index by Transparency International, Slovenia scores 57/100 and ranks 16th in the EU and 41th globally. This perception has been relatively stable over the past 5 years. The 2022 Special Eurobarometer on Corruption shows that 87% of respondents consider corruption widespread in their country (EU average 68%) and 31% of respondents feel personally affected by corruption in their daily lives (EU average 24%). As regards businesses, 78% of companies consider that corruption is widespread (EU average 63%) and 34% consider that that corruption is a problem when doing business (EU average 34%). Furthermore, 36% of respondents find that there are enough successful prosecutions to deter people from corrupt practices (EU average 34%), while 17% of companies believe that people and businesses caught for bribing a senior official are appropriately punished (EU average 29%). There is currently no national anti-corruption strategy in place. A Resolution on the Prevention of Corruption in the Republic of Slovenia was adopted in 2004, which has since not been changed. The previous national anti-corruption strategy covered the period 2017-2019. Since then, no new strategy has been put in place. A working group, composed of representatives of the Ministry of Public Administration, the Ministry of Justice, the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption and other stakeholders, has been established to prepare a new anti-corruption strategy by March 2023. No concrete timeline regarding its adoption has yet been announced. The heads of key institutions have voiced their concern about continuous challenges to the independence of institutions in the fight against corruption. In June 2021, the heads of the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption, the Court of Audit, the Information Commissioner and the Human Rights Ombudsman issued a joint statement denouncing repeated pressure and harassment from politicians through coordinated attacks in media outlets and on social media. The public criticism includes the blanket rejection or non-compliance with decisions, as well as the accusation of political action, which undermines respect for the institutions responsible to fight corruption. This undue interference in the work of the institutions is likely to have a detrimental impact on their overall capacity to perform their key tasks in the prevention and detection of corruption and other irregularities, as well as on the rule of law in general. In April 2022, the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption issued a similar declaration, in response to allegations made by representatives of the previous Government that the Commission had taken political decisions. In the same month, the Supreme State Prosecution rejected in a public statement allegations from some politicians that the State Prosecution had not taken action in relation to criminal threats to the former Prime Minister. Serious concerns exist regarding the independence of the specialised anti-corruption police – the National Bureau of Investigation. The National Bureau of Investigation is responsible to fight serious crime, including corruption. The Bureau enjoyed an absolute autonomy, both regarding investigations and management decisions. However, amendments adopted in October 2021 explicitly limit its autonomy to ‘detection and investigation of criminal offences’ and removed the autonomy of the Bureau’s Director to decide which investigations, including on corruption, the Bureau will take over. The subordination of the Bureau within the General Police Directorate placed it under the responsibility of the Director of the General Police who has the final say on its internal acts, management and resources. Moreover, the Minister of the Interior is now competent to prescribe requirements for executive positions (including the Director of the Bureau) and on this basis, in November, the new Director was appointed. The OECD noted ongoing allegations of political interference in the National Bureau of Investigation in the context of its assessment of Slovenia’s enforcement of its foreign bribery laws . The new Government announced amendments to the Organisation and Work of the Police Act. Criminal investigations and indictments on alleged corruption have dropped to their lowest level in recent years. In 2021, the number of criminal reports from the Police to the State Prosecution regarding alleged corruption offences decreased (178 cases in 2021, compared to 298 in 2020, and 185 in 2019). Reasons behind the fluctuations of alleged crimes are complex. Corruption goes unnoticed when the Police is unable to detect it and the general public is reluctant to report it, for example because it lacks confidence that complaints will be effectively followed up. The number of indictments brought by state prosecutors also decreased to the lowest level in recent years (21 indictments in 2021, compared to 23 in 2020 and 123 in 2019). The data on all corruption offences show that the number of first instance court judgments increased in 2021 (48, compared to 29 in 2020 and 28 in 2019). In line with these numbers, the number of open corruption cases in courts decreased to 170 (See 199 cases in 2020 and 255 in 2019). None of the judgments on corruption delivered in 2021 involved cases of high-level corruption . The State Prosecution is facing challenges, including on human resources and due to the statute of limitation. The Specialised State Prosecutor’s Office is competent to prosecute criminal offences related to corruption in the public and private sector and functioned, at the end of 2021, with 11 (out of 16 planned) state prosecutors. In total, the prosecution service operated at the end of 2021 with only 203 (out of the 268 planned) state prosecutors. Reportedly, the actual available staff fluctuates