COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2026 Rule of Law Report Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Slovenia Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 2026 Rule of Law Report The rule of law situation in the European Union
Date: 2026-07-17
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: Slovenia, administrative transparency, corruption, democracy, freedom of the press, human rights, independence of the judiciary, pluralism in the media, rule of law, whistleblowing

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 17.7.2026  SWD(2026) 924 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2026 Rule of Law Report                                 Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Slovenia Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 2026 Rule of Law Report                                  The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2026) 900 final} - {SWD(2026) 901 final} - {SWD(2026) 902 final} - {SWD(2026) 903 final} - {SWD(2026) 904 final} - {SWD(2026) 905 final} - {SWD(2026) 906 final} - {SWD(2026) 907 final} - {SWD(2026) 908 final} - {SWD(2026) 909 final} - {SWD(2026) 910 final} - {SWD(2026) 911 final} - {SWD(2026) 912 final} - {SWD(2026) 913 final} - {SWD(2026) 914 final} - {SWD(2026) 915 final} - {SWD(2026) 916 final} - {SWD(2026) 917 final} - {SWD(2026) 918 final} - {SWD(2026) 919 final} - {SWD(2026) 920 final} - {SWD(2026) 921 final} - {SWD(2026) 922 final} - {SWD(2026) 923 final} - {SWD(2026) 925 final} - {SWD(2026) 926 final} - {SWD(2026) 927 final} - {SWD(2026) 928 final} - {SWD(2026) 929 final} - {SWD(2026) 930 final} - {SWD(2026) 931 final}  
 
 
ABSTRACT 

In  Slovenia,  the  justice  system  saw  extensive  reform,  with  the  new  Judges  Act  transferring 
the power to appoint Supreme Court judges from Parliament to the Judicial Council  which, 
along  with  amendments  to  the  Judicial  Council  Act,  refined  safeguards  on  judicial 
independence. Additionally, the amendments to the Judicial Council Act and the new Judges 
Act overhauled the disciplinary framework for judges, and the new Courts Act introduced a 
reform  of  the  judicial  map.  Efforts  continued  to  strengthen  protection  measures  for  judges 
and  state  prosecutors.  Digitalisation  of  the  workflow  in  courts  continued,  including  by 
introducing  new  electronic  communication  tools.  While  the  number  of  resolved  cases 
remained broadly stable, the overall backlog further increased. The length of trials remains a 
challenge,  particularly  in  money  laundering  and  corruption  cases.  The  measures  to  address 
the Constitutional Court’s considerable caseload have contributed to a significant reduction in 
backlog. 

The  implementation  of  the  Resolution  on  the  Prevention  of  Corruption,  the  national  anti-
corruption  strategy,  and  its  2025-2030  Action  Plan  is  ongoing.  While  some  efforts  are 
ongoing to strengthen capacities of state prosecution offices, limited further steps were made 
to  ensure  a  track  record  of  investigations,  prosecutions  and  final  judgments  in  corruption 
offences.  While  its  resources  remained  stable,  the  Commission  for  the  Prevention  of 
Corruption (CPC) reported attempts to undermine its credibility. The new Public Employees 
Act  of  July  2025  unified  the  regulation  of  conflicts  of  interest  for  all  public  officials.  The 
CPC  continued  to  underline  the  low  reporting  levels  of  lobbying  contacts.  The  CPC issued 
recommendations  to  tackle  risks  related  to  the  transfer  of  state  officials  to  publicly  owned 
companies.  The  number  of  whistleblowers  who  have  been  granted  a  protection  status 
increased in 2025, indicating increased awareness of the law and the protection it provides. 
Large infrastructure projects and the health sector are among the high-risk areas. 

The  media  regulator  generally  remains  independent,  while  concerns  persist  regarding  its 
human and financial resources. The financial challenges of the Slovenian Press Agency were 
addressed, while some limited steps were taken to improve the financial  situation of  public 
broadcaster.  While  the  media  market  remains  concentrated,  reforms  were  introduced  to 
improve its transparency and functioning.  The framework for accessing official information 
remained favourable, but journalists report some obstacles in practice. Journalists highlighted 
persistent  difficult  working  conditions,  while  efforts  to  strengthen  their  profession  and 
introduce self-regulation continued. Some further steps were made to improve the protection 
of journalists, while challenges remain pending the practical application of new laws. 

The  Ombudsperson  continued  responding  to  an  important  number  of  complaints.  The 
environment for civil society organisations remained favourable and the former Government 
adopted two framework strategies in this area. 

1 

 
 
 
 
RECOMMENDATIONS 

Overall, based on the recommendations in  the 2025 Rule of Law Report, considering other 
developments  that  took  place  in  the  period  of  reference  and  in  addition  to  recalling  the 
relevant  commitments  made  under  the  Recovery  and  Resilience  Plan,  the  Commission 
concludes the following:  

•  There  has  been  limited  further  progress  on  ensuring  a  track  record  of  investigations, 
prosecutions  and  final  judgments  in  corruption  offences,  as  results  remain  modest  in 
investigating  and  moderate  in  prosecuting  and  reaching  final  judgments,  including  as 
regards  high-level  corruption,  although  some  efforts  to  strengthen  capacities  of  state 
prosecution offices are ongoing. Therefore, it is recommended to Slovenia to take further 
measures to ensure a track record of investigations, prosecutions and final judgments in 
corruption offences, including in high-level cases. 

•  Some  further  progress  has  been  made  to  further  advance  with  the  process  of  adopting 
legislative  and  non-legislative  safeguards  to  improve  the  protection  of  journalists,  as 
the Act  on  Protective  Measures  against  Strategic  Lawsuits  Against  Public  Participation 
and  the  Media  Act  have  been  adopted,  while  challenges  remain.  Therefore,  it  is 
recommended  to  Slovenia  to  broaden  the  range  of  available  safeguards  to  improve  the 
protection  of  journalists,  taking  into  account  European  standards  on  the  protection  of 
journalists.  

As regards the other 2025 recommendations, the Commission concludes that: 

•  Limited further progress has been made on completing reforms to ensure that the rules or 
mechanisms are in place to provide funding for public service media that is appropriate 
for the realisation of its public service remit while guaranteeing its independence, as the 
financial challenges of the STA have been addressed, while those of the RTV improved 
to a limited extent. Given that the topic of this recommendation is covered by provisions 
of  the  European  Media  Freedom  Act  (EMFA),  while  the  Rule  of  Law  Report  will 
continue to monitor significant developments and report on their impact, further follow-
up  will  be  ensured  as  part  of  the  Commission’s  support  to  Member  States  and 
enforcement of the EMFA. 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
I. 

JUSTICE SYSTEM1 

Independence 

The level of perceived judicial independence in Slovenia continues to be average among 
both the general public and companies. Overall, 59% of the general population and 55% of 
companies perceive the level of independence of courts and judges to be ‘fairly or very good’ 
in  20262.  The  perceived  judicial  independence  among  the  general  public  has  slightly 
increased in comparison with 2025 (56%), and has significantly increased in comparison with 
2022  (49%).  The  perceived  judicial  independence  among  companies  remains  at  the  same 
level as in 2025 (55%), and has increased in comparison with 2022 (49%). 

The  new  Judges  Act  transferred  the  power  to  appoint  Supreme  Court  judges  from 
Parliament to the Judicial Council, and, along with amendments to the Judicial Council 
Act, refined safeguards on judicial independence. The new law, adopted on 21 November 
2025, transferred the power to appoint Supreme Court judges from Parliament to the Judicial 
Council3.  Unlike  the  previous  parliamentary  appointment  procedure,  the  new  law  explicitly 
allows for judicial review of the Council’s decision on appointment of Supreme Court judges, 
which must  also  contain reasoning4.  Additionally, amendments  to  the Judicial Council Act, 
also  adopted  on  21  November  2025,  refined  the  guarantees  in  the  selection  procedure  for 
appointment of judges to all court instances, particularly regarding the reasoning of decisions 
and  impartiality  of  Council  members5.  Furthermore,  the  amendments  limited  the  term  of 
office  of  Council  members  to  a  non-renewable  six-year  term  and  introduced  detailed 
provisions  on  elections  of  judge-members6.  The  safeguards  on  judicial  independence  have 
been reinforced also in the procedure for dismissal of judges, as the new Judges Act explicitly 
allows  for  judicial  review  of  the  Parliament’s  dismissal  decision7.  At  the  same  time,  the 
Judicial Council noted that the new Judges Act may increase the influence of court presidents 
in judicial selection procedures, as it introduced the right for a court president to participate in 
the Council’s deliberations8. 

