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
Date: 2021-07-20
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: Slovenia, administrative transparency, coronavirus disease, corruption, democracy, epidemic, independence of the judiciary, infringement of EU law, political rights, rule of law

EN 

  EN 

   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. 

1 

 
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 
instance1, 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 judiciary2. Candidate judges are selected by the Judicial 
Council  and  then  proposed  for  appointment  by  the  National  Assembly  (Državni  zbor  -  the 
first  chamber  of  Parliament)3.  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  members4.  Slovenia  participates  in  the  European  Public  Prosecutor’s  Office 
(EPPO)5. 

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 

1    There are in total 60 first instance courts with one Labour Court also dealing with social security cases. The 

Administrative Court has the status of a higher court. 

2    The  primary  responsibility  of  the  Judicial  Council  is  the  selection  of  candidate  for  judicial  offices.  As 
guaranteed by the Constitution, the majority of members of the Judicial Council are judges, elected by their 
peers.  The  remaining  five  members  are  representatives  of  other  legal  professions,  elected  by  the  National 
Assembly based on the nomination of the President of the Republic. The Judicial Council manages its own 
budget.  

3    As guaranteed by the Constitution, the majority of members of the Judicial Council are judges, elected by 
their  peers.  The  remaining  five  members  are  representatives  of  other  legal  professions,  elected  by  the 
National Assembly based on the nomination of the President of the Republic. The primary responsibility of 
the  Judicial Council is the selection of candidate  for judicial offices.  Since the initial re-election of judges 
after  the  independence  of  Slovenia  in  1990s,  the  Parliament  has  rejected  a  candidate  judge  for  first 
appointment only once. It should be noted a candidate judge, who is not appointed, cannot request judicial 
review  against  the  decision  of  the  Parliament  and  the  Parliament  has  no  obligation  to  state  reasons  for 
rejecting the appointment. 

4    According to the  Constitution, the Bar is  part of the judiciary.  Disciplinary Commissions of 1st and of 2nd 
Instance, each consisting of 16 lawyers elected for three years by the assembly of the Bar, decide (in three-
member panels) regarding disciplinary  sanctions at  first instance and at second instance, respectively. The 
Disciplinary Court, consisting of three lawyers elected for two years by the assembly of the Bar and of two 
Supreme Court judges, decides on violations that could lead to a lawyer being disbarred. 

5    More  on  the  issues  regarding  the  nomination  of  European  Delegated  Prosecutors,  see  the  Independence 

section below.  

2 

 
                                                 
companies (43%), showing a positive trend for the third year in a row, after no clear trend in 
2016 and 20176. 

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 
Council7.  The  Government  is  required  by  law  to  issue  a  decision  on  appointment  or  non-
appointment  to  all  eligible  candidates  who  applied  for  appointment  or  promotion8.  The 
unsuccessful  candidates  have  the  right  to  request  judicial  review  before  the  Administrative 
Court,  which  has  to  decide  within  30  days9.  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  candidates10.  The  nomination  of  the 
European Delegated Prosecutors of the EPPO has also been delayed, raising concerns that the 
national  procedure  has  not  been  properly  followed11.  In  December  2020,  the  State 
Prosecutorial Council submitted the names of the two candidates to the Minister of Justice, 

6    Figures 48 and 50, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. The level of perceived judicial independence is categorised 
as  follows:  very  low  (below  30%  of  respondents  perceive  judicial  independence  as  fairly  good  and  very 
good); low (between 30-39%), average (between 40-59%), high (between 60-75%), very high (above 75%). 
Also the share of general public and companies stating the reasons for the perceived lack of independence of 
courts and judges has decreased compared to 2020. Figures 49 and 51, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 

7    State Prosecution Service Act, articles 28-36. If the Minister of Justice disagrees with the candidate, selected 
by  the  State  Prosecutorial  Council,  the  minister  can  send  a  reasoned  request  to  the  Council  to  collect  and 
take into account additional information, to amend their reasoning or to issue a new opinion on the selection 
of candidate. The State Prosecutorial Council can decide, with a two-thirds majority vote, to demand from 
the Minister to propose to the Government for appointment the candidate it selected initially (art. 33). The 
Government also decides, on proposal from the State Prosecutorial Council, regarding the promotion of an 
existing state prosecutor to a higher position. State Prosecution Service Act, art. 37. For example, promotion 
following a public vacancy from the position of a  local state prosecutor to the position of the district state 
prosecutor. 

8    The  Administrative  Court,  in  a  2014  case  concerning  the  promotion  of  a  state  prosecutor  where  the 
Government  rejected  the  promotion  and  only  issued  a  written  negative  decision  to  the  concerned  State 
prosecutor more than a year after it made its decision, clarified that such a decision of the Government must 
contain reasons for rejecting the candidate. According to the Administrative Court, the reasons are necessary 
to “verify if the Government decided not to appoint the candidate due to public interest, and not out of some 
other considerations.” Judgment of the Administrative Court of 22 July 2014, UPRS I U 971/2014.  

9    State Prosecution Service Act, art. 34(2).  
10   It should be noted that normally the appointment and promotion procedure takes, at Government level, a few 
months or even weeks. Furthermore, some candidates submitted to the Government early 2021 have already 
been appointed, while other candidates have been waiting since summer 2020. It is to be noted that in 2020, 
the discrepancy between the filled positions of state prosecutors (201,75 FTEs) and those possible according 
to  the  human  resource  plan  (240),  was  the  highest  since  2015,  and  that  the  lack  of  state  prosecutors, 
sometimes reaching between 30% and 40% in some territorial units, starts to adversely affect their work. It is 
feared  that  without  filling  the  available  positions  unresolved  criminal  notifications  will  increase.  Supreme 
State Prosecution Office, 2020 Report, April 2021, pp. 234, 237-239.  

11   On  15  February,  29  April  and  23  June  2021,  the  Commission  sent  letters  to  the  Minister  of  Justice 
expressing some concerns regarding the finalisation of the pending national procedure for the nomination of 
the  two  European  Delegated  Prosecutors,  and  deeply  regretting  the  delay  in  submitting  the  names  of  the 
selected candidates to the EPPO. In her reply to the first two letters, the then Minister of Justice explained 
that everything within her power had been done and that it was from then on for the Government to send the 
selected candidates’ names to the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. On 9 July 2021, the European Chief 
Prosecutor expressed grave concerns in a letter to the Minister of Justice. 

3 

 
                                                 
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 
Office12. 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 
July13.  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 
experience14.  

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 
prosecutors15.  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 

12   The  law  provides  a  specific  procedure  for  nomination  of  the  European  Delegated  Prosecutors:  the 
independent  State  Prosecutorial  Council,  following  a  public  vacancy  published  by  the  Ministry  of  Justice, 
selects  candidates  for  the  post  of  European  Delegated  Prosecutors  and  submits  them  to  the  Ministry  of 
Justice, which subsequently submits the names to the Government; then,  the Government only “takes note” 
of  the  candidates  selected  by  the  Council,  and  transmits  their  names  to  the  European  Public  Prosecutor’s 
Office, which decides on their appointment. State Prosecution Service Act, art. 71.d. 