between 154 and 180 prosecutors due to a high level of absences and the lack of state prosecutors, according to the Supreme State Prosecution, leads to delays, lower quality of work and cases of burnout, which may exacerbate in future due to an upcoming retirement wave. In addition, the statute of limitation presents an additional challenge for the prosecution of corruption, according to the Government and the State Prosecution. In November 2021, opposition members of the Parliament submitted draft amendments to the Criminal Code, aimed at limiting the time available to start a criminal investigation and to conduct the investigation itself. According to the European Chief Prosecutor, the amendments would have considerably shortened the time span available for the detection, prosecution and trials related to criminal offences falling within the competence of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and would compromise ongoing investigations. By contrast, there have also been developments that allow the judiciary more time to bring their case to a final decision. The resources of the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption are being increased. In October 2021, new Rules of Procedure for the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption entered into force, providing clarity on the rights of individuals in the context of procedures before the Commission.. In 2021, the Commission received a bit less notifications (629) of corruption and violations of integrity than in 2020 (728). It resolved 646 notifications (compared to 785 in 2020). The budget of the Commission has been increased substantially each year since 2019, and reached EUR 2.3 million for 2022. As of December 2021, there were 41 officials working in the Commission and procedures to hire 10 additional employees in 2022 are ongoing. However, the Commission lacks sufficient resources to upgrade its IT infrastructure (currently outsourced), including to develop and run the planned asset declaration platform (as well as for integrity and whistleblower procedures). Nearly 20 000 officials have to declare their assets before taking up duties, and the Commission only has the capacity to check a random selection of declarations. The rules on conflict of interest and ethics are being implemented, but incompatibilities sometimes remain unresolved. The Commission for the Prevention of Corruption can initiate a procedure if it considers that an activity is incompatible with a person’s current public office. It was involved in several high-profile cases in 2021, the majority of which related to local officials. The Commission issued more recommendations (62) in 2021, than in 2020 (40) on issues such as incompatibility of functions and conflicts of interests. However, in most cases the addressees fail to take concrete measures that would best ensure proper management of corruption risks. In May 2022, the Commission adopted new guidelines, with practical examples to facilitate the understanding of the legal provisions on conflict of interests. On the side of Parliament, the Council of the President of the Parliament is responsible to monitor the implementation of the Code of Ethics for members of Parliament and, in case of misconduct, may issue sanctions . In 2021, three proposals of alleged breach of the Code of Ethics were submitted (one by the President and the other two by the Vice-President of the Parliament). They were discussed in closed meeting of the Council of the President. One sanction was approved by the Council of the President.

Officials and public employees must report contacts with lobbyists, either to their employer or the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption. The obligation to report contacts with lobbyists applies to officials at both national and local level. In 2021, the Commission received 4 526 reports about lobbying contacts (5 345 in 2020). These contacts are published on a webpage , and the Commission also publishes on its website a register of professional lobbyists. Whereas legal and authorised representatives of companies or interest groups are exempt from registering as lobbyists, they have to report their lobbying activities to the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption. In 2021, the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption carried out 12 proceedings regarding violations of these rules and concluded they had been breached in five cases (18 in 2020). The respect of rules on political party financing is being monitored by the Court of Audit. The Court of Audit monitors the regularity of political parties’ operations, conducts a mandatory review of their annual reports, and can file criminal notifications in cases of financial misdemeanours. In 2021, the Court of Audit audited small political parties receiving up to EUR 300 000. From a total of 12 audited political parties, the Court of Audit delivered eight unqualified opinions, four qualified opinions (with more comments regarding irregularities), and no negative opinions. Some stakeholders highlighted that in the past, irregularities in financing of political parties occurred right after the Court of Audit conducted its audit, which means that the audits should be made more frequently. The Government aims to strengthen the rules on whistleblower protection. In December 2021, the Ministry of Justice submitted into public consultation a draft proposal to extend the scope of protection provided by Integrity and Prevention of Corruption Act and to transpose the Whistleblowers DirectiveIn 2021, the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption received one request for whistleblower protection and assisted in establishing a causal link between the initial report and the retaliatory measures suffered by the whistleblower. Several actions