The  amendments  to  the  Judicial  Council  Act  and  a  new  Judges  Act  overhauled  the 
disciplinary  framework  for  judges.  As  proposed  by  the  judiciary,  the  new  Judges  Act 
provides  for  a  more  precise  definition  of  disciplinary  offences.  This  is  complemented  by 
procedural  changes  in  the  Judicial  Council  Act  concerning  the  regulation  of  disciplinary 

1  An overview of the institutional framework for all four pillars can be found here. 
2   Figures 48 and 50, 2026 EU Justice Scoreboard and Figures  51 and 53, 2024 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%). 

3   This applies if the candidate is already a judge. 
4    These  safeguards  are  important  as  in  the  past,  Parliament  rejected  several  candidates  for  Supreme  Court 
judges (three between 2018 and 2022 alone). 2025 Rule of Law Report, Slovenia, p. 4, and 2023 Rule of 
Law Report, Slovenia, p. 6.  

5    The  Council’s decisions should contain an assessment  on  how  the selected  candidates fulfil all eligibility 
criteria. To prevent conflicts of interest, the reasons for withdrawal of Council members were expanded and 
the recusal procedure was specified, which now includes judicial review. Appointment of a Judicial Council 
member  as  a  court  president  or  vice-presidents  is  now  a  new  ground  for  the  termination  of  office  of  a 
Judicial Council member. Articles 14, 30, 30a, and 35 of the Judicial Council Act. Slovenian Government 
(2026), written input, pp. 2-3. 

6    Previously,  the  term  of  Council  members  was  renewable,  but  not  consecutively.  The  amendments 

introduced judicial protection of the right of judges to elect and be elected as Council members. 

7    Art. 105, Judges Act allows for review before the Supreme Court, acting as the highest administrative court. 
8    Art. 17, Judges Act. Judicial Council (2026a), additional written input, p. 2. 

3 

 
 
prosecutors, the suspension of judges during disciplinary proceedings, and the legal remedy 
against  a  disciplinary  decision9.  The  amendments  to  the  Judicial  Council  Act  also  adapted 
certain  provisions  on  disciplinary  proceedings,  which  had  been  declared  unconstitutional, 
notably  by  removing  the  Judicial  Council’s  power  to  initiate  disciplinary  proceedings 
regarding  judges10.  The  Judicial  Council  welcomed  the  new  arrangement  of  disciplinary 
proceedings regarding judges11.  

Efforts  continued  to  strengthen  protection  measures  for  judges  and  state  prosecutors. 
As  previously  reported,  incidents  involving  judges  and  state  prosecutors,  including  attacks, 
led to a reflection on whether the regulations are appropriate to ensure their protection12. In 
2025,  preparatory  work  continued  in  the  interministerial  working  group  consisting  of 
representatives  of  ministries,  the  police,  the  judiciary  and  state  prosecution  on  systemic 
solutions  to  enhance  protection  of  officials  within  judicial  authorities  and  enable  judicial 
institutions  to  operate  more  safely  and  effectively13.  Draft  amendments  to  the  rules,  among 
others, envisage that the risk assessment would be made regularly by a police working body, 
including for judicial officials14. Amendments to the Regulation on the protection of certain 
persons,  premises,  facilities,  and  surroundings  of  facilities  protected  by  the  police  have  not 
yet been adopted due to ongoing deliberations. Since the new Government took office in June 
2026, the procedure is  expected to  resume.  In the meantime, to  provide support in  cases of 
threats and other difficult situations at work, the new Courts Act and amendments to the State 
Prosecution Office Act introduced the possibility of psychological assistance for judges, state 
prosecutors and judicial staff, which was welcomed by the Judicial Council15. 

The allocation of court cases, which is based on a predefined order, will  by 2029 move 
from  manual  to  electronic  allocation.  Civil  and  administrative  cases  are  being  allocated 
manually by court staff according to the alphabetical order of judges’ surnames based on the 
time of filing in the court. An automatic system is in place for allocation of criminal cases, 
although  it  is  not  used  by  all  courts.  The  new  Courts  Act  mandated  the  Supreme  Court  to 
establish by January 2029 an IT system for the electronic allocation of cases16. The aim of the 
law  is  to  strengthen  impartiality  and  fairness  of  proceedings17.  The  allocation  of  cases  at 
lower courts is being monitored by higher court instances and by the Judicial Council18. 

9    For more details see 2024 Rule of Law Report, Slovenia, pp. 4-5. 
10    2024 Rule of Law Report, Slovenia, pp. 4-5. Initiative to start the disciplinary proceedings can be submitted 
by the court president, president of the higher court and the minister of justice. Article 45(2) of the Judicial 
Council Act. 

11    Judicial Council (2026a), additional written input, p. 1. 
12    In April 2026, a person was convicted to a 6,5-year jail sentence for threatening a court president in 2024. 

2025 Rule of Law Report, Slovenia, pp. 4-5.  
13    Slovenian Government (2026), written input, p. 4. 
14    Draft  amendments  to  the  Regulation  on  the  protection  of  certain  persons,  premises,  facilities,  and 
surroundings of facilities protected by the police. Slovenian Government (2026a), additional written input, 
p. 6. Additionally, revision of the  Rules on the Determination of Security Standards for Court Operations 
and of the Court Rules of Procedure is envisaged. 

15    Slovenian Government (2026), written input, p. 2, and Judicial Council (2026a), additional written input, p. 

1. 

16    Supreme Court (2026c), additional written input, p. 5. 
17   Slovenian Government (2026), written input, p. 2. 
18    For example, in February 2026, the Higher Court in Ljubljana, based on a report by investigative journalists 
and request of the Judicial Council, examined the allocation of several criminal cases concerning a mayor 
and  did  not  find  any  irregularities.  Higher  Court  of  Ljubljana  (2026).  In  November  2025,  the  Judicial 
Council dismissed the Ljubljana District Court President in the function of court president due to breaches 
of case allocation rules. Judicial Council (2025). 

4 

 
 
Quality  

The new Courts Act introduced a reform of the judicial map to take effect on 1 January 
2027.  The  new  Courts  Act  will,  from  1  January  2027,  merge  District  and  Local  Courts, 
keeping  11  District  Courts  only  and  making  all  first  instance  judges  into  District  Court 
judges, while retaining the geographical distribution of court units19. Its primary objective is 
to  balance  the  workload  among  judges,  reduce  vulnerability  to  staff  absences,  improve 
specialisation  and  increase  consistency  of  case  law,  thereby  enhancing  the  efficiency  and 
quality of justice20. The new act increased the responsibility of court presidents to ensure the 
effective  functioning  of  the  court21.  Every  year,  the  court  presidents  must,  by  means  of  an 
annual work schedule, determine the types of cases and geographical court units in which the 
judges  of  a  District  Court  will  work22.  The  Judicial  Council  raised  concerns  about  the 
postponement  of  decisions  on  the  jurisdiction  of  geographical  court  units  and  its  potential 
impact on legal certainty for court users and the overall functioning of the justice system23. In 
February 2026, the Supreme Court President and the Minister of Justice held the first meeting 
of  the  umbrella  working  group,  supervising  several  sub-groups,  to  ensure  a  systematic  and 
coordinated implementation of the new judicial legislation, including the new judicial map24. 
In parallel,  the amendments  to the State Prosecution  Office Act  aligned the title, rights and 
responsibilities of state prosecutors with the new framework for judges25. 

Digitalisation of the workflows in courts continued, including on the introduction of new 
electronic communication tools. All courts have advanced case management tools in place, 
which also  assist the Supreme Court in the allocation of resources26. Efforts are ongoing to 
close the digitalisation gap concerning the electronic communication tools used by courts and 
court users27. Since 30 March 2026, court users can file and receive documents electronically 
in all types of civil cases before first instance civil courts28. The launch of the new e-Sodstvo 
portal  is  scheduled for July  2026. The portal  will operate as  a single-entry point, providing 

19    Currently, the court system has 55 first instance courts (44 Local Courts and 11 District Courts). 2024 Rule 

of Law Report, Slovenia, p. 10.  