  Whilst the Conditions of employment of the European Delegated Prosecutors adopted by the EPPO College 
require “a satisfactory knowledge of the working language for the operational and administrative activities of 
the  EPPO”  (Art.  3),  in  February  2021,  the  Government  proposed  specifying  the  language  criterion  for 
selection  of  the  European  Delegated  Prosecutors,  requiring  the  knowledge  of  EPPO  working  language  “at 
least at C1 level of the Common European Framework of Reference”, which would be needed for effective 
work within the EPPO. The legislative amendments entered into force end March 2021, without specifying 
whether they apply retroactively to the on-going process for nomination of European Delegated Prosecutors. 
The  State  Prosecutorial  Council  clarified  that  the  language  conditions  applied  for  selecting  the  two 
candidates  already  matched  those  required  by  the  EPPO  and  were  fulfilled  by  both  candidates  (both 
candidates also fulfilled the new condition). State Prosecutorial Council, Press release of 17 March 2021.  
13   The Government maintained that the Slovenian law expressly requires that the number of candidates is triple 
that  of  the  approved  national  number  of  European  Delegated  Prosecutors  and  that,  since  the  State 
Prosecutorial Council did not provide the Ministry of Justice with a sufficient pool of qualified candidates, 
the first selection procedure for the two European Delegated Prosecutors was, ex lege, devoid of any legal 
effect since its very beginning. Therefore, the Government called on the Ministry of Justice to put in place a 
new public call for candidates. Following the decision of the Government, the Minister of Justice resigned. 
In reaction, the Prosecutor General stated the Government’s decision was unlawful and unconstitutional, and 
violates  the independence of  State Prosecution. State Prosecutor General,  Statement of 26 May 2021. The 
State  Prosecutorial  Council  stated  that  the  selection  was  done  in  accordance  with  the  law  and  that  the 
Government’s interpretation  of the law  is arbitrary,  making the annulment and the  new public call illegal. 
State Prosecutorial Council, Conclusions of 1 June 2021 and Statement of 9 July 2021. It was also raised in 
public debate that one of the candidates was involved in a confiscation procedure regarding the assets of a 
member of the current Government. 
14   CM/Rec(2000)19, paras. 5(a) and 5(b). 
15   The  Inquiry  Committee  was  established  by  the  National  Assembly  on  request  of  the  National  Council 
(Državni svet, the second chamber of Parliament). For more details on the Parliament’s structure, see pillar 
IV.  Other  institutional  issues  related  to  checks  and  balances.  The  case  was  referred  to  the  Constitutional 
Court by the Judicial Council and the State Prosecution. 

4 

 
                                                 
parliamentary inquiry16. 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 
independence17.  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  changes18.  Since  2018,  the  disciplinary  proceedings  have  been  under  the 
competence of a Disciplinary Court19. 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  proceedings20,  revising  disciplinary  sanctions  to  allow  for  more 
proportionality,  and  clarifying  the  limits  on  the  length  of  suspension  of  a  judge21.  The 

16   Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 7 January 2021, U-I-246/19-41. 
17   Judgment  of  the  Constitutional  Court  of  7  January  2021,  U-I-246/19-41,  para.  77.  In  dissenting  opinions, 
two  Constitutional  Court  judges  argued  that  there  was  a  difference  between  the  Parliament  investigating 
suspicion of unlawful external pressure or abuse as a possible defect in the functioning of the judiciary or the 
prosecution  service,  which  could  strengthen  perception  of  judicial  independence,  and  questioning  a  court 
decision or even holding a judge to account, which would indeed be unacceptable. 

18   Judicial Council, Positions  for adaptations and amendments of the legal framework  governing disciplinary 

proceedings regarding judges, 4 March 2021. 

19   The Disciplinary Court is appointed by the Council for the  Judiciary from among members of the Council 
itself and from among judges proposed by the Supreme Court. The Judicial Council appoints a disciplinary 
prosecutor  from  among  candidates  proposed  by  the  Supreme  Court  to  investigate  alleged  disciplinary 
offences.  For  a  comparative  overview  of  authorities  involved  in  disciplinary  proceedings  regarding  judges 
see Figures 49 and 50, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
Since  the  establishment  of  the  Disciplinary  Court,  21  initiatives  for  disciplinary  proceedings  have  been 
submitted, out of which 14 proceedings have started (all concerning first instance court judges); out of these, 
nine  were  finished  while  five  are  on-going.  Two  judges  were  suspended  upon  the  start  of  the  disciplinary 
proceedings, with one matter finalised, while the other is still pending. In four cases in total the Disciplinary 
Court found a violation (two reprimands, one lowering of salary and one disciplinary transfer were handed 
down), in other four cases judges were acquitted, and one procedure was stopped due to the withdrawal of 
the disciplinary proposal. Judicial Council, Positions for adaptations and amendments of the legal framework 
governing disciplinary proceedings regarding judges, 4 March 2021, pp. 2-3. 

20   In  2019,  the  Supreme  Court  requested  a  review  before  the  Constitutional  Court  of  constitutionality  of  the 
Judicial Council’s right to initiate disciplinary proceedings, since some of its members are also members of 
the  Disciplinary  Court.  The  Judicial  Council  then  decided  to  abstain  from  initiating  any  disciplinary 
proceedings until the Constitutional Court rules on the matter. 

21   It  is  to  be  noted  that  in  one  well-publicised  case,  in  August  2020,  a  district  court  judge  was  temporarily 
suspended  by  the  Vice-president  of  the  Supreme  Court  upon  the  start  of  disciplinary  proceedings  against 
him.  The  judge  appealed  against  the  suspension  to  the  Judicial  Council.  In  2018,  the  judge  expressed  his 
suspicions regarding alleged conduct of several other judges. The judge is also facing criminal charges for 

5 

 
                                                 
 
Supreme Court supports the initiative of the Judicial Council to amend the legislation in order 
to  increase  the  efficiency  of  disciplinary  proceedings22.  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 recommendations23. 

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 developed24. 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)25,  and  by  debtors  (in  undisputed  debt  recovery)26.  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 
proceedings27.  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  communication28.  Digital  solutions  to  conduct  and  follow  court  proceedings 
remain  limited  particularly  in  criminal  cases29.  The  use  of  digital  technologies  for  secure 
remote work is lacking particularly in State Prosecution30 and the lack of digitalisation on the 
side of the Police is contributing to delays especially in complex cases where criminal report 

defamation.  A  part  of  the  reasoning  of  the  suspension  decision  stated  the  need  to  keep  a  dignified  and 
respectful attitude to other judges when publicly criticising them. Supreme Court (2020), Press release of 17 
August 2020. In December 2020, the Judicial Council concluded there were no limitations for the criminal 
prosecution of the judge. In January 2021, a parliamentary commission proposed to the Parliament to allow 
initiating a criminal procedure against the judge, based on a criminal charge filed by one of the District State 
Prosecutor's Offices. Input from Slovenia for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, pp. 7-8. 

22   The Supreme Court considers that since the new framework was put in place in 2018, some issues were not 
addressed  or  were  inadequately  solved  (e.g.  one-instance  procedure  and  possibility  of  appeal  for  both  the 
accused  and  the  disciplinary  prosecutor,  use  of  procedural  rules),  which  can  affect  the  efficiency  of  the 
procedure. Contribution from the Supreme Court for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 1. 

23   CM/Rec(2010)12, paras. 66 and 69. According to EU law, the requirement of independence means that the 
disciplinary  regime  regarding  judges  must  display  the  necessary  guarantees  in  order  to  prevent  that  the 
regime is used as a system of political control of the content of judicial decisions. E.g. Court of Justice of the 
European Union, judgment of 24 June 2019, Commission v. Poland, C-619/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:531, para. 
77,  judgment  of  25  July  2018,  LM,  C-216/18  PPU,  ECLI:EU:C:2018:586,  judgment  of  5  July  2016, 
Ognyanov,  C-614/14,  ECLI:EU:C:2016:514,  and  order  of  12  February  2019,  RH,  C-8/19, 
ECLI:EU:C:2019:110. 