have been implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic with the aim to address the risk of corruption, especially in public procurement. In 2021, the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption extended its systemic oversight, started in 2020, of public sector entities that have procured protective equipment, and focused on municipalities and hospitals. Additionally, the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption issued a recommendation to the Ministry of Health regarding the identified risks connected to lack of supervision of quality and quantity of distributed medical supplies and other goods (COVID-19 tests). The Commission for the Prevention of Corruption concluded in 2022 that established procurement standards were not guaranteed in procedures which, for reasons of urgency, were, according to the Commission, already carried out in a less transparent manner. The National Review Commission received three audit requests in 2021 (like in 2020) related to public procurement procedures for the management of the pandemic. The National Review Commission also opened five misdemeanour cases in 2021 in connection with public procurement procedures to manage the pandemic (compared to 13 in 2020). Three misdemeanour proceedings were resolved in 2021, of which one from 2020 and two from 2021, in all of which the misdemeanour procedure was halted. Slovenia amended its public procurement legislation, as set out in its Recovery and Resilience Plan. The resulting new Public Procurement Act, in force since 1 January 2022, aims to increase digitalisation and competition in public procurement procedures.The Court of Audit is conducting two audits relating to COVID-19 pandemic measures. III.Media Pluralism 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 audiovisual-media services 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 aimed at transposing the Audiovisual Media Services Directive has been adopted. The independence of the audio-visual media services regulator is ensured by the Electronic Communications Act. The independent 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. The updated Audiovisual Media Services Act adopted in December 2021 aimed at transposing the Audiovisual Media Services Directive. A draft law aiming at transposing the Electronic Communications Code is still pending; the law would also include the conditions and procedures for the appointment and dismissal of the head and members of the collegiate body of AKOS. As reported in the 2021 Report, challenges persist concerning the effectiveness of the draft new legal framework in ensuring the independent performance of media regulatory functions of AKOS. The financial independence of the agency continues to be guaranteed by its financing system, based on the collection of fees generated from AKOS activities. The regulator is responsible for a broad variety of tasks. Additional resources were granted to the regulator in the field of audiovisual media services following the new tasks attributed with the transposition of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive. However, fully implementing the extensive competences with the available resources remains a challenge. The lack of safeguards against political interference also remains a concern. The Media Pluralism Monitor 2022 indicates a medium risk for the indicator on the independence and effectiveness of the media authority. A regulatory gap for addressing high concentration of media raises concerns. News media concentration continues to be a concern, as the Slovenian media market is dominated by few players. According to MPM 2022, horizontal concentration is very high in the radio sector, which is followed by the magazine and the audiovisual sector. The Mass Media Act regulates the protection of media pluralism and diversity; it also includes several mechanisms and procedures on restrictions on ownership and concentration. Regarding media concentration, the legislation also prohibits combining radio, television and print medium activities but this legal limitation appears to be often circumvented in practice by using complex ownership structures. According to MPM 2022, the limitations provided by law are not always implemented and there is a lack of data on the market share of specific media outlets. Therefore MPM 2022 reports a high risk for the indicator on news media concentration. As raised by nearly all stakeholders, concerns remain regarding a regulatory gap in addressing the media concentration. The situation regarding media concentration shows a lack of appropriate legal framework and empowered authorities to address the issue. Challenges remain in identifying the ultimate ownership structure of certain media. As reported in the 2021 Report, Slovenia has in place specific provisions on transparency of media ownership which were updated following the adoption of amendments of December 2021 to the Audiovisual Media Services Act. The revised law requires that audio-visual media service providers publish information about individual ownership or management stakes in the company, when they exceed 5%. Several stakeholders indicated there are some persisting challenges concerning the identification of the ultimate ownership in certain media outlets. As mentioned in the 2021 Rule of Law Report, a proposed update of the Mass Media Act would have addressed these issues, for example by removing the minimum threshold of 5%, however, the draft law has not progressed toward adoption. The situation regarding the transparency of media ownership shows that the legal framework is insufficient particularly regarding complex ownership structures (including beneficial owners) and that a clarification of the authority designated to address the issues would be necessary. Following these shortcomings, the 