20    Slovenian Government (2026), written input, p. 2. 
21    The  act has  introduced  mandatory  internal  audits  of  the  court  administration  every  three  years,  shortened 
the term of court presidents (from six to five years) with the possibility of one reappointment at the same 
court, and enabled the suspension of a court president. 

22    The judges may challenge the annual work schedule before the Personnel Council of the Higher Court. 
23    According to the Judicial Council, the issue is exacerbated by the fact that none of the procedural acts have 
so  far  been  amended  which  means  that  the  existing  provisions  on  the  subject-matter  and  territorial 
jurisdiction of the courts remain in force. Judicial Council (2026a), additional written input, p. 1. 

24    Supreme Court (2026c), additional written input, and Supreme Court (2026d). 
25    Local  state  prosecutors  will  become  District  state  prosecutors.  State  prosecutors of  all  ranks  (also  Higher 
and Supreme) will be able to appear before District Courts. Slovenian Government (2026), written input, p. 
3. The  2025 Rule of Law  Report,  Slovenia (p. 7) mentioned plans to  transfer the power to promote  state 
prosecutors from the Government to the State Prosecutorial Council - they have been postponed for the next 
revision. Country visit Slovenia, Ministry of Justice. In March  2026, 238 out of 268 state prosecutor posts 
were occupied (up from 216 at year-end 2024). Slovenian Government (2026a), additional written input. 

26    Figures 39-47, 2026 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
27    In  December  2025,  a  digitalised  workflow  was  introduced  also  in  the  Administrative  Court.  Since  1 
December 2025, court users have been able to file and receive documents electronically in administrative 
disputes  before  the  Administrative  Court.  This  follows  the  Order  determining  the  date  from  which 
electronic filing and electronic service of documents may be used in administrative disputes in proceedings 
before the Administrative Court. Improvements can be seen particularly in figures 44 and 45 of the 2026 
EU Justice Scoreboard. 

28    Supreme  Court  (2026a).  This  follows  the  Order  determining  the  date  from  which  electronic  filing  and 
electronic  service  of  documents  may  be  used  in  all  civil  judicial  proceedings  before  courts  of  general 
jurisdiction at first instance. 

5 

 
 
users with access to electronic judicial services and content that are currently dispersed across 
various  websites.  User  identification  and  authentication  will  be  carried  out  through  the 
national  SI-PASS  system.  Speech-to-text  systems  are  implemented  in  all  courts,  with  text 
recognition aided by AI. In 2025, real-time subtitling of court hearings for hearing impaired 
users  was  introduced  in  19  courtrooms  across  Slovenia29.  The  Supreme  Court  developed 
several  IT  tools  to  be  introduced  by  August  2026;  amongst  them,  the  new  Centre  for 
digitising  all incoming paper court documents, an eSessions tool to  support Supreme Court 
judges,  and  the  Knowledge  database  tool  incorporating  three  AI-powered  modules30. 
Digitalisation  gaps remain in  criminal  proceedings, particularly  in  state prosecution offices; 
this is expected to be addressed by the project to upgrade the electronic equipment, including 
integrating  AI31.  A  pilot  project  to  introduce  electronic  communication  among  courts,  state 
prosecution  offices  and  other  participants  was  postponed  to  202632.  Testing  of  electronic 
communication between state prosecution offices and police took place in 2025 but does not 
yet cover all offices33. The new Courts Act mandated the online publication of first instance 
judgments from January 202734. 

While  salaries  of  judges  and  state  prosecutors  are  being  gradually  increased  by  2028, 
questions have been raised about their level. As previously reported, the salaries of judges 
and state prosecutors are being gradually increased between January 2025 and January 2028 
as  provided  for  by  the  Public  Sector  Salary  System  Act35.  The  law  also  provides  for  an 
automatic  indexation  mechanism36.  In  January  2026,  the  Judicial  Council  requested  the 
Constitutional Court to review the constitutionality of the Common Foundations of the Public 
Sector Salary System Act as far as it concerns the salaries of judges, as it considers there is an 
unjustified difference with the salaries of members of Parliament, and inadequate alignment 
with inflation37. 

29    Slovenian Government (2026), written input, p. 5, and Supreme Court (2026b). The project was  supported 
by  the  target  105  under  the  Recovery  and  Resilience  Plan.  The  target  is  part  of  the  seventh,  and  last 
payment request due to be submitted by the Slovenian authorities by 31 August 2026 and has therefore not 
yet been assessed by the Commission. 

30    The  Central  Documentation  Digitisation  Centre  will  be  operational  from  June  2026.  Supreme  Court 
(2026a).  E-Sessions  tool  will  facilitate  the  overview  of  case-load,  sharing  of  documents  and  drafting  of 
judgments. Knowledge database will include an AI assisted research/legal/keyword identification analysis 
tools. This was supported by the target 105 under the Recovery and Resilience Plan, not yet assessed by the 
Commission. Slovenian Government (2026), written input, pp. 5-6. 

31    Figure 43, 2026 EU Justice Scoreboard. Integrating AI is a project of the Supreme State Prosecution Office 
supported  by  the  target  105  under  the  Recovery  and  Resilience  Plan,  which  is  part  of  the  last  payment 
request due by 31 August 2026, and has therefore not yet been assessed by the Commission. The AI would 
be used only as a support tool for prosecutors to draft and retrieve information in complex cases. Slovenian 
Government (2026), written input, pp. 4 and 6. 
32    Slovenian Government (2026), written input, p. 6. 
33    As of 15 December 2025, the exchange covers the entire territory, apart from the Ljubljana District State 
Prosecution  Office  (less  complex  cases  only),  the  Specialised  State  Prosecution  Office  and  the  National 
Bureau of Investigation. Slovenian Government (2026), written input, p. 6. 

34    Figure 46 in the 2026 EU Justice Scoreboard shows that the rate of publication of judgments is among the 

lowest in the EU. 

35    2025 Rule of Law Report, Slovenia, pp. 6-7. 
36    If  no  agreement  is  reached  through  negotiations,  salary  grades  will  be  by  law  automatically  adjusted  by 

80% of the increase in the cost of living. 

37    Judicial  Council  (2026b).  The  Association  of  Judges  further  raised  concerns  about  the  mechanism  for 
indexation  of  salaries.  It  argued  that  negotiations  of  trade  unions  with  the  Government  may  lead  to 
improvements  only  for  certain  categories  of  public  officials,  while  judges’  salaries  might  remain 
unchanged. Country visit Slovenia, Association of Judges. 

6 

 
 
The  Bar  Association  is  challenging  the  lawyers’  fees  for  legal  aid  cases  before  the 
Administrative  Court.  The  fee,  which  sets  the  basis  for  remuneration  of  lawyers  when 
working in legal aid cases and for the legal costs borne by the losing party in civil cases, has 
not  been  changed  since  2019,  despite  the  cumulative  inflation  reaching  more  than  26%  by 
December 202538. Since 2022, the Bar Association has repeatedly called on the Ministry of 
Justice  to  increase  the  fees.  In  October  2025,  the  Administrative  Court,  on  the  Bar 
Association’s  initiative,  ordered  the  Ministry  of  Justice  to  respond  to  the  request,  and  in 
January  2026,  the  Ministry  rejected  the  requested  increase39.  Subsequently,  the  Bar 
Association in February 2026 challenged the level of lawyers’ fees before the Administrative 
Court; the court’s decision is pending. The Ministry of Justice stated it will continue to seek a 
solution  that  would  allow  for  the  adjustment  of  the  value  of  the  attorney’s  fee  point,  while 
taking  into  account  public  finance  constraints,  the  principle  of  sustainable  public  spending, 
and the status of the legal profession as an autonomous and independent service. 