24   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Slovenia, pp. 3-4. 
25   Input from Slovenia for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 11. 
26   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Slovenia, p. 3. 
27   Input from Slovenia for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 12. 
28   Input from Slovenia for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 11. 
29   Figure 45, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
30   Figure  41,  2021  EU  Justice  Scoreboard.  The  project  “Effective  justice”  aims  at  centralising  the  IT 
infrastructure  of  the  State  Prosecutor's  Office  and  enabling  remote  working  for  employees  in  the  State 
Prosecution service. In order to provide adequate  equipment  for remote  work, prosecution offices allowed 
employees to take home computer equipment and in some cases provided replacement laptops. Input from 
Slovenia for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, pp. 12-13. 

6 

 
                                                                                                                                                        
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 matters31, 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 
202132.  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)33. 

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  low34. 
The 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard shows no improvements in these two areas35. In May 2020, 
the Supreme Court delivered a precedential decision in a case involving the right to access to 
information  from  a  criminal  case  file36.  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  applies37.  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 Commissioner38. 
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 

31   In  2020,  the  President  of  the  Supreme  Court  restricted  the  operation  of  courts  due  to  the  COVID-19 
pandemic, ordering the halt of procedural deadlines and cease of performance of procedural acts and service 
of court documents in non-urgent cases (from 26 March 2020 to 31 May 2020, and from 16 November 2020 
to 1 February 2021). Contribution from the Supreme Court for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 5. 

32   Input  from  Slovenia  for  the  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report,  p.  11.  Emergency  laws  to  address  the  COVID-19 
pandemic  included  measures  to  regulate  the  occupation  capacity  of  prisons  to  protect  life  and  health  of 
society,  employees  and  inmates,  measures  to  delay  enforcements  and  temporary  measures  in  insolvency 
procedures. 

33   Contribution from the Supreme Court for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 4. 
34   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Slovenia, p. 5. 
35   Figures 46 and 47, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. As a response to the findings in the 2020 Report and the EU 
Justice  Scoreboard,  the  Ministry  of  Justice  carried  out  a  comparative  legal  analysis  on  publication  of 
judgments and plans to prescribe by law the publication of at least judgments on merit that are important for 
legal  certainty.  Input  from  Slovenia  for  the  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report,  p.  13.  In  December  2020,  two 
parliamentary committees asked the Government to propose a legal basis into the Public Information Access 
Act  for  the  publication  of  all  final  judgments.  Parliamentary  Committee  on  the  Interior,  Public 
Administration and Local Self-Government and Committee on Justice, Conclusion of 14 December 2020. 
36   Judgment of  the  Supreme court of 27 May 2020, X Ips 4/2020. Input from  Slovenia  for the 2021 Rule of 

Law Report, p. 27. 

37   Criminal Procedure Act, art. 128 (as amended). Access to public information is regulated in a special law  – 
Public  Information  Access  Act.  In  addition,  article  45  of  the  Mass  Media  Act  specifically  regulates  the 
procedure for access to information for the media, namely by giving the media a special (more favourable) 
position  in  obtaining  information  of  public  nature  from  the  bodies  that  fall  within  the  scope  of  Public 
Information Access Act. Input from Slovenia for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 27. 

38   In  case  the  Information  Commissioner  (which  is  the  independent  data  protection  authority)  rejects  the 
appeal,  for  instance  on  the  grounds  of  the  protection  of  interests  of  a  pending  criminal  procedure,  the 
appellant can request judicial review before the Administrative Court. 

7 

 
                                                 
procedure  on  the  other  hand39.  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 
bodies40. 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 stagnated41. It is to be noted that the overall budget for the justice 
system has been increasing for several years42. 

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 201943. 
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  EU44.  In  2020,  the  average  length  in  administrative  cases  at  first 
instance increased to 13.7 months45. 

39   Input from Slovenia for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 27.  
40   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Slovenia, pp. 2 and 4. 
41   Judicial  Council’s  allocated  budget:  approximately  EUR  612  000  (2019), EUR  606 000  (2020),  EUR  647 
000 (2021), EUR 777 000 (2022). State Prosecutorial Council’s allocated budget: approximately EUR 185 
000 (2019), and 200 000 (2020), EUR 195 000 (2021) and EUR 192 000 (2022).  

42   The allocated 2021 budget for the justice system 2021 amounts to nearly EUR 245 million for all court and 
State Prosecution offices, which is about 10% more than in 2020. Figures 29 and 30 in the 2021 EU Justice 
Scoreboard  show  that  the  budget  actually  spent  for  the  justice  system  has  been  growing  since  2016  in 
absolute  terms,  while  in  relative  terms,  as  share  of  GDP,  it  has  been  stagnating,  but  remains  among  the 
highest in the EU. 

43   During the summer of 2020, the courts tried to make up for the lost time, as 40% more cases were resolved 
in June 2020, 23% more in July and 16% more in August 2020, compared to the same periods in 2019. In 
2020,  the  average  duration  of  proceedings  slightly  increased  to  8  months  for  major  (important)  cases  and 
decreased  to  1,1  months  for  other  cases  (from  1,4  in  2019).  Contribution  from  the  Supreme  Court  for  the 
2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 5. 

44   Figure 21, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard, presenting data for 2014, 2017, 2018 and 2019. 
45   Summary  of  the  results  of  the  Ministry  of  Justice  inspection  of  the  organization  of  functioning  of  the 
Administrative  Court  in  Ljubljana  and  its  departments  in  Maribor,  Nova  Gorica  and  Celje,  Ministry  of 
Justice, April 2021. 

8 

 
                                                 
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 globally46. This perception has been relatively stable47 over the past five years 48. 

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 included49.  

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)50,  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 

46   Transparency  International,  Corruption  Perceptions  Index  2020  (2021),  pp.  2-3.  The  level  of  perceived 
corruption is categorised as  follows: low (the perception among experts and business executives of public 
sector  corruption scores  above  79);  relatively  low  (scores  between  79-60),  relatively  high  (scores  between 
59-50), high (scores below 50). 

47   In 2015 the score was 60, while, in 2020, the score is 60. The score significantly increases/decreases when it 
changes  more  than  five  points;  improves/deteriorates  (changes  between  4-5  points);  is  relatively  stable 
(changes from 1-3 points) in the last five years. 

48   The Eurobarometer data on corruption perception and experience of citizens and businesses as reported last 
year is updated every second year. The latest data set is the Special Eurobarometer 502 (2020) and the Flash 
Eurobarometer 482 (2019). 

49   Input from Slovenia for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 
50   The Programme of Government for strengthening Integrity and Transparency 2017-2019. 

9 

 
                                                 
sports)51.  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  committee52.  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  completed53.  The  Commission  plans  to  hire 
five  additional  officials  per  year  in  2021  and  202254.  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  budget55.  Despite  these  improvements,  the  Commission  continues  to  experience 
some challenges linked to technical (i.e. data analysis) skills and resources56.  

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 

51   Eighteen activities (out of 25) were fully implemented, four activities were partially implemented, and three 
were not implemented. Slovenian Government, Final Report on the Implementation of the Programme of the 
Government for strengthening Integrity and Transparency 2017-2019, 21 April 2020.  

52   Article 9a of the IPCA provides that the nomination committee is composed of five members: one member 
appointed  by  the  ministry  for  public  administration;  one  member  appointed  by  a  private-sector/non-profit 
organisation; one member appointed by the Parliament; one member appointed by the Judicial Council and 
one member appointed by the State Prosecutorial Council. 

53   In 2020, only 33 positions for officials were filled, out of 69 systematised in the management plan. Out of 
total 81 positions for all types of staff including the Chief Commissioner and the two deputies, only 41 were 
filled. Commission for the Prevention of Corruption, Report for 2020, 20 May 2021, p. 62. 