2022 MPM reports a medium risk concerning the indicator on transparency of media ownership. The Mass Media Act also regulates the procedures for the granting of operating licences to radio and television broadcasters. The concession of a licence involves double registration: first in the Court Register and subsequently in the Mass Media Register, managed by the Ministry of Culture. There was no progress concerning allocation of state advertising. As reported in the 2021 Rule of Law Report, there are no specific obligations for authorities or media outlets to report on allocation of state advertising. Several sources and reports pointed out that the situation is particularly non-transparent for local media. Furthermore, the distribution of support funds for media pluralism is considered to be transparent. However, in some instances doubts were raised about fairness of allocation of the annual media support scheme for 2021, which provides direct subsidies to media for their projects of content production. The MPM 2022 reports a high risk on the indicator on state regulation of resources and support to media sector. Despite some legal safeguards ensuring independence of public service media, there are challenges concerning their effectiveness in limiting political influence. The general principles relating to editorial independence are established in the Mass Media Act. The Radio Television Slovenia Act provides specific safeguards for the independence of the public service broadcaster RTV Slovenia. The Government has the duty to ensure autonomy and editorial independence of RTV and to provide adequate funding for the provision of public service. The economic independence of RTV is ensured by broadcasting fees directly collected by the broadcaster. The rules allow for a dismissal of the two Directors of Television or Radio in case they do not fulfil the tasks given to them by the Director General, pointing to a need for specific safeguards against overly broad interpretation of those rules. While the legal framework contains fair and transparent provisions on the appointment procedures for the management and board functions of RTV Slovenia, at the same time their practical effectiveness in limiting political influence is questionable, due to the fact that the majority of the Programme Council and the Supervisory Council is appointed by Parliament, political parties, and the Government. The 2022 edition of the MPM, reports a very high risk for the indicator on the independence of public service media governance. MPM 2022 also reports that the operations of RTV Slovenia were affected following delays in the approval of the financial yearly plan. Stakeholders as well as the Council of Europe have pointed to recent cases of intimidation towards public service media journalists and of appointment of managerial positions as signalling possible interference with the editorial independence of the broadcaster. On 1 July 2022, the Government submitted into legislative procedure amendments to the RTV Slovenia Act, which amongst others envisage changes to the managing and supervising bodies of the RTV. The issues related to the funding of STA were resolved, allowing for more financial stability of the agency. The Slovenian Press Agency (STA) has a similar legal status as RTV Slovenia when it comes to institutional and editorial independence. STA is financed from the state budget according to an annual contract with the Government. As reported in the 2021 Rule of Law Report, there were delays in payments to the STA, which were considered by stakeholders as politically motivated and led to a number of staff leaving. The funding for 2021 and 2022 has been now agreed, allowing more stability for the Agency despite some concerns regarding the new provisions which could possibly affect indirectly the editorial autonomy of the agency. Due to these challenges, MPM 2022 assesses a high risk on the indicator on political independence of media. The right to information is enshrined in the Constitution. Access to information is regulated by the Access to Public Information Act. No concrete cases were reported during last year concerning journalists facing obstacles accessing public information. However, several stakeholders pointed to some difficulties for journalists to receive information from political authorities. The situation of journalists continues to deteriorate. The freedoms of expression and information are enshrined in the Constitution, and effectively protected through judicial remedies. However, online harassment and threats against journalists continue to be numerous. In practice, different sources and stakeholders have noted that journalists are operating in an increasing hostile environment, which risks undermining their work and in particular public service media. A study has also reported on hate narratives in online media and online communication, in particular towards journalists. The 2022 MPM reports a medium risk concerning the indicator on journalistic profession, standards and protection. Since July 2021, the Council of Europe’s Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists published twelve alerts, which relates to harassment and intimidation of journalists and have all been replied by the Government. 19 alerts have been published on the Mapping Media Freedom platform, which registered several cases of lawsuits against journalists and media outlets with intimidating effects during the last year. 