Efficiency 

While  the  number  of  resolved  cases  remained  broadly  stable,  the  overall  backlog 
further increased and the length  of trials  remained  a challenge, particularly in money 
laundering  and  corruption  cases.  The  justice  system  continued  to  function  efficiently  in 
general,  compared  to  2024  data,  except  in  administrative  cases,  where  further  increases  in 
caseload have caused challenges40. In 2025, the total backlog of court cases further increased 
by 3%, despite the caseload decreasing by 1%, while the number of resolved cases, following 
the  Supreme  Court’s  efforts,  remained  broadly  stable41.  The  Supreme  Court  raised 
concentrating the court hearings as a possible solution for expediting the proceedings42. The 
overall  backlog  increased  for  courts  with  the  exception  of  the  Supreme  Court,  Local,  and 
Labour and Social courts. In 2025, the average length of proceedings at first instance courts 
improved  in  civil  cases,  remained  stable  in  commercial  cases  and  increased  in  criminal 
cases43. The time needed  for the first  instance courts to  conduct  the first  hearing stagnated, 
taking up to 21 months in civil and 16 months in commercial cases. At first instance criminal 
courts, the average length in 2024 decreased to 739 days in money laundering offences (926 
days in 2023) and increased in corruption offences (597 days) – remaining the fifth and third 
longest  in  the  EU,  respectively44.  The  continued  increase  in  the  administrative  courts’ 
caseload (by 2% in 2025, compared to 2024) is partly due to new competences of the court, 
introduced by different legislative amendments. Alongside a high load of priority cases, this 
has led to  a further increase in pending  cases  (by 2% year-end 2025), despite a  further 4% 
increase in resolved cases.  

38    Country visit Slovenia, Bar Association. 
39    Judgment  of  the  Administrative  Court  of  22  October  2024,  U-I-2199-2024-22.  Bar  Association  (2026), 

additional written input. 

40    In 2024, the estimated time for resolving litigious civil and commercial cases increased to 355 days (344 in 
2023),  and  for  administrative  cases  decreased  to  570  days  (627  in  2023).  Figures  1-14,  2026  EU  Justice 
Scoreboard. 

41    See 2025 Rule of Law Report, Slovenia, p. 8, on Supreme Court’s measures resulting in an increase in the 
number of resolved cases. All 2025 court data provided by Supreme Court (2026c), written input, p. 2. 
42    Currently,  the  court  hearings  are  spread  out  and  could  be  months  apart.  However,  court  presidents  have 
limited powers to encourage concentrated hearings over several days and the Judicial Council would likely 
need  to  adjust  the  standards  regarding  the  expected  amount  of  work  for  judges  when  it  decides  on  their 
promotion. Country visit Slovenia, Supreme Court, and Supreme Court (2026c), additional written input. 
43    In  2025,  the  average  length  at  district  courts  was  24,9  months  in  large  value  civil  cases  (25,7  months  in 
2024,  13  months  in  litigious  commercial  cases,  and  22,9  months  in  more  serious  criminal  cases  (20,7  in 
2024). Supreme Court (2026c), written input, p. 2. 

44    Figures 20 and 21, 2026 EU Justice Scoreboard. 

7 

 
 
The  measures  to  address  the  Constitutional  Court’s  caseload  have  contributed  to  a 
significant reduction in backlog. As previously reported, the Constitutional Court has been 
raising concerns about its considerable caseload, which prevented the Court from dedicating 
more attention to the most constitutionally relevant cases45. In 2025, the Constitutional Court 
again  further  reduced  its  backlog  by  25%,  including  the  oldest  pending  cases,  while  it  also 
received  nearly  21%  fewer  cases46.  In  2025,  the  average  time  needed  to  conclude  a 
constitutionality review before the Constitutional Court decreased to 456 days (472 in 2024) 
while constitutional complaints took around 379 days on average (460 in 2024)47. As reported 
in 2025, following a call by the Constitutional Court, former Parliament adopted amendments 
allowing  the  Court  to  establish  the  incompatibility  of  office  of  its  members48.  Until  March 
2026, no such procedures were conducted49. 

II. 

ANTI-CORRUPTION FRAMEWORK  

The  perception  among  experts,  citizens  and  business  executives  is  that  the  level  of 
corruption  in  the  public  sector  remains  relatively  high.  In  the  2025  Corruption 
Perceptions  Index  by  Transparency  International,  Slovenia  scores  58/100  and  ranks  15th  in 
the  EU  and  41st  globally50.  This  perception  has  been  relatively  stable  over  the  past  five 
years51.  The  2026  Special  Eurobarometer  on  Corruption  shows  that  90%  of  respondents 
consider corruption widespread in their country (EU average 71%) and 36% of respondents 
feel  personally  affected  by  corruption  in  their  daily  lives  (EU  average  30%).  As  regards 
businesses, 89% of companies consider that corruption is widespread (EU average 65%) and 
53%  consider  that  corruption  is  a  problem  when  doing  business  (EU  average  37%). 
Furthermore, 26% of respondents find that there are enough successful prosecutions to deter 
people  from  corrupt  practices  (EU  average  38%),  while  24%  of  companies  believe  that 
people  and  businesses  caught  for  bribing  a  senior  official  are  appropriately  punished  (EU 
average 31%)52. 

The  implementation  of  the  Resolution  on  the  Prevention  of  Corruption  (the  national 
anti-corruption  strategy)  and  its  2025-2030  Action  Plan  is  ongoing.  Progress  on  the 
measures  set  out  in  the  Action  Plan  are  to  be  reported  annually  to  the  Commission  of 
Prevention  of  Corruption  (CPC),  which  is  the  central  coordination  body  responsible  for 
implementation,  monitoring, reporting and evaluation  of the strategy.  The first  reporting  on 

45   While Parliament in 2025 rejected the constitutional amendments which aimed to reduce the Constitutional 
Court’s  caseload,  the  Constitutional  Court  allowed  the  review  of  spatial  planning  acts  before  the 
administrative courts to continue, while ordering Parliament to resolve the constitutionality issue within one 
year. 2025 Rule of Law Report, Slovenia, p. 19. See also 2024 Rule of Law Report, Slovenia, p. 31; and 
2023 Rule of Law Report, Slovenia, p. 30. 

46   In 2025, the Constitutional Court received 1 056 cases (1 330 in 2024). It resolved 12% more cases than in 
2024.  At year-end 2025, the Court had  874 pending cases (1 173 year-end 2024), of which, a total of  27 
cases older than two years remained pending (79 at year-end 2024). This is a notable improvement, as at the 
end of 2021, there were 553 cases pending that were up to 5 years old. Data provided by the Constitutional 
Court.  

47   Data provided by the Constitutional Court. 
48   2025 Rule of Law Report, Slovenia, pp. 19-20. 
49   Country visit Slovenia, Constitutional Court. 
50   The level of perceived corruption is categorised as follows: low (above 79); relatively low (between 79-60), 

relatively high (between 59-50), high (below 50). 

51   In 2021 the score was 57, while, in 2025, the score is 58. The score significantly increases/decreases when 
it  changes  more  than  five  points;  improves/deteriorates  (changes  between  4-5 points);  has  been  relatively 
stable (changes from 1-3 points) in the last five years. 

52   Data from Special Eurobarometer 573 (2026) and Flash Eurobarometer 582 (2026).  

8 

 
 
implementation progress under the Resolution was included in the Annual Report of the CPC 
published in May 202653.  

While  some  efforts  are  ongoing  to  strengthen  capacities  of  state  prosecution  offices, 
there has been limited further progress on the recommendation to ensure a track record 
of  investigations,  prosecutions  and  final  judgments  in  corruption  offences54.  The  State 
Prosecution Office reported higher numbers of requests for judicial investigation, indictments 
and convictions in 202555, indicating that increase resulted from the handling of three large-
scale  cases56.  The  investigation  and  prosecution  of  high-level  cases  remain  limited.  As  of 
March  2026,  the  State  Prosecution  Office  was  handling  four  new  cases  of  high-level 
corruption alongside two existing ones, while one case was discontinued by the prosecution57. 
Some efforts are ongoing to strengthen capacities of the state prosecution offices, particularly 
through increasing the number of state prosecutors58. In 2025, one judgment was delivered in 
a  high-level  corruption  case,  the  second  judgment  of  this  nature  since  202059.  The  police 
raised the insufficient level of human resources as an obstacle to higher detection60. In 2025, 
the police transmitted 26 corruption cases to the state prosecution offices61. Both the police 
and the state prosecutors continued to underline the challenges raised by the high evidentiary 
threshold resulting from the 2024 amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act62, following the 
2023 judgment of the Constitutional Court63. From  2027, the gradual  reform  of the judicial 

53   CPC  (2026),  2025  Annual  Report,  p.  64  and  following.  The  first  reporting  on  the  implementation  of  the 
measures of the Action Plan was completed in February 2026. According to CPC, it received 1150 reports: 
18 from ministries, 127 from municipalities, 34 from health centres and hospitals, 49 from administrative 
units  and  12  from  inspectorates.  The  CPC  underlined  the  lack  of  concrete  indications  of  the  activities 
performed in 2025 and that reporting by authorities is overly general. 