54   Information from the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption. 
55   The Act on Execution of the Budget of Slovenia was amended in May 2021 and this general limitation on 
hiring  new  public  officials  in  Slovenia  was  removed.  Chief  Commissioner  stated  that  the  Commission 
requires  more  independence  regarding  financial  resources,  which  would  ensure  that  the  CPC  is  truly 
autonomous. Commission for the Prevention of Corruption, Report for 2020, 20 May 2021, pp. 7-8. 

56   Commission for the Prevention of Corruption, Report for 2020, 20 May 2021, p. 65. 

10 

 
                                                 
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 Investigation57, 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 process58, 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  Investigation59. Concrete results  of the investigations 
by the Bureau into high-level corruption cases are lacking.  

(including 

in  corruption  cases 

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%)60. As regards courts, in 2020 there 
were  only  15  adjudications 
two  sentenced  with 
imprisonment)61,  none  of  which  concerned  high-level  cases62.  This  represents  a  further 
decrease in the number of adjudicated corruption cases63. In some high-level cases, the courts 
have  not  held  a  court  hearing  for  more  than  a  year  and  a  half64.  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 

57   OECD,  Working  Group  on  Bribery,  Implementing  the  OECD  Anti-Bribery  Convention  Phase  4  Report: 

Slovenia, 11 March 2021. 

58  The appeal concerns the question of whether it is admissible in the procedure of dismissal of director of the 
NBI  to  rely  on  Article  83,  paragraph  five,  of  the  Public  Administration  Act  given  that  Article  49  of  the 
Organisation  and  Work  of  the  Police  Act  provides  the  following  guidance  and  reads  as  follows:  “The 
Director of the National Bureau of Investigation shall be appointed and dismissed by the Director General of 
the  Police.  The  Supreme  Court  is  yet  to  reach  a  decision  on  the  motion.  Written  contribution  from  the 
Government in the context of the country visit to Slovenia. 

59   Slovenian Police, press releases of 6 May 2020 (dismissal of previous Director and appointment of the first 
acting Director), 29 July 2020 (appointment of the second acting Director), 12 October 2020 (appointment of 
the third acting Director). 

60   Input from Slovenia for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 
61   Input from Slovenia for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 
62   For example, cases of grand corruption, with large monetary value, several suspects, or involving high-rank 

officials. 

63   In 2019, the courts handed down 21 convictions, 30% less than in 2018 (30), as well as nine acquittals (three 
in 2018) and one dismissal (two in 2018). 2020 Rule of law Report country chapter for Slovenia, p. 10. 
64   For example, in two criminal cases involving the Ljubljana mayor, the court hasn’t held a court hearing for 
one  year  or  has  not  organised  the  first  court  hearing  for  one  year  and  a  half  since  the  indictment  became 
final. Among the reasons for delays stated by court, overloaded judges and issues in management of cases 
were mentioned. RTV, Tarča: Pravosodje po meri politike, 3 June 2021. 

11 

 
                                                 
resources in the police mentioned above, delays from the Police in finalising investigations65 
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 Police66. 

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  authorities67 
the  statute  of  limitation  presents  an  additional  challenge  for  the  prosecution  of  corruption. 
Statute  of  limitation  for  corruption  offences  is  generally  ten  years68.  There  are  no  plans  to 
amend  the  statutory  limitation69.  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 months70. 

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  officials71.  The  Commission  for  the  Prevention  of  Corruption  is 
responsible  for  monitoring  the  financial  declarations  of  public  officials72,  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 yearly73), 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  Prosecution74.  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, 

65   Information from State Prosecution and Police indicates that investigations may in some cases last 5 years, 

including 2 years only for complex data analysis.   

66   State Prosecution receives criminal reports/notifications from Police almost exclusively in paper form, which 
hinders effective prosecution particularly in large and complex cases. Information received in the context of 
the country visit to Slovenia. 

67   Input from Slovenia for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 24. 
68   The statute of limitation for corruption offences is 20 years in the following cases: accepting bribery in the 
private and the business sector, offering bribery in the public sector, aggravated offences of abuse of power 
in the public and the business sector. 
69   Information from the Ministry of Justice. 
70   This exemption for court cases that would reach the statute of limitation  was added in the Decision of the 

Supreme Court President of 13 November 2020. 

71   Such  as  professional  high-level  officials,  non-professional  mayors  and  deputy  mayors,  high-ranking  civil 
servants, managers, persons responsible for public procurement, and civil servants. Article 44b of the IPCA 
provides  that  in  case  of  suspicions  that  the  declarant  traded  assets  with  family  members,  the  CPC  may 
extend supervision to their assets. 

72   Public officials are required to file two types of declarations: one full declaration (with the complete list of 
their assets), which is due at the beginning of their office or mandate, and one declaration for any changes to 
their assets, which is filed in case there is a modification in the type, number or value of their assets. 

73   Commission for the Prevention of Corruption, Report for 2020, 20 May 2021, p. 30. 
74   Information from the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption  and its Report for 2020, 20 May 2021, 

pp. 30-35. 

12 

 
                                                 
which  performed  16  supervisions  regarding  923  natural  persons  and  67  courts75.  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  published76.  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  officials77.  The 
CPC is currently processing high-profile cases related to alleged conflicts of interest78.  

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)79, 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 
wages80.  In 2020, the Court of Audit  audited the financial operations of 13 political  parties 

75   Commission for the Prevention of Corruption, Report for 2020, 20 May 2021, p. 30-32. 
76   In addition, the publication only concerns declarations for changes in assets. 
77   Initiative of the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption, 20 May 2021. 
78   For  example,  on  12  May  2021,  the  CPC  finalised  the  procedure  regarding  paid  external  activities  of  the 
President of the Court of Audit, finding no violations of the IPCA. In addition, in its decision, the CPC ruled 
that the side earnings of the Court of Audit President did not constitute profitable activity on his behalf nor 
was  there  any  conflict  of  interest.  Regarding  the  alleged  permission  referred  to  by  both  the  former  CPC 
president as well as the current Court of Audit president, the CPC stated that while it did not possess such a 
document, it cannot exclude its existence with certainty. Commission for the Prevention of Corruption, Press 
releases of 12 May and 24 May 2021.  

79   https://erar.si/lobiranje/ 
80   Commission for the Prevention of Corruption, Report for 2020, 20 May 2021. 

13 

 
                                                 
(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)81.    

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 
ethics82 and, in case of misconduct, may issue sanctions83. Since the adoption of the code of 
ethics, one sanction for a minor breach was imposed on a member of Parliament84.  

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  low85.  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  operational86.  Nevertheless,  at  least  one  high-profile  case  was  initiated  during  the 
pandemic  following  information  filed  by  a  whistleblower87.  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 cases88. Since January 2021, it is possible 

81   Court of Audit, Report for 2020, 31 March 2021, pp. 206-223. 
82   Pursuant  to  Article  24  of  the  Rules  of  Procedure  of  the  Parliament,  the  Council  of  the  President  of  the 
National  Assembly  adopted,  at  its  71st  meeting  of  12  June  2020,  the  Code  of  Ethics  for  Deputies  of  the 
National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia. 

83   Namely,  in  the  event  of  a  minor  violation,  a  reprimand  shall  be  imposed  on  the  deputy  without  public 
announcement; in the event of a serious violation, a reprimand shall be imposed on the deputy with public 
announcement  on  the  website  of  the  National  Assembly;  in  the  event  of  a  repeated  serious  violation,  a 
reprimand  shall  be  imposed  on  the  deputy  with  public  announcement  on  the  website  of  the  National 
Assembly and a declaration of the violation at the next session of the National Assembly. 