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 Parliament), and not the National Council (the second chamber of Parliament), adopts laws . Draft legislation can be tabled by the Government, any member of Parliament (the National Assembly), the National Council or at least 5 000 ‘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 share of laws adopted by urgent procedure in Parliament has decreased. Parliament continued to function normally, despite the COVID-19 pandemic, including by organising 11 remote sessions. As an indication of openness, the number of participants that attended the sessions of the parliamentary working bodies increased in 2021 (by about 10% compared to 2020), while the number of submissions of documents to Parliament by civil society decreased. In 2021, the share of laws adopted by urgent procedure decreased (17%, compared to 32% in 2020), which is comparable to the share before the COVID-19 pandemic (20% in 2018, 18% in 2019). As regards the public consultations on draft laws on the side of the Government, their duration mostly continues to be shorter than the recommended 30-day period. The Constitutional Court had to deal with an increase in cases related to COVID-19 pandemic measures. In 2021, the Constitutional Court received 680 cases related to COVID-19 pandemic measures, 675 of which related to initiatives and requests for constitutionality review and 5 constitutional complaints. It delivered 9 judgments resolving 73 initiatives and requests and four constitutional complaints. In total, the Court noted a 3,5% increase in cases in 2021, compared to 2020, when excluding collective cases. This increase in caseload led to a higher backlog (10% more compared to 2020), as the Court resolved 12% fewer cases in 2021. The Constitutional Court highlighted the need to increase the number of legal advisers to tackle the backlog, but a proposal to increase the 2022 budget for this purpose was rejected by the Government – a move that the Court considers as contrary to the financial autonomy of certain independent bodies. Moreover, on 17 June 2021, the Constitutional Court found the Government decrees prohibiting public protests and limiting the total number of participants to 10 persons to severely interfere with the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and annulled them. The Court decided that the measures were not necessary because less intrusive measures exist and that the Government had not ascertained whether such less intrusive measures are sufficient. On 1 January 2022, Slovenia had 4 leading judgments of the European Court of Human Rights pending implementation . At that time, Slovenia’s rate of leading judgments from the past 10 years that remained pending was only at 12% and the average time that the judgments had been pending implementation was 1 year and 10 months . The oldest leading judgment, pending implementation for 4 years, concerns the access to justice and the fairness of judicial proceedings in criminal law . On 1 July 2022, the number of leading judgments pending implementation has increased to 5 . The law on public finances lacks safeguards on budgetary autonomy of certain independent bodies as required by a Constitutional Court judgment. The 2021 Rule of Law Report noted that, in December 2020, the Constitutional Court found parts of the Public Finance Act to be unconstitutional as they lacked requisite safeguards 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 . The Constitutional Court annulled parts of the Public Finance Act and set provisional rules to ensure budgetary autonomy of the independent bodies, until the Public Finance Act would have been amended. The Constitutional Court set the deadline for the implementation of the decision to 23 December 2021, but no amendment has been tabled.

The Human Rights Ombudsperson received an increased number of complaints, including those related to COVID-19 pandemic measures. The overall number of complaints to the Ombudsperson, which gained A-status in 2021, considerably increased compared to the start of COVID-19 pandemic. It includes complaints related to COVID-19 measures. The Ombudsperson reiterated its recommendation to the Government to amend the Communicable Diseases Act. This is in line with a judgment of the Constitutional Court establishing the unconstitutionality of several of the Act’s provisions, the deadline for the implementation of which passed in August 2021. In September 2021, the Government prepared a joint response report aiming to address the Ombudsperson’s recommendations. According to the assessments of individual ministries regarding the latest recommendations, 29 recommendations are being processed, 22 recommendations were fully fulfilled, 31 were partly fulfilled and 23 remain unfulfilled. The Ombudsperson noted that a large number of recommendations still remain partially or non-implemented. Civil society faced challenges regarding negative narratives, but funding issues and limitations on freedom of assembly were resolved. The civic space in Slovenia is considered to be narrowed . The first report on the implementation of the ‘Strategy on Development of Non-Governmental Organisations and Volunteering (2018-2020)’ was prepared, received a positive opinion from the Government council for non-governmental organisations and volunteering, but was not adopted by the Government. This report would provide an evaluation of the Strategy and how its objectives have been achieved. As regards the financing of civil society organisations (CSOs), the Ministry of Public Administration published two public tenders in 2021: one encouraging CSOs partnerships in international projects, and one encouraging their digital transformation. However, stakeholders reported that the criteria set in another two tenders published in May 2021 introduced de facto discriminatory conditions aimed at limiting the participation of CSOs, but were revised prior to closing date. Stakeholders reported an increase of negative narrative addressed to CSOs. For instance, in February 2021, one of the political parties of the then Government coalition circulated a survey which included a question on the appropriateness of public funds being spent on CSOs, instead of care or student homes. The Constitutional Court found that the certain Government decrees severely interfere with the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and annulled them. Responding to these issues, in early 2021, four CSOs set up the ‘Legal network for the protection of democracy’, which provided legal support to individuals and organisations involved in legal proceedings due to non-violent public action. Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order* * The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2022 Rule of Law report can be found at https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/2022-rule-law-report-targeted-stakeholder-consultation_en . Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (2022), Media pluralism monitor. Civicus, Monitor tracking civic space – Slovenia https://monitor.civicus.org/country/slovenia/ . Commission for the Prevention of Corruption (2021), 2020 Report, 20 May 2021 https://www.kpk-rs.si/kpk/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/LP2020K.pdf . Commission for the Prevention of Corruption (2021), Initiative, 20 May 2021 https://www.kpk-rs.si/kpk/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/POBUDA-VLADI-RS_06244-27-2020-41.pdf . Commission for the Prevention of Corruption (2022), 2021 Report, 26 May 2022 https://www.kpk-rs.si/kpk/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/LP2021.pdf . Commission for the Prevention of Corruption (2022), Press release: breach of integrity of the minister for economy, 23 February 2022 https://www.kpk-rs.si/blog/2022/02/23/krsitev-integritete-ministra-za-gospodarski-razvoj-in-tehnologijo/ . Commission for the Prevention of Corruption (2022), Press release: Commission calls the newly elected members of Parliament to respect the conflict of interest provisions, 11 May 2022 https://www.kpk-rs.si/blog/2022/05/11/poziv-komisije-novoizvoljenim-funkcionarjem-poslancem-k-spostovanju-dolocb-o-nezdruzljivosti-funkcij/ . Commission for the Prevention of Corruption (2022), Press release: final findings about a conflict of interest of the Prime Minister, 4 April 2022 https://www.kpk-rs.si/blog/2022/04/04/pravnomocne-ugotovitve-o-krsitvi-nasprotja-interesov-predsednika-vlade/ . Commission for the Prevention of Corruption (2022), Press release: reply to untrue and misleading statements in pre-election debates, 19 April 2022 https://www.kpk-rs.si/blog/2022/04/19/odziv-komisije-na-neresnicne-in-zavajajoce-navedbe-v-predvolilnih-soocenjih/ . Commission for the Prevention of Corruption (2022), Written contribution from the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption following the country visit to Slovenia. Commission for the Prevention of Corruption, the Court of Audit, the Information Commissioner and the Human Rights Ombudsman (2021), Joint statement of the four autonomous and independent state authorities, 11 June 2021 https://www.kpk-rs.si/kpk/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/izjava-za-javnost_11.6.2021.pdf . Constitutional Court, judgment of 10 December 2020, U-I-474/18-17 https://www.us-rs.si/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/U-I-474-18.pdf . Constitutional Court, judgment of 13 May 2021, U-I-79/20-24 https://www.us-rs.si/odlocba-ustavnega-sodisca-st-u-i-79-20-z-dne-13-5-2021/ . Constitutional Court, judgment of 17 June 2021, U-I-50/21 https://www.us-rs.si/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/U-I-50-21-Odlocba.pdf

Constitutional Court, judgment of 3 June 2021, U-I-462/18-45 https://www.us-rs.si/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/U-I-462-18-Odlocba.pdf . Constitutional Court, judgment of 7 January 2021, U-I-246/19-41 https://www.us-rs.si/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/U-I-246-19-2.pdf . Constitutional Court, judgment of 8 July 2021, U-I-214/19 https://www.us-rs.si/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/U-I-214-19-Odlocba.pdf . Council of Europe: Commissioner for Human Rights (2021), Memorandum on freedom of expression and media freedom in Slovenia, 4 June 2021 https://rm.coe.int/memorandum-on-freedom-of-expression-and-media-freedom-in-slovenia/1680a2ae85 . Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers (2010), Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities. Council of Europe: Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists – Slovenia https://fom.coe.int/en/pays/detail/11709580 . Court of Audit (2022), Annual report 2021. Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 24 June 2019, Commission v. Poland, C-619/18, EU:C:2019:531. Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 25 July 2018, LM, C-216/18 PPU, EU:C:2018:586. Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 5 July 2016, Ognyanov, C-614/14, EU:C:2016:514. Court of Justice of the European Union, order of 12 February 2019, RH, C-8/19, EU:C:2019:110. Delo (2021), Heads of police administrations and stations have received termination decisions, 17 November 2021 https://www.delo.si/novice/slovenija/olaj-zavraca-ocitke-o-kadrovskih-cistkah-in-politizaciji-policije/ . Directorate-General for Communication (2022), Flash Eurobarometer 507: businesses’ attitudes towards corruption in the EU. Directorate-General for Communication (2022), Special Eurobarometer 523: corruption. Dnevnik (2021), The Government also blocks the appointments of supreme and district state prosecutors, 2 December 2021 https://www.dnevnik.si/1042978247/slovenija/vlada-blokira-tudi-imenovanja-vrhovnih-in-okroznih-tozilcev . European Commission (2020), 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Slovenia. European Commission (2021), 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Slovenia. European Commission (2022), 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard.