54   The 2025 Rule of Law Report recommended Slovenia to ‘take further measures  to ensure a track record of 
investigations,  prosecutions  and  final  judgments  in  corruption  offences,  including  in  high-level  cases’. 
Some progress was previously assessed on this recommendation in 2024 and 2025. 

55   In 2025, state prosecutors requested investigative judges to conduct 138 investigations (12 in 2024 and 89 
in  2023)  and  launched  104  indictments  (13  in  2024,  33  in  2023)  on  corruption.  Courts  adjudicated  44 
corruption cases at first instance (15 in 2024 and 29 in 2023). Slovenian Government (2026), written input, 
p. 12.  

56   These data relate to three large cases with 10-40 convicted persons in each, concerning falsified COVID-19 
vaccination  certificates,  healthcare  equipment  procurement,  and  falsified  technical  inspection  of  vehicles 
certificates. Country visit Slovenia, Specialised State Prosecution Office. 

57   In October 2025, the Specialised State Prosecution Office dropped the prosecution against a former minister 

for alleged abuse of office. Country visit Slovenia, Specialised State Prosecution Office.  

58    In  March  2026,  238  out  of  268  state  prosecutor  posts  were  occupied  (up  from  216  at  year-end  2024). 
Slovenian Government (2026a), additional written input. See above, section on Quality of justice  system, 
paragraph on the judicial map reform. 

59    It  concerned  a  former  director  of  a  public  agency.  Country  visit  Slovenia,  Specialised  State  Prosecution 

Office. 2025 Rule of Law Report, Slovenia, p. 10; 2024 Rule of Law Report, Slovenia, p. 14. 

60   77%  of  criminal  complaints  and  supplementary  reports  filed  for  corruption  offences  are  detected  by  the 
police.  The  General  Police  Directorate  informed  that  about  30  police  officers  investigate  corruption 
offences, while around 100 would be needed. Country visit Slovenia, National Bureau of Investigation and 
General Police Directorate (Economic Crime Division). 

61   Data concerns criminal offences against official duty and public authority and related to active and passive 
bribery  of  public  officials  and  persons  vested  with  public  authority  in  the  areas  of  administrative 
procedures,  public  procurement  procedures,  police  procedures,  and  the  regulation  of  forestry  activities. 
Figures are below the ten-year average of 147.8 cases per year (695 in 2024, where several open and major 
cases were concluded by the police; 212 in 2023). General Police Directorate (Economic Crime Division) 
(2026), additional written input. 

62   2025 Rule of Law Report, Slovenia, p. 10. This also concerns access to information where a suspect has a 
bank  account,  which  requires  a  court  order.  Country  visit  Slovenia,  Specialised  State  Prosecution  Office 
and National Bureau of Investigation.  
Judgment of the Constitutional Court U-I-144/19_3 of 6 July 2023. 

63 

9 

 
 
map is expected to allow for greater specialisation and a more even distribution of workload 
among judges, which could expedite the resolution of corruption cases64. The Supreme State 
Prosecution  Office  is  implementing  a  project65  to  strengthen  capacities  to  investigate  and 
prosecute economic crimes, including corruption66. In December 2025, a first meeting of the 
prosecution’s working  group focusing on the  abuse of position discussed  faster handling of 
such cases, specialised training and possible amendments regarding the special investigative 
measures. The cooperation between the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and the national 
prosecutions  offices  continues  to  function  well67.  Considering  the  modest  results  in 
investigation,  and  moderate  results  in  prosecution  and  final  judgments,  including  regarding 
high-level  corruption  cases,  and  some  efforts  to  strengthen  capacities  of  state  prosecution 
offices, there has been limited further progress in the implementation of the recommendation. 

While  its  technical  and  human  resources  remained  stable,  the  Commission  for  the 
Prevention  of  Corruption  reported  attempts  to  undermine  its  credibility.  The  publicly 
accessible web portal ‘ERAR’, managed by the CPC and providing data on the use of public 
money,  continued  to  function  reliably  with  high  daily  traffic  throughout  the  year68.  This 
follows  technical  improvements  made  in  2025  regarding  the  quality  of  information69.  The 
CPC’s  internal  system  and  database  ‘Corruptio’  is  being  upgraded  to  allow  the  electronic 
completion and submission  of  forms  relating  notably  to  lobbying contacts, lists of received 
gifts and registration of individuals subject to asset declaration obligations. The CPC’s 2025 
budget remained similar to that of 2024, while its staff slightly increased to 51 employees70. 
At  the  same  time,  the  CPC  argued  that  lawsuits  challenging  its  powers  threaten  its 
independence and discredit its institutional reputation71. Civil society similarly considers that 
such political pressure and legal challenges could hinder the CPC’s capacity to carry out its 
mandate72.  

The  new  Public  Employees  Act  unified  the  regulation  of  conflicts  of  interest  for  all 
public officials. As of 1 January 2026, all public officials fall under the CPC’s jurisdiction, 
which  is  competent  to  review  all  cases  of  conflict  of  interest73.  Any  activity  intended  to 
generate  income  or  material  gain  must  be  notified  in  advance  to  their  superiors,  who  may 
prohibit  it  under  certain  conditions.  According  to  the  CPC,  this  is  expected  to  improve  the 

64   See above, Quality and Efficiency of the Justice System. Slovenian Government (2026), written input, p. 2. 
At first instance courts, the average length in 2024 in bribery cases was  the  third longest in the EU  (597 
days). In 2025, it decreased to 574 days. 

65   EU funded project under the Technical Support Instrument: “Public Prosecutor capacity to fight Economic 
and Financial Crime” (October 2025 - October 2027). It includes the drafting of recommendations for the 
legal  framework  in  cooperation  with  the  Council  of  Europe,  exchange  of  best  practices  with  prosecutors 
from other Member States, and the development of a training strategy.  

66   Slovenian Government (2026), written input, p. 8.  
67   EPPO (2026), written input, p. 64.  
68   More than 300 000 accesses per day, Country visit Slovenia, CPC.  
69   Country visit Slovenia, CPC. 
70   CPC’s  budget  for  2026  is  EUR  3.2  million  (3.1  million  in  2025).  Slovenian  Government  (2026),  written 
input, p. 9. In 2024, CPC operated with 44 employees. Slovenian Government (2026), written input, p. 9. 
71   CPC  considered  that  certain  lawsuits  filed  against  it  went  beyond  opposing  the  content  of  the  CPC’s 
decisions  and  recommendations,  challenging  CPC’s  powers  to  issue  them.  Country  visit  Slovenia,  CPC. 
This has led to the publication of an open letter by the CPC President addressed to the Prime Minister. CPC 
(2025). Prime minister’s Cabinet rejected the statements and, among others, stated that the Government has 
increased the CPC’s budget and their salaries. Cabinet of the Prime Minister (2026). 

72   Country visit Slovenia, Transparency International.  
73   Following  the  new  Public  Employees  Act  adopted  in  April  2025,  which  entered  into  force  on  1  January 
2026.  Previously,  the  CPC  was  only  competent  for  high-level  officials  and  hierarchically  superior  public 
officials were responsible for preventing the conflict of interest of public employees. 

10 

 
 
consistency  of  the  framework  on  conflicts  of  interest.  The  CPC  plans  to  recruit,  within  its 
existing 2026 budget, two additional members of staff to address the increased workload. At 
the time of reporting, one of these positions has already been filled74.  It also underlines the 
need to raise awareness on the rules on conflicts of interest, particularly  at local level75. To 
address GRECO recommendations76, a protocol is under preparation77 to establish preventive 
mechanisms applicable to members of Government in the areas of conflicts of interest, gifts, 
incompatibilities, assets reporting and lobbying. The CPC continues to monitor high volumes 
of  asset  declarations,  although  its  effectiveness  is  reportedly  constrained  by  limited  human 
resources78. The CPC issued recommendations to tackle risks related to the transfer of State 
officials to State-owned companies79.  