84   RTV, Prvi kršilec poslanskega etičnega kodeksa je Jani Ivanuša (SNS), dobil je opomin, 9 June 2021. 
85   Commission  for  the  Prevention  of  Corruption,  Report  for  2020,  20  May  2021,  p.  39,  and  information 

received in the context of the country visit to Slovenia. 

86   Commission for the Prevention of  Corruption, Report for  2020, 20 May 2021, pp. 37-39, and information 

received in the context of the country visit to Slovenia. 

87   Input from Slovenia for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. The former Head of Legal and General Services at 
Slovenia’s Commodities and Reserves Agency (CRA) reported that the Minister of Economy had personally 
intervened in favour of a EUR 8 million contract with a specific company and the proceedings regarding this 
case  are  on-going.  OECD, Working Group on Bribery, Implementing the OECD  Anti-Bribery Convention 
Phase 4 Report: Slovenia, 11 March 2021, p. 12. 

88   In  2020,  National  Review  Commission  had  three  such  requests  for  review  pending  (out  of  a  total  of  206 
cases),  and  13  misdemeanor  proceedings  were  initiated.  Written  contribution  from  the  National  Review 

14 

 
                                                 
 
to file online requests for the review of public procurement procedures, whose decisions are 
also  published  online89.  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 equipment90. 

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 pending91.  

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 Directive92. 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  with93.  The  lack  of  safeguards  against  political  interference  also 
remains  a  concern94.  Therefore,  the  Media  Pluralism  Monitor  (MPM  2021)  assesses  the 
independence and effectiveness of the media authority at medium risk95. The status of AKOS 
is  guaranteed  by  the  Electronic  Communications  Act96,  and  the  Agency  draws  its 
enforcement  powers  in  the  audiovisual  media  field  from  the  Mass  Media  Act97  and  the 
Audiovisual Media Services Act98. 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 202199. In 
June 2020, a public consultation on the revision of the Audiovisual Media Services Act was 

Commission  for  Reviewing  Public  Procurement  Award  Procedures  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to 
Slovenia. See also the 2020 report on the work of National Review Commission. 

89   Information  received  by  the  National  Review  Commission  for  Reviewing  Public  Procurement  Award 

Procedures in the context of the country visit to Slovenia. 

90   Input from Slovenia for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 
91   Slovenia ranks 36th  worldwide in the 2021 Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom Index (at the 
18th place in the EU), dropping four places from the 32nd position last year. This means that the country is 
experiencing a deterioration of media freedom and journalist protection. 

92   AKOS, information provided during the country visit to Slovenia.  
93   The convergent regulator AKOS has tasks in telecommunications, electronic media, postal and railway 

services, is responsible for regulation of audiovisual media, radio services and online media (MPM 2021). 
94   AKOS is managed by the Director and the Agency’s Council. Both are appointed by the Government based 
on a selection procedure, with the Director being proposed to the Government by the responsible minister. 
2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Slovenia, p. 11. 

95   2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Slovenia, p. 11. 
96   Electronic Communications Act. 
97   Mass Media Act. 
98   Audiovisual Media Services Act. 
99   Input from Slovenia for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 

15 

 
                                                                                                                                                        
launched, a revision which included an explicit provision on the Agency’s independence100. 
However,  the  current  version  of  the  draft  act,  which  the  Government  submitted  to  the 
Parliament in March 2021, does not contain such provision101. 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 AKOS102, into two agencies. This proposal raised concerns 
about the independence of the regulator103. 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 more104. The information on media ownership is published in the 
Media Register, which is publicly available on the Ministry of Culture’s website105. 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 companies106. 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  risk107.  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 outlet108. 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 

100  Draft  Article  39.a  (independence  of  the  agency)  (1)  The  Agency  is  an  organisationally,  functionally  and 
materially independent regulatory body separate from the Government of the Republic of Slovenia and from 
other public or private legal entities subjects. The Agency in connection with the performance of tasks under 
this  Act  and  under  the  law  governing  the  media,  may  not  seek  or  take  instructions  from  other  authorities 
except when they are carrying out legal supervision of the work of the agency. (2) The Agency shall perform 
its tasks under this Act and the Act governing the media impartially, transparently and in accordance with 
the  principles  of  this  Act,  while  pursuing  media  plurality,  cultural  and  linguistic  diversity,  consumer 
protection, accessibility, non-discrimination, the proper functioning of the internal market and the promotion 
of fair competition. […]. 

101  Draft amendments to the Audiovisual Media Services Act, 5 March 2021. The Electronic Communications 
Act (ZEKom-1) regulates, among others, the electronic communications networks and services, management 
of radio frequencies and spectrum, and contains provisions regulating the status of AKOS in this framework. 
102  Draft Act on the Public Agency of the Republic of Slovenia for the Market and Consumers and the Public 

Agency of the Republic of Slovenia for Financial Markets, October 2020. 

103  2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Slovenia, p. 12 and Agency for Communication Networks 
and Services, Response to the Draft Act on the Public Agency of the Republic of Slovenia for the Market 
and Consumers and the Public Agency of the Republic of Slovenia for Financial Markets, 2 October 2020. 

104  Mass Media Act, articles. 12 and 14. 
105  https://rmsn.ekultura.gov.si/razvid/mediji 
106  Draft Mass Media Act, amended Art. 12.  
107  2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Slovenia, p. 12. 
108  Written contribution from the Association of Journalists and Publicists in the context of the country visit to 
Slovenia.  See  also  Pod  črto,  Kdo  drži  informacijsko  pištolo:  kaj  smo  ugotovili  v  preiskavi  medijskega 
lastništva v Sloveniji, 18 January 2021. In the case of one print media, the study was unable to identify the 
final owner. (https://podcrto.si/povzetek-preiskave-mladina-kot-primer-ranljivosti-medijev-v-sloveniji/). The 
study  also  raised  the  issue  of  influence  of  media  owners,  either  political  or  from  economic  interests,  on 
editorial content, which is accentuated by the lacking transparency of media ownership.  

16 

 
                                                 
MPM 2021 reports a lack of data and the absence of a regular analysis to be able to assess the 
situation109.   

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  motivated110.  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 2021111. 
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 law112. However, these funds have not 
yet  been  disbursed113.  Concerns  have  been  raised  by  different  stakeholders  regarding  the 
overall situation of media pluralism in Slovenia114. 

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  governments115. 
According to a recent investigation116 and other sources117, 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  secrets118.  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 

109  Combining  advertising  and  radio  and  television  activities  or  telecommunications  and  radio  and  television 
activities is not permitted. The Government has acknowledged this issue and the proposed amendments to 
the  Mass  Media  Act  will  focus,  among  others,  on  transparency  of  media  ownership  and  restriction  of 
concentration in the media.  

110  Information received in the context of the country visit to Slovenia. 
111  According to the Government, since previous legislative framework did not specify precisely what the public 
service  of  STA  entails  and  how  it  differs  from  its  commercial  service,  in  June  2021  the  Government 
Communication  Office  (UKOM)  adopted  a  new  Decree  on  the  implementation  of  public  service  by  the 
Slovenian Press Agency. The Government plans to abandon the automatic ex ante payments for a system of 
ex post payments. 

112  European  Commission,  Press  release  -  State  aid:  Commission  approves  €2.5  million  compensation  to 

Slovenian Press Agency STA for its public service, 29 April 2021. 

113  Concerns  have  been  raised  by  national  (e.g.  association  of  journalists)  and  international  stakeholders  (e.g. 
open letter of 16 March 2021 from the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF), European 
Federation  of  Journalists  (EFJ),  International  Press  Institute  (IPI),  OBC  Transeuropa,  and  the  Reporters 
Without Borders (RSF)) regarding the stability of funding of the Slovenian Press Agency. 