European Commission (2022), Follow up to the European Parliament non-legislative resolution on Fundamental rights and Rule of Law in Slovenia, in particular the delayed nomination of EPPO prosecutors https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2021/2978(RSP)&l=en . European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 28 August 2018, Vizgirda v. Slovenia, 59868/08. European Implementation Network (2022), Contribution from the European Implementation Network for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. European Network of National Human Rights Institutions (ENNHRI) (2022), Contribution from ENNHRI for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. European Parliament (2021), Resolution of 16 December 2021 on fundamental rights and the rule of law in Slovenia, in particular the delayed nomination of EPPO prosecutors, (2021/2978(RSP)) https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2021-0512_EN.html . European Public Prosecutor’s Office (2022), Letter to Commissioners Hahn and Reynders, 27 January 2022. European Public Prosecutor’s Office, Letter to Slovenian Minister for Justice, 9 July 2021. European Public Prosecutor’s Office, Press release: Slovenia’s Prosecutor General visits the EPPO in Luxembourg, 27 January 2022 https://www.eppo.europa.eu/en/news/slovenias-prosecutor-general-visits-eppo-luxembourg . European Public Prosecutor’s Office, Statement from the European Chief Prosecutor with regard to Slovenia, 8 October 2021. Franet, Peace Institute (2022), Country research - Legal environment and space of civil society organisations in supporting fundamental rights – Slovenia, Vienna, EU Agency for Fundamental Rights https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2022/civic-space-2022-update#country-related . GRECO (2020), Fifth Evaluation Round: Compliance Report on Slovenia on on preventing corruption and promoting integrity in central governments (top executive functions) and law enforcement agencies, 5 October 2021 https://rm.coe.int/fifth-evaluation-round-preventing-corruption-and-promoting-integrity-i/1680a40264 . Judges’ Association (2021), Press release of 19 March 2021 https://sodnisko-drustvo.si/izjava-za-javnost/ . Judicial Council: President (2021), Letter to Commissioner Reynders: Resources for the Judicial Council and Judiciary of the Republic of Slovenia - 2022 Budget Amendments, 17 November 2021. Liberties (2022), Contribution from Liberties (Peace Institute) for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. Mapping Media Freedom, Country profile Slovenia, https://www.mappingmediafreedom.org/ . MFRR (2021), MFRR partners raise serious concerns over suspension of funding to Slovenian Press Agency https://www.rcmediafreedom.eu/News/MFRR-partners-raise-serious-concerns-over-suspension-of-funding-to-Slovenian-Press-Agency . National Review Commission (2022), Contribution from the National Review Commission for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, 19 March 2022. OECD: Working Group on Bribery (2021), Implementing the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention Phase 4 Report: Slovenia, 11 March 2021. Ostro (2021), Journalists are leaving STA due to insecure situation, 15 September 2021 https://www.ostro.si/si/razkrinkavanje/objave/novinarji-zaradi-negotovih-razmer-zapuscajo-sta . Peace Institute (2020), Study: Hostile narrative in online media and environment in Slovenia https://www.mirovni-institut.si/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Sovrazni-narativi-v-spletnih-medijih-in-spletni-komunikaciji-s-CIP.pdf .

Republic of Slovenia (2020), Budget of the Republic of Slovenia for 2022, Official Journal of 27 November 2020, 174/2020 https://www.uradni-list.si/files/RS_-2020-174-03087-OB~P002-0000.PDF . Republic of Slovenia (2021), Amendments to the Budget of the Republic of Slovenia for 2022, Official Journal of 1.12.2021, 187/2021 https://www.uradni-list.si/files/RS_-2021-187-03711-OB~P002-0000.PDF . Republic of Slovenia (2022), Input from Slovenia for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. RTV (2021), The first violator of the Parliamentary Code of Ethics, 9 June 2021 https://www.rtvslo.si/slovenija/prvi-krsilec-poslanskega-eticnega-kodeksa-je-jani-ivanusa-sns-dobil-je-opomin/583591 . Slovenian Government (2021), Draft Amending Budget of the Republic of Slovenia for 2022 and the Draft Budget of the Republic of Slovenia for 2023, 24 June 2021, https://www.gov.si/novice/2021-06-24-dnevni-red-83-redne-seje-vlade-republike-slovenije/?msclkid=c8ff3885ab4911ec87ecb592c6c8d081 . Slovenian Government (2022), Coalition agreement, 24 May 2022 https://gibanjesvoboda.si/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Koalicijski-dogovor-2022-2026-Programski-del-18.5.2022.pdf . Slovenian Ministry of Finance (2021), Budget 2021 (amendments): specific par. https://www.gov.si/assets/ministrstva/MF/Proracun-direktorat/Drzavni-proracun/Sprejeti-proracun/Spremembe-2022/Izpisi-spremembe-2022/SSP2022_POS.pdf . Slovenian Ministry of Interior (2021), Overview of work police for the first semester 2021, 12 August 2021. Slovenian Ministry of Justice (2022), Written contribution from the State Prosecutorial Council and the Ministry of Justice following the country visit to Slovenia. Slovenian Parliament (2022), Research Paper No. 34/2021, Peršolja, B., Kožuh, J., Zeilhofer, N., Žagar, K. https://fotogalerija.dz-rs.si/datoteke/Publikacije/Zborniki_RN/2021/Tretje_(nacionalno)_letno_porocilo_o_vladavini_prava_v_Evropski_uniji_(odgovor_Drzavnega_zbora).pdf . Slovenian Parliament (2022), Written contribution from Parliament following the country visit to Slovenia. Slovenian Police (2022), 2021 Report https://www.policija.si/images/stories/Statistika/LetnaPorocila/PDF/LetnoPorocilo2021.pdf STA (2022), RTV Slovenija staff protest against pressure, demand full editorial autonomy, 7 March 2022 https://english.sta.si/3010619/rtv-slovenija-staff-protest-against-pressure-demand-full-editorial-autonomy . State Prosecutor General (2022), Letter to the European Chief Prosecutor, 20 January 2022. State Prosecutorial Council (2021), Conclusions of 1 June 2021 https://www.drzavnotozilski-svet.si/files/Sporocila%20za%20javnost/izjava_za_javnost_evropska_delegirana_tozilca_1_6_2021.pdf . State Prosecutorial Council (2021), Statement of 9 July 2021 https://www.drzavnotozilski-svet.si/files/Sporocila%20za%20javnost/izjava_za_javnost_ponovni_javni_poziv_evropska_delegirana_tozilca.pdf . State Prosecutorial Council (2022), Written contribution from the State Prosecutorial Council and the Ministry of Justice following the country visit to Slovenia. Supreme Court (2021), Annual Report on efficiency and effectiveness of courts in 2020, 21 April 2021 https://sodisce.si/mma_bin.php?static_id=2021050412351310 . Supreme Court (2021), Report on cases with statutes of limitation in 2020 - reasons and actions by the judicial administration. Supreme Court (2022), Opening of the judicial year 2022, 2 March 2022 https://www.sodisce.si/mma_bin2.php?nid=2022030214041246&static_id=2022030211275974 .

Supreme Court (2022), Written contribution from the Supreme Court following the country visit to Slovenia. Supreme State Prosecution (2021), 2021 Report, 20 April 2022 https://www.dt-rs.si/files/documents/Letno%20poroc%CC%8Cilo%20DT%20za%20leto%202021.pdf . Supreme State Prosecution (2022), Press release: Data of the Supreme State Prosecution on prosecution activities for Article 135 of the Criminal Code in matters where the victim is the Prime Minister, 14 April 2022 https://www.dt-rs.si/158/podatki-vrhovnega-dr%C5%BEavnega-to%C5%BEilstva-rs-o-aktivnosti-pregona-po-135-%C4%8Dlenu-kz-1-v-zadevah-v-katerih-je-o%C5%A1kodovanec-predsednik-vlade-rs-3 . Transparency International (2021), Corruption Perceptions Index 2020. Annex II: Country visit to Slovenia The Commission services held virtual meetings in March 2022 with: ·Agency for Communication Networks and Services (AKOS) ·Association of Journalists ·Association of Journalists and Publicists (Ms Irena Zagajšek) ·Bar Association ·Chamber of Commerce: Media Chamber ·Commission for the Prevention of Corruption ·Constitutional Court ·Court of Audit ·Faculty of Media (Full prof. Matevž Tomšič) ·General Police Directorate (Economic Crime division), National Bureau of Investigation (NPU) and Ministry of Interior (International Affairs Directorate) ·Human Rights Ombudsperson ·Judges’ Association ·Judicial Council

·Ministry of Culture ·Ministry of Justice ·Ministry of Public Administration ·National NGO umbrella network (CNVOS) ·National Review Commission ·Parliament Secretariat ·Peace Institute ·Radio-television Slovenia (RTV): Director of Radio ·Radio-television Slovenia (RTV): Programme Council (President) ·Radio-television Slovenia (RTV): Supervisory Council (President) ·Slovenian Press Agency (STA) ·State Prosecution (State Prosecutor General, Supreme State Prosecution Office, Specialised State Prosecution Office) ·State Prosecutorial Council ·Supreme Court ·Transparency International Slovenia ·Union of Slovenian Journalists * The Commission also met the following organisations in a number of horizontal meetings: ·Amnesty International ·Article 19