The  Commission  for  the  Prevention  of  Corruption  continued  to  underline  the  low 
reporting  levels  of  lobbying  contacts80.  On  31  December  2025,  the  CPC  maintained  a 
public  register  of  84  registered  professional  lobbyists81,  of  which  only  45  submitted  their 
mandatory  lobbying  activity  reports82.  Civil  society  considered  that  many  meetings  at 
national  and local  level  were not  registered and  continued to  advocate for the  alignment of 
the respective reporting deadlines for contacts  between interest  representatives and officials 
to improve the functioning of the lobbying system83.  

In  its  final  report  on  alleged  illegal  financing  of  certain  political  parties  in  the  2022 
elections, the former parliamentary majority concluded that funding from state-owned 
enterprises  and  other  public  sources  were  channelled  to  political  parties.  Following  an 
inquiry, the former parliamentary majority  also  concluded that this may  have circumvented 
the  strict  political  party  financing  rules  which  prohibit  funding  by  legal  entities.  It 
recommended strengthening the control over the financing of political parties and revising the 
Integrity and Prevention of Corruption Act to also cover political party secretary generals84. 
The Court of Audit continues to monitor the financing of political parties on a sample basis 
every  year,  and  of  election  campaigns,  particularly  focusing  on  compliance  with  bans  on 
corporate  funding  and  strict  limits  on  individual  donations85.  Among  the  challenges,  the 
Court  of  Audit  highlighted  the  circumventions  of  the  ban  on  corporate  donations,  non-
monetary contributions to political parties and a blur between regular and other activities in 
campaigns. 

74   Country visit Slovenia, CPC.  
75   CPC (2025), p. 24.  
76   GRECO (2025). GRECO recommended that an integrity plan be established in respect of the Government, 
as  an  overarching  structure  to  the  plans  existing  in  each  ministry  (recommendation  iii).  GRECO  also 
recommended  developing  within  the  Government  an  organisational  strategy  and  practices  to  improve  the 
management  of  conflicts  of  interest,  including  through  responsive  advisory,  monitoring  and  compliance 
mechanisms (recommendation iv). 

77   Protocol on the Conduct of the Government for Managing Corruption Risks. Slovenian Government (2026), 

written input, p. 11. 

78   Country visit Slovenia, CPC.  
79   In  a  recruitment  procedure  from  the  former  Government  to  the  Slovenian  Sovereign  Holding,  the  CPC 
identified  several  corruption  risks.  CPC  (2026).  The  former  Government  has  challenged  in  court  the 
competence  of  CPC  to  adopt  such  a  recommendation,  which  raised  concerns  of  the  CPC.  Country  visit 
Slovenia, CPC.  

80   2024 Rule of Law Report, Slovenia, p. 12. CPC (2025), p. 30.  
81   CPC, Lobbying register, https://www.kpk-rs.si/sl/instituti/lobiranje/register-lobistov 
82   CPC (2025), p. 32. 
83   For example, apparent lack of reporting included a former minister.  Country visit Slovenia, Transparency 

International.  
84   Parliament (2026a). 
85   Country visit Slovenia, Court of Audit.  

11 

 
 
The number of whistleblowers who have been granted a protection status increased in 
2025, indicating better awareness of the law and the protection it provides. In 2025, the 
CPC  granted  the  status  of  protected  reporting  person  to  23  individuals  (compared  to  seven 
over  the  past  two  years).  However,  very  few  reports  related  to  corruption  cases  despite 
awareness raising of whistleblower protection86. The CPC continued to provide training and 
guidance  to  stakeholders  regarding  reporting  channels  and  whistleblower  protection  and 
raised awareness about its role in detecting corruption. The CPC also conducted an analysis 
of  internal  reporting  channels  in  municipalities  and  concluded  that  66  municipalities  out  of 
212  in  total  did  not  establish  an  internal  reporting  channel.  It  thereafter  provided 
recommendations and assistance to municipalities in this regard87. 

Large infrastructure projects and the healthcare sector are  considered, among others, 
as  high-risk  areas,  and  the  CPC  issued  recommendations  to  the  Government  on 
necessary  corruption prevention measures  in large infrastructure projects.  Businesses’ 
attitudes towards corruption in the EU show that 30% of companies in Slovenia (EU average 
30%) think that corruption has prevented them from winning a public tender in practice in the 
last  three  years88.  59%  of  businesses  perceive  the  level  of  independence  of  the  public 
procurement  review  body  (National  Review  Commission)  as  very  or  fairly  good  when  it  is 
reviewing  public  procurement  cases89..The  Single  Market  and  Competitiveness  Scoreboard 
on access to public procurement in Slovenia reports 44% of single bids for 2025 (EU average 
27%). The Ministry of Public Administration continued to implement two multi-year action 
plans,  namely  the  Plan  to  increase  competition  in  public  procurement  (2025-2030)  and  the 
Public  Procurement  Digital  Transformation  Plan  (2025-2030),  which  aim  to  increase 
transparency, professionalisation and analytics and upgrade e-procurement capabilities90. The 
National  Review  Commission  expressed  support  for  the  simplification  of  the  public 
procurement  procedures  and  for  the  introduction  of  a  single  information  system  for  public 
procurement, both of which would lower the administrative burden on SMEs91. The Court of 
Audit  considered  large  infrastructure  projects,  healthcare  public  procurement,  spatial 
planning and granting licences at local level as high-risk areas92. Civil society underlined that 
infrastructure projects, such as railways and the healthcare sector, are high-risk areas93. The 
CPC  issued  a  recommendation  related  to  major  infrastructure  projects94,  calling  for  the 
adoption  of  a  framework  law  that  would  regulate  the  entire  process  from  planning  to 

86   Country visit Slovenia, CPC and Transparency International. 
87   Slovenian Government (2026), written input p. 10. 
88   Flash Eurobarometer 582 on Businesses’ attitudes towards corruption in the EU (2026). This is equal to the 

EU average. 

89   Figure 59, 2026 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
90   Ibidem. 
91    The  publication  of  the  contract  notice  and  results  has  been  digitalised  already  for  several  years,  but  the 
public  procurement  procedure  is  currently  conducted  in  several  ICT  systems  that  could  be  unified. 
According  to  the  National  Review  Commission,  risks  of  fraud  in  public  procurement  exist  especially  in 
needs  planning,  preparation  of  procurement  documents  and  in  formulating  the  conditions,  whereas  the 
procedure  after  publishing  the  tender  is  rather  transparent  and  subject  to  effective  review.  Country  visit 
Slovenia, National Review Commission. 

92    Country visit Slovenia, Court of Audit. 
93   Country visit Slovenia, Transparency International.  
94   The  Resolution  on  the  Prevention  of  Corruption  underlines  that  “corruption  risks  are  prominent  in  major 
public  investment  projects  in  the  field  of  infrastructure,  supported  by  large  financial  resources.  In  these 
investment projects, there are significant risks of rigging of public contracts in favour of a particular bidder, 
undue influence in the process of awarding public contracts, cartel agreements between bidders, bribery and 
unauthorised, undeclared gifts, and abuse”. 

12 

 
 
monitoring  implementation  and  would  include  corruption  preventive  measures  at  various 
stages95. A follow-up to this recommendation is still pending.   

III.  MEDIA PLURALISM AND MEDIA FREEDOM  

The  media  regulator  generally  remains  independent,  while  some  concerns  persist 
regarding  its  human  and  financial  resources.  The  media  regulator  (Agency  for 
Communication Networks and Services, AKOS96) continues to be generally functionally and 
operationally  independent  in  its  role  of  overseeing  the  media  market,  although  certain 
challenges persist that might increase its vulnerability to political influence on programming 
work  and  financial  management97.  As  in  2025,  the  Media  Pluralism  Monitor  2026  (MPM) 
notes medium-low risk for the indicators regarding the independence and effectiveness of the 
media  regulatory  authorities,  while  highlighting  ongoing  concerns  about  the  Government’s 
role  in  appointing  its  leadership98.  Some  stakeholders  flagged  the  concerns  regarding  the 
appointment  procedures  allowing  for  some  level  of  continued  governmental  influence99. 
Regarding the financial  resources,  AKOS funding remained separate from  the  state budget, 
relying instead on a self-financing system based on contributions from the undertakings under 
its  regulatory  remit.  However,  as  in  previous  years,  stakeholders  reported  that  AKOS, 
considering  the  large  scope  of  assigned  tasks,  has  limited  human  and  financial  resources, 
which may affect its effectiveness100.  