114  Faculty  for  Media  (Prof.  dr.  Matevž  Tomšič,  Prof.  dr.  Borut  Rončević,  Doc.  dr.  Nuša  Erman,  Doc.  dr. 
Tamara Besednjak Valič), Research of the media landscape, March 2021. Contribution from the  Slovenian 
Union of Journalist for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, pp. 1-4.  

115  2021  Media  Pluralism  Monitor,  country  report  for  Slovenia,  p.  16,  2020  Rule  of  Law  Report,  Country 

Chapter on the rule of law situation in Slovenia, p 12. 

116  Pod črto, Municipal newsletters: millions of euros of public money to promote mayors, 6 June 2019. 
117  Contribution from Reporters Sans Frontiers (RSF) for the 2021 Rule of law Report. 
118  These state-owned companies decline to share this information by invoking business secrecy law provisions 

17 

 
                                                 
appointed  by  the  Ministry  of  Culture,  and  the  information  on  the  allocated  funding  is 
published on the recipients’ websites119. 

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  disbursed120.  Some 
stakeholders121  were  concerned  about  the  economic  conditions  of  journalists,  especially 
freelancers122.  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 Government123. 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  content124;  however, some  concerns were  raised by 
stakeholders  regarding  possible  risks  of  political  influence  over  the  distribution  of  such 
funds125. 

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  administration126,  this frequent  use of the appeal  system  considerably increases the 
Commissioner’s workload127. 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  so128.  This  has  led  to  delays  in  judicial  review  proceedings,  which  are 
comparable to  regular  cases129. The MPM  2021  attributed medium  risk to  the protection of 

119  Reporters Sans Frontiers (RSF) – Contribution to Rule of Law 2021. 
120  2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Slovenia, p. 11. 
121  Contribution from the Slovenian Association of Journalists and Publicists for the 2021 Rule of Law  Report, 

p. 4. 

122  2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Slovenia, p. 13. 
123  Written  contribution  from  the  Government  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to  Slovenia  and  written 
contribution from the Association of Journalists and Publicists for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. To be noted 
that  stakeholders  raised  concerns  about  economic  conditions  of  freelance  journalists.  Written  contribution 
from  the  Association  of  Journalists  and  Publicists  for  the  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report.  As  stated  by  the 
Government,  as  part  of  general  relief  measures,  also  self-employed  journalists  have  been  receiving  a 
universal  basic  income  in  the  amount  of  EUR  700  monthly,  and  were  also  privy  to  complete  write-off  of 
their  social  and  health  care  expenses  since  March  2020  and  benefited  from  this  form  of  aid  until  30  June 
2021, provided that they were not working.  

124  Written contribution from the Government in the context of the country visit to Slovenia. 
125  Information received in the context of the country visit to Slovenia.  
126  Reporters Sans Frontiers (RSF) – Contribution to Rule of Law 2021. 
127  2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Slovenia, p. 11. 
128  Summary  of  the  results  of  the  Ministry  of  Justice  inspection  of  the  organization  of  functioning  of  the 
Administrative Court in Ljubljana and its departments in Maribor and Nova Gorica and Celje, Ministry of 
Justice, April 2021. 

129  Summary  of  the  results  of  the  Ministry  of  Justice  inspection  of  the  organization  of  functioning  of  the 
Administrative Court in Ljubljana and its departments in Maribor and Nova Gorica and Celje, Ministry of 
Justice, April 2021. It is to be noted that one court case that was reviewing access to information decision by 
the Information Commissioner was found to be over two years old. 

18 

 
                                                 
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 rare130. 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  risk131.  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  investigation132.  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  journalists133.  Several 
cases  of  lawsuits  against  journalists  and  media  outlets  with  intimidating  effects  were 
registered during the last year134. Online harassment and threats against journalists, especially 
targeting  female  journalists,  including  from  some  politicians,  continue  to  be  numerous135. 
Furthermore, many perpetrators of online attacks remain anonymous, and journalists tend to 
report online harassment less frequently than physical threats136. 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  judgment137,  allowing  prosecution  of  offences  perpetrated  against  journalists  also 
according to this provision138. 

130  2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Slovenia, p. 13. 
131  2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Slovenia, p.10. 
132  Input from Slovenia for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 
133  Council of Europe Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists – Slovenia. At 

the time of writing, five of them have been addressed through a reply from the Slovene authorities. 

134  Council of Europe, CoE Commissioner for Human Rights issues a Human Rights Comment on SLAPPs, 27 

October 2020. 

135  Contribution from the Peace institute in cooperation with Civil Liberties Union for Europe for the 2021 Rule 
of Law; Council of Europe, Commissioner for Human Rights, Memorandum on freedom of expression and 
media freedom in Slovenia, 4 June 2021; 2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Slovenia, p. 11, 
20 and 22 . 

136  Information provided by the Supreme State Prosecution, April 2021. 
137  Information by the Supreme State Prosecution Office provided in the context of the country visit to Slovenia. 
138  As found in the 2020 Rule of Law Report country chapter for Slovenia, a narrow application of criminal law 
caused  that  online  harassment  or  threats  against  journalists  were  rarely  sanctioned.  This  relied  on  the 
previous  legal  interpretation  by  the  State  Prosecution,  whereby  public  incitement  to  hatred  had  to  be 
‘concrete’, amounting to a ‘concrete danger for public order and peace’ to be prosecuted as a crime. In 2019, 
the  Supreme  Court  clarified  that  there  are  two  ways  of  committing  the  crime  from  Article  297  of  the 
Criminal  Code, either (a) by  inciting or inflaming  hatred and violence or intolerance in  a  manner that can 
endanger or disturb public order and peace, or (b) with threats, insults or verbal abuse. It stated that in the 
case that the conduct is carried out with threats, insults or verbal abuse, there is no requirement that there be 
any potential endangerment of public order and peace. It also clarified, however, that  when the conduct is 
carried out in a  way that can  endanger or disturb public order and peace, there is no requirement that this 
endangerment  is  already  immediate,  but  that  it  has  only  the  potential  to  result  in  concrete  endangerment. 
2020 Rule of Law Report country chapter for Slovenia, p. 13. 

19 

 
 
 
                                                 
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  laws139.  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 plenary140. 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 Parliament141. 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 comments142. 

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 association143. 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 

139  Constitutional Court of Slovenia, Judgment of 22 October 2008, U-I-295/07.  
140  Amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly, 7 April 2020. 
141  During the shortened and emergency procedure, general debate does not take place and the second and third 
readings are held during the same session of Parliament. 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the 
rule of law situation in Slovenia, p. 15. 

142  CNVOS – NGO Umbrella Network, Online counter of violations of the Parliament Resolution on normative 

activity. 

143  The Constitutional Court gave Parliament two months to remove the unconstitutional elements from the Act. 

Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 13 May 2021, U-I-79/20-24. 

20 

 
                                                 
constitutional  provisions  on  the  necessity  of  publication.  Based  on  statutory  powers, 
measures were also adopted by municipalities, but only in the field of their jurisdiction144. 

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  Ombudsperson145  and  the  Court  of  Audit146.  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 rise147. 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 
2019148.  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)149.  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 delivered150. 

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 

144  Input from Slovenia for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 30. 
145  Contribution from the European Network of National Human Rights Institutions for the 2021 Rule of Law 

Report, p. 317. 

146  Judgment  of  the  Constitutional  Court  of  10  December  2020,  U-I-474/18-17.  The  deadline  for  the 

implementation of the decision is 23 December 2021. 