Efforts to improve governance of the public service media are ongoing. The appointment 
procedure  established  in  2022  for  the  management  bodies  of  the  public  service  media, 
comprising  members  that  are  not  politically  appointed,  continues  to  be  favourably  received 
for  the  positive  effect  on  the  independence  of  RTV  Slovenia,  as  also  reported  by  a  civil 
society organisation101. In the assessment of the MPM, independence of public service media 
scored  within  the  medium-low  risk  band102,  and  programme  creators  of  RTV  Slovenia 
continue  to  be  generally  assessed  by  stakeholders  as  independent  and  autonomous  in  their 
professional  work103.  Despite  positive  developments  in  public  service  media  noted  in  the 
2025  Report104,  stakeholders  continue  to  report  challenges  in  implementing  the  new 
governance framework, referring to partially overlapping responsibilities and their perception 
of  a  lack  of  clarity  in  the  allocation  of  competences  between  the  RTV  Council  and  the 
Management Board, particularly in areas such as interpreting statutory obligations, funding, 
and strategic decisions105. In December 2025, the former Parliament adopted amendments to 

95   Slovenian Government (2026), written input, p. 10, and Country visit Slovenia, CPC.  
96   AKOS was designated Digital Services Coordinator in March 2024. 
97   Electronic Communications Act, Arts. 115-122. The Government issues consent regarding the programme 
of work and the financial plan of the Agency. The Agency must prepare annually a report on its work and a 
business report and consent of the Government is required for both reports. 

98   The  current  mechanism of  appointment of  AKOS’s  director  and  members  of  the  AKOS  Council  remains 
under the direct control of the Government, raising some concerns among stakeholders regarding the level 
of political influence on the media regulator. 2025 Rule of Law Report, Slovenia, p. 14. Media Pluralism 
Monitor (2026), pp, 6, 15. 

99   Liberties (2026), p. 6. Similarly, 2025 Rule of Law Report, Slovenia, p. 14. 
100   Liberties  (2026),  p.  28;  The  Peace  Institute  (2026),  written  input,  p.  3;  Country  visit  Slovenia,  RTV 

Council. 

101   Rule of Law Report (2025), p. 15. Country visit Slovenia, Peace Institute. 
102   Media Pluralism Monitor (2026), pp. 23-24 
103   Country visit Slovenia, Association of Journalists. 
104   Particularly the reform regarding the appointment and dismissal of RTV’s management bodies. 2025 Rule 

of Law Report, Slovenia, p. 15. 

105   Country visit Slovenia, RTV Management. 

13 

 
 
the  RTV  Act,  including  a  delineation  of  competences  within  the  management  and  between 
the  management  and  the  RTV  Council,  and  to  better  distinguish  the  management  from 
supervisory responsibilities106.  

Former  Parliament  adopted  amendments  aimed  to  improve  the  sustainability  of 
funding  for  public  service  media,  while  certain  challenges  remain107.  The  former 
Government adopted new provisions regarding the funding for public service media, both for 
the public broadcaster (RTV) and the Slovenian Press Agency (STA). In December 2025, the 
former  Parliament  adopted  amendments  to  the  RTV  Act  with  the  aim  of  improving  the 
financial sustainability  of RTV108. The amendments,  among  others, define  the competences 
of the RTV Financial Board to ensure effective control of operations, aim to introduce greater 
transparency and verifiability of expenditures from the RTV licence fee, and provide for the 
funding  of  minority  programming  and  musical  production109.  Stakeholders  noted  that  the 
amendments  only  specify  budgetary  support  for  selected  programmes,  addressing  relatively 
short-term  funding  gaps110.  Despite  planned  restructuring  to  improve  the  efficiency  of 
available funds, RTV considered that the envisaged increase in funding will not be sufficient 
to ensure its long-term goals111. The main funding pillar of public service media continues to 
be a mandatory license fee, with an amount set by the Government, which was not changed 
by the adopted amendments112. In particular, the license fee for RTV Slovenia continues to 
depend  on  governmental  decisions  and  is  not  automatically  indexed  to  inflation,  limiting 
long-term financial predictability113. Some stakeholders expressed concerns about the funding 
model, as they consider it a potential risk for the independence of public service media114. In 
February  2026,  the  former  Parliament  adopted  a  new  Act  which  regulates  the  status, 
activities,  organisation,  and  financing  of  the  Slovenian  Press  Agency  (STA),  as  well  as  the 
oversight  of  its  operations115.  Among  others,  it  clarifies  the  public  service  remit,  which  are 
financed from the state budget116, and introduces a more structured net-cost financing model. 
Civil  society  organisation  assessed  the  reform  as  improving  long-term  funding,  ensuring 
more consistent implementation and stable future appropriations of STA117. Considering that 
the financial challenges of the STA have been addressed, while those of the RTV improved to 
a limited extent, there was limited further progress on the recommendation. 

While the media market remains concentrated, reforms were introduced to improve its 
transparency  and  functioning.  The  Slovenian  media  market  is  relatively  small  and 
financially constrained, which makes it particularly sensitive to concentration trends118. The 

106   Slovenian Parliament (2026), written input, p. 5. 
107   The 2025 Report recommended Slovenia to ‘complete reforms to ensure that the rules or mechanisms are in 
place to provide funding for public service media that is appropriate for the realisation of its public service 
remit  while  guaranteeing 
this 
recommendation in 2025. 

independence’.  Some  progress  was  previously  assessed  on 

its 

108   Country visit Slovenia, Ministry of Culture. 
109   Slovenian Parliament (2026), written input, p. 6. 
110   Liberties (2026), p. 28. Similarly, the Media Pluralism Monitor (2026), p. 27. 
111   Country visit Slovenia, RTV Management. 
112   Country visit Slovenia, CNVOS. 
113   Liberties (2026), p. 30; Country visit Slovenia, RTV Management. Some stakeholders raised that, despite 
the funding rules established by law, RTV management still needs to sign contracts with the Government 
on the annual transfer of funding, raising questions about the independence and predictability of funding. 

114   Peace Institute (2026), written input, p. 2; Slovenian Union of Journalists (2026), written input, p. 1. 
115   Act on the Slovenian Press Agency. Slovenian Parliament (2026), written input, p. 6. 
116   Liberties (2026), p. 28. 
117   Liberties (2026), pp. 40-41. 
118   Slovenian Government (2026), additional written input, p. 8. 

14 

 
 
MPM notes very high-risk bands for the plurality of media providers, as well as high risk for 
media  viability  and  editorial  independence  from  commercial  and  owner  influence.119 
However,  the  new  Media  Act120,  which  was  adopted  with  a  view  to  alignment  with  the 
European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), introduced media market concentration assessments, 
focusing on its impact on media pluralism and  editorial independence121 and some practical 
improvements  regarding  the  procedures  for  granting  broadcasting  licenses122.  During  the 
parliamentary procedure, civil society organisations raised concerns about reassigning media 
market  oversight  to  the  Competition  Protection  Agency  (AVK),  highlighting  the  lack  of 
formal involvement of the media regulator in the assessment procedure, and the absence of a 
public consultation on this matter123. As regards transparency of ownership, the new Media 
Act  provides  for  creating  a  new  ownership  database  to  disclose  data  on  media  ownership, 
including  indirect  ownership  and  beneficial  owners.  It  also  introduces  procedures  with  the 
aim of enhancing  the fair and transparent  allocation of state advertising and  requires  media 
service  providers  to  publicly  disclose  information  on  state  advertising  and  other  public 
funding  received124.  The  media  regulator  AKOS  called  for  more  clarity  on  their  role 
regarding the assessment of media market concentration125.  