147  2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Slovenia, pp. 14-15. 
148  Constitutional Court, 2020 Report, 22 April 2021. 
149  62 cases remain pending, out of which 20 have been accepted by the Constitutional Court and in seven cases 
the Court temporarily suspended the measures involved. Written contribution from the Constitutional Court 
in the context of the country visit to Slovenia. 

150  In  March  2021,  a  few  irregularities  concerning  the  respect  for  impartiality  have  been  reported,  where  the 
judges  of  the  Constitutional  Court  failed  to  withdraw  themselves.  To  be  noted  that  Slovenia  has  been 
condemned  previously  for  violating  Art.  6  of  the  European  Convention  of  Human  Rights  before  the 
European Court on Human Rights regarding lack of non-recusal of Constitutional Court judges. 

21 

 
                                                 
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 
legislation151.  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  website152.  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 freedoms153. 

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  powers154.  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 society155. Smear campaigns 
against  non-governmental  organisations,  especially  on  social  media,  have  been  reported156. 
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 
activities157. Attacks to the civic organisations’ financial and economic viability, including by 
reducing  funds,  have  been  noted158.  It  appears  that  civic  society  organisations  dealing  with 
migrants, media literacy, human trafficking are particularly concerned159. 

151  Global  Alliance  of  National  Human  Rights  Institutions  (GANHRI),  Report  and  Recommendation  of  the 
Virtual  Session  of  the  Sub-Committee  on  Accreditation  (SCA),  7-18  December  2020,  pp.  22-24. 
Contribution from the European Network of National Human Rights Institutions for the 2021 Rule of Law 
Report, p. 316. 

152  Contribution from the European Network of National Human Rights Institutions for the 2021 Rule of Law 

Report, pp. 319, 320, 322, 334-339.  
To  be  also  noted  that  regarding  the  recommendations  given  by  the  Ombudsperson  to  the  state  authorities, 
mainly to the government but also to Parliament, courts and other bodies, the Ombudsperson noted in its last 
annual  report  that  there  were  more  than  200  recommendations  that  had  not  been  implemented  or  only 
partially. Contribution from the European Network of National Human Rights Institutions for the 2021 Rule 
of Law Report, p. 319. 

153  Contribution from the European Network of National Human Rights Institutions for the 2021 Rule of Law 

Report, p. 340. 

154  Office of the President of the Republic, Press release of 13 October 2020. 
155  Contribution  from the Fundamental Rights  Agency for the 2021 Rule of Law Report  -  Legal environment 

and space of civil society organisations in supporting fundamental rights Slovenia, p. 1.  

156  Rating  given  by  CIVICUS;  ratings  are  on  a  five-category  scale  defined  as:  open,  narrowed,  obstructed, 

repressed and closed. CIVICUS, Government continues its attack on CSOs, 4 February 2021. 

157  Contribution from the European Network of National Human Rights Institutions for the 2021 Rule of Law 

Report, pp. 322-324. 

158  Contribution from European Civic Forum for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 57. 
159  Contribution from European Civic Forum for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 57. 

22 

 
                                                 
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. 

Agency for Communication Networks and Services (2020), Response to the Draft Act on the Public 
Agency of the Republic of Slovenia for the Market and Consumers and the Public Agency of the 
Republic of Slovenia for Financial Markets, 2 October 2020, (https://imss.dz-
rs.si/IMiS/ImisAdmin.nsf/ImisnetAgent?OpenAgent&2&DZ-MSS-
01/e06b8c22980ddbe01b50ba78e0ed0bfc78aa5c046805897db90c08a92ffc277a). 

Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (2021), Media pluralism monitor 2021. 

CIVICUS (2021), Government continues its attack on CSOs, 4 February 2021, 
(https://monitor.civicus.org/country/slovenia/). 
CNVOS  –  NGO  Umbrella  Network,  Online  counter  of  violations  of  the  Parliament  Resolution  on 
normative activity, (https://www.cnvos.si/stevec-krsitev/). 

Code of Judicial Ethics, January 2017, (http://www.sodni-
svet.si/images/stories/Kodeks_sodniske_etike_komentar_ang_sept_2017.pdf). 

Commission for the Prevention of Corruption (2021), Initiative to amendment to the legislation on 
conflict of interests and violation of integrity, 20 May 2021, (https://www.kpk-
rs.si/2021/05/20/komisija-poslala-pobudo-vladi-rs-za-ureditev-podrocja-nezdruzljivosti-funkcij/). 

Commission for the Prevention of Corruption (2021), Press release of 12 May 2021, 
(https://www.kpk-rs.si/2021/05/12/zakljucen-postopek-glede-opravljanja-dodatne-funkcije-
predsednika-racunskega-sodisca/).  

Commission for the Prevention of Corruption (2021), Press release of 24 May 2021, 
(https://www.kpk-rs.si/2021/05/24/odziv-komisije-na-neresnicne-navedbe-predsednika-vlade-rs/).  
Commission for the Prevention of Corruption (2021), Report for 2020, 20 May 2021, 
(https://www.kpk-rs.si/kpk/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/LP2020K.pdf).  

Constitutional Court (2021), 2020 Report, 22 April 2021, (https://www.us-rs.si/wp-
content/uploads/2021/04/RSUS_LetnoPorocilo_2020.pdf). 

Council of Europe (2020), CoE Commissioner for Human Rights issues a Human Rights Comment on 
SLAPPs, 27 October 2020, (https://www.coe.int/en/web/media-freedom/-/coe-commissioner-for-
human-rights-issues-a-human-rights-comment-on-slapps). 

Council of Europe, Commissioner for Human Rights, 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). 
Court of Audit (2021), Report for 2020, 31 March 2021, (https://www.rs-rs.si/o-racunskem-
sodiscu/institucija/porocila-o-delu/porocilo-o-delu/porocilo-o-delu-2020/). 

Draft Act on the Public Agency of the Republic of Slovenia for the Market and Consumers and the 
Public Agency of the Republic of Slovenia for Financial Markets, October 2020, (https://imss.dz-
rs.si/IMiS/ImisAdmin.nsf/ImisnetAgent?OpenAgent&2&DZ-MSS-
01/21024926aecb618d716140c6a87e8aff098c26f9b6636ec77aab7a78b2d61b2f). 

Draft amendments to the Audiovisual Media Services Act, 5 March 2021. (https://www.dz-
rs.si/wps/portal/Home/zakonodaja/izbran/!ut/p/z1/04_Sj9CPykssy0xPLMnMz0vMAfIjo8zivSy9Hb28
3Q0N3E3dLQwCQ7z9g7w8nAwsnMz1w9EUGAWZGgS6GDn5BhsYGwQHG-
pHEaPfAAdwNCBOPx4FUfiNL8gNDQ11VFQEAAXcoa4!/dz/d5/L2dBISEvZ0FBIS9nQSEh/?uid=
271348B1463CE206C125868F004621DE&db=pre_zak&mandat=VIII&tip=doc). 

European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF), European Federation of Journalists (EFJ), 
International Press Institute (IPI), OBC Transeuropa, and the Reporters Without Borders (RSF), 

23 

 
Increasing Concerns for Media Freedom in Slovenia - open letter of 16 March 2021 to the President 
of the European Commission, (https://www.ecpmf.eu/letter-increasing-concerns-for-media-freedom-
in-slovenia/). 

European Chief Prosecutor (2021), Statement of 9 July 2021 - European Chief Prosecutor expresses 
grave concerns in letter to Slovenian Minister for Justice, 
(https://www.eppo.europa.eu/en/news/european-chief-prosecutor-expresses-grave-concerns-letter-
slovenian-minister-justice). 

European Civic Forum, Contribution from the European Civic Forum for the 2021 Rule of Law 
Report. 

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

European Commission (2021), Press release - State aid: Commission approves €2.5 million 
compensation to Slovenian Press Agency STA for its public service, 29 April 2021, 
(https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_2041). 

European Public Prosecutor’s Office (2021), Decision of the college of the European Public 
Prosecutor’s Office laying down rules on conditions of employment of the European Delegated 
Prosecutors, 29 September 2020, amended 24 March 2021, 
(https://www.eppo.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2021-04/2020.001-
2021.017_Consolidated%20version-Conditions_of_employment_EDPs.pdf). 

Faculty for Media (Prof. dr. Matevž Tomšič, Prof. dr. Borut Rončević, Doc. dr. Nuša Erman, Doc. dr. 
Tamara Besednjak Valič), Raziskava medijske krajine, March 2021, 
(https://www.gov.si/assets/ministrstva/MK/Mediji/Raziskave/Raziskava-medijske-krajine.pdf). 

GRECO (2018), Fourth Evaluation Round – Second Compliance Report on Slovenia on corruption 
prevention in respect of members of parliament, judges and prosecutors. 

Judgment of the Administrative Court of 22 July 2014, UPRS sodba I U 971/2014, 
(https://www.sodisce.si/usrs/odlocitve/2012032113072659/). 

Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 13 May 2021, U-I-79/20-24, (https://www.uradni-
list.si/glasilo-uradni-list-rs/vsebina/2021-01-1842?sop=2021-01-1842).  

Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 7 January 2021, U-I-246/19-41, (http://www.us-
rs.si/documents/e8/cc/u-i-246-194.pdf). 

Judicial Council (2021), Positions for adaptations and amendments of the legal framework governing 
disciplinary proceedings regarding judges, 4 March 2021, (http://www.sodni-svet.si/doc/disciplinski-
organi/Izhodi%C5%A1%C4%8Da%20sprememb%20in%20dopolnitev%20zakonskih%20dolo%C4%
8Db,%20ki%20urejajo%20disciplinske%20postopke%20zoper%20sodnike.pdf). 

National Review Commission for Reviewing Public Procurement Award Procedures, 2020 Report, 
March 2021, 
(http://www.dkom.si/mma/Letno%20poro%C4%8Dilo%20za%20leto%202020/2021040811011009/). 

OECD, Working Group on Bribery (2021), Implementing the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention Phase 
4 Report: Slovenia, (http://www.oecd.org/daf/anti-bribery/slovenia-phase-4-report-en.pdf). 
Office of the President of the Republic, Press release of 13 October 2020, (https://www.up-rs.si/up-
rs/uprs.nsf/objave/BACCA0465CF406E7C125860000437951?OpenDocument). 

Parliamentary Committee on the Interior, Public Administration and Local Self-Government and 
Committee on Justice (2020), Conclusion of 14 December 2020, (https://imss.dz-
rs.si/IMiS/ImisAdmin.nsf/ImisnetAgent?OpenAgent&2&DZ-MSS-
01/023d7b90349185ac0481b2f0152cdab68a31a350e8e41d9c682e5a9557483895). 

Pod črto (2019), Municipal newsletters: millions of euros of public money to promote mayors, 6 June 
2019, (https://podcrto.si/obcinska-glasila-milijoni-evrov-javnega-denarja-za-promocijo-zupanov/). 

24 

 
Pod črto (2021), Kdo drži informacijsko pištolo: kaj smo ugotovili v preiskavi medijskega lastništva v 
Sloveniji, 18 January 2021, (https://podcrto.si/kdo-drzi-informacijsko-pistolo-kaj-smo-ugotovili-v-
preiskavi-medijskega-lastnistva-v-sloveniji/). In case of one print media, the study was unable to 
identify the final owner. (https://podcrto.si/povzetek-preiskave-mladina-kot-primer-ranljivosti-
medijev-v-sloveniji/). 

RTV, Prvi kršilec poslanskega etičnega kodeksa je Jani Ivanuša (SNS), dobil je opomin, 9 June 2021, 
(https://www.rtvslo.si/slovenija/prvi-krsilec-poslanskega-eticnega-kodeksa-je-jani-ivanusa-sns-dobil-
je-opomin/583591). 

RTV, Tarča: Pravosodje po meri politike, 3 June 2021, (https://4d.rtvslo.si/arhiv/tarca/174780634). 

Slovenian Government (2021), Final Report on the Implementation of the Programme of the 
Government for strengthening Integrity and Transparency 2017–2019, 21 April 2021, 
(https://www.gov.si/novice/2020-04-21-vlada-sprejela-koncno-porocilo-o-izvajanju-programa-vlade-
republike-slovenije-za-krepitev-integritete-in-transparentnosti-20172019/). 

Slovenian Government (2021), Input from Slovenia for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 

Slovenian Parliament - Council of the President (2020), Code of Ethics for Deputies of the National 
Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia, 12 June 2020, (https://www.dz-
rs.si/wps/portal/en/Home/AboutNA/PoliticalSystem/CodeEthics/!ut/p/z1/04_Sj9CPykssy0xPLMnMz
0vMAfIjo8zivSy9Hb283Q0N3E3dLQwCQ7z9g7w8nNxDncz1w8EKnPyCTD3BCrycTAwCjf19nYL
MgwwNA030o4jRj0cBSL8BDuBooF-QGxoKAP2akyc!/dz/d5/L2dBISEvZ0FBIS9nQSEh/). 

Slovenian Police (2020), Press release of 12 October 2020, (https://www.policija.si/medijsko-
sredisce/sporocila-za-javnost/sporocila-za-javnost-gpue/106125-vodenje-nacionalnega-
preiskovalnega-urada-prevzela-petra-grah-lazar). 

Slovenian Police (2020), Press release of 29 July 2020, (https://www.policija.si/medijsko-
sredisce/sporocila-za-javnost/sporocila-za-javnost-gpue/105138-vodenje-nacionalnega-
preiskovalnega-urada-prevzema-uros-leposa).  

Slovenian Police (2020), Press release of 6 May 2020, (https://www.policija.si/medijsko-
sredisce/sporocila-za-javnost/sporocila-za-javnost-gpue/103938-z-danasnjim-dnem-vodenje-
nacionalnega-preiskovalnega-urada-prevzema-igor-lamberger). 

State Prosecutor General (2021), Statement of 26 May 2021, (https://www.dt-rs.si/novica/izjava-
generalnega-drzavnega-tozilca-rs-v-zvezi-z-zapleti-ob-imenovanju-evropskih-delegiranih-tozilcev). 

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.p
df). 

State Prosecutorial Council (2021), Press release of 17 March 2021, (https://www.drzavnotozilski-
svet.si/files/Sporocila%20za%20javnost/izjava_za_javnost_evropska_delegirana_tozilca.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_delegiran
a_tozilca.pdf). 

Supreme Court (2020), Decision of the Supreme Court President, 13 November 2020, 
(https://www.sodisce.si/mma_bin2.php?nid=2020111317045458&static_id=2020111316572262). 

Supreme Court (2020), Press release of 17 August 2020, 
(https://www.sodisce.si/vsrs/objave/2020102013485087/). 

Supreme Court (2021), Contribution from the Supreme Court for the 2021 Rule of Law Report.  

Supreme State Prosecution Office (2021), 2020 Report, April 2021, (https://www.dt-
rs.si/files/documents/Letno%20poroc%CC%8Cilo%20DT%20za%20leto%202020.pdf). 

Transparency International (2021), Corruption Perceptions Index 2020. 

25 

 
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) 
 
  Bar Association 

Judges’ 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  

26 

 
 
 
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  
  Reporters without Borders 
  Transparency International EU 

27