The framework for accessing official information remained favourable, but journalists 
report some obstacles in practice. The legal framework regulating the access to information 
and  documents  remained  stable  and  is  generally  assessed  as  favourable126.  Moreover,  for 
access to public information held by any public body, media and journalists benefit from an 
accelerated  procedure  pursuant  to  the  Media  Act127.  Civil  society  and  professional 
organisations have reported some practical obstacles in  accessing information, including  an 
increasing number of complaints as well as lengthy complaint procedures128. Of the contested 
cases brought by journalists before the Administrative Court, more than half ended in favour 
of the journalists129. In general, the risk regarding protection of right to information has been 
assessed as low by the MPM130. 

Journalists  highlighted  persistent  difficult  working  conditions,  while  efforts  to 
strengthen  their  profession  and  introduce  self-regulation  continued.  Among  the  main 
challenges,  they  listed  layoffs,  low  pay,  and  precarious  employment  conditions,  including 
short-term  contracts,  which  negatively  affect  editorial  independence131.  Some  stakeholders 

119   Media Pluralism Monitor (2026), p. 17. 
120  On 27 September 2025, the Media Act entered into force, which marks the first comprehensive overhaul of 

media legislation in more than twenty years. 
121   Country visit Slovenia, Ministry of Culture. 
122   Country visit Slovenia, AKOS. 
123   Country visit Slovenia, CNVOS; Liberties (2026), p. 39; The Peace Institute (2026), written input, p. 3. 
124   Country visit Slovenia, Ministry of Culture. 
125   Country visit Slovenia, AKOS. 
126   Slovenia is a party to the Council of Europe Convention on Access to Official Documents, Access to Public 

Information Access Act. Country visit Slovenia, Association of Journalists. 

127   Art. 45, Media Act. 
128   Association  of  Journalists  (2025);  The  Peace  Institute  (2026),  written  input,  p. 6;  Country  visit  Slovenia, 

CNVOS. 

129   Association of Journalists (2025), pp. 1-2. In the past 17 years, the number of complaints submitted to the 
Information  Commissioner  has  increased  sevenfold,  while  journalists  represent  just  under  10%  of  all 
complainants.  Approximately  9–12%  of  decisions  are  subject  to  judicial  review  by  the  Administrative 
Court.  More  than  half  of  the  contested  cases  ended  in  favour  of  journalists.  Journalists  had  to  wait  on 
average two years to reach a decision. 

130   Media Pluralism Monitor (2026), p. 11. 
131   Country visit Slovenia, Association  of Journalists; Liberties (2026), p. 41; Slovenian Union of Journalists 

(2026), written input, p. 2; The Peace Institute (2026), written input, p. 3.  

15 

 
 
the economic sustainability  of  media  outlets, 

also reported occasional pressure linked to ownership interests132 and noted the absence of a 
sector-wide collective agreement protecting journalists in private media133. To address some 
challenges  for 
the  new  Media  Act 
introduced support  schemes  that  were generally  positively perceived  by  stakeholders134. 
Local  media  continue  to  be  almost  exclusively  supported  by  local  funding schemes,  while 
some are directly owned or controlled by local authorities, raising questions about the level-
playing field on the local media market135. Efforts continue to establish a journalistic council 
to  create  a  self-regulatory  body  that  could  contribute  to  strengthening  the  status  of 
journalists136.  Overall,  MPM  flags  medium-high  risk  for  the  protection  of  freedom  of 
expression and medium-low risk for the journalistic profession, standards and protection137. 

Some further progress was made on the recommendation to improve the protection of 
journalists,  while  challenges  remain,  pending  the  practical  application  of  new  laws138. 
With  a  view  to  alignment  with  EMFA,  the  new  Media  Act  adopted  in  September  2025 
enhanced protection of journalistic sources and stricter conditions for the use of surveillance 
measures  against  journalists  and  newsroom  devices  to  further  strengthen  the  safeguards  for 
journalists139.  Powers  under  the  Act  regarding  assistance  in  the  area  of  the  protection  of 
journalistic  sources  have  been  assigned  to  the  Culture  and  Media  Inspectorate  within  the 
Ministry  of  Culture140.  Further,  in  January  2026,  the  former  Parliament  adopted  the Act  on 
Protective  Measures  against  Strategic  Lawsuits  Against  Public  Participation  (‘Anti-SLAPP 
Act’),  which  provides  protection  in  both  cross-border  and  domestic  cases141.  Journalists 
pointed out that most SLAPP cases are brought in criminal courts, particularly on defamation 
and insult grounds, and are not covered by the Anti-SLAPP Act142. The new Act provides the 
possibility  to  apply  the  security-for-costs  also  in  criminal  proceedings143,  but  stakeholders 
consider that this is not sufficient144. The Ministry of Justice is monitoring the application of 
the  law,  including  its  impact  in  criminal  cases  against  journalists145.  According  to  the 
Ministry, the introduction of a legal definition of SLAPPs would improve the collection and 
analysis of data on such cases146. According to civil society, 64 SLAPP cases were recorded 
in  Slovenia  in  the  2010-2024  period,  which  places  the  country  among  those  with  a  high 

132   The Peace Institute (2026), written input, p. 4; Slovenian Union of Journalists (2026), written input, p. 2. 
133   Liberties (2026), p. 39; Slovenian Union of Journalists (2026), written input, p. 2. 
134   Country  visit  Slovenia,  AKOS;  RTV  Council. The  Media  Act establishes  dedicated  state  aid  schemes  for 

both the digital transformation of print media and the production of digital-only media.  

135   Country visit Slovenia, AKOS.  
136   County visit Slovenia, Association  of Journalists. The new  Media Act  also establishes a legal framework 
for  allocating  public  funding  to  NGOs  holding  public-interest  status  in  the  media  sector,  including 
professional  associations.  This  framework  may,  in  the  future,  be  used  to  support  public  financing  of 
journalists’ professional associations engaged in the protection and safety of journalists. 

137   Media Pluralism Monitor (2026), p. 11. 
138   2025 Report recommended Slovenia to ‘[f]urther advance with the process of adopting legislative and non-
legislative safeguards to improve the protection of journalists, taking into account European standards on 
the  protection  of  journalists’.  Some  progress  was  previously  assessed  on  this  recommendation  in  2025, 
2024 and 2023. 

139   Liberties (2026), p. 29; Country visit Slovenia, RTV Council. 
140   Country visit Slovenia, AKOS. 
141   Country visit Slovenia, Ministry of Justice. 
142   Country visit Slovenia, Association of Journalists.  
143   Country visit Slovenia, Ministry of Justice. This safeguard implies allowing a court, once it suspects a claim 
may be a SLAPP, to order the claimant to deposit money or provide a bank guarantee that can later be used 
to cover the defendant’s legal costs if the case fails. Anti-SLAPP Act, Article 20. 

144   Stakeholders raised the possibility of early dismissal as an additional possible safeguard for criminal cases. 

Country visit Slovenia, Association of Journalists. 

145   Country visit Slovenia, Ministry of Justice 
146   Country visit Slovenia, Ministry of Justice. 

16 

 
 
incidence of SLAPP cases in Europe compared to population size147. However, since SLAPP 
cases  against  journalists  are  assessed  to  be  largely  underreported148,  dedicated  trainings  for 
judges and journalists on the Anti-SLAPP Act are planned149. According to the new act, as of 
February  2026,  a  focal  point  within  the  Ministry  of  Justice  began  operating150.  Journalists 
welcomed  the  ambition  and  argued  that  such  mechanism  should  be  established  outside  a 
ministry  to  ensure  its  independence  and  trust151,  while  further  noting  that  the  available 
support  mechanisms  for  safety  and  security  of  journalists  remain  short-term  and  project-
oriented152.  The  focal  point  is  cooperating  with  representatives  of  media,  CSOs  and  the  academic 
community,  as  well  as  with  the  Office  of  the  Ombudsperson153.  Since  the  2025  Rule  of  Law 
Report, two new alerts have been recorded on the Council of Europe’s Platform to promote 
the  protection  of  journalism  and  safety  of  journalists,  both  concerning  harassment  and 
intimidation  of  journalists154.  The  Mapping  Media  Freedom  monitoring  report  has  noted  9 
new alerts, including verbal attacks and legal incidents155. Overall, given that some legislative 
and  non-legislative  measures  have  been  adopted,  to  enhance  the  protection  of  journalists, 
there has been some further progress on the recommendation. 

IV.  OTHER INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RELATED TO CHECKS AND BALANCES 

The  Ombudsperson  continued responding to an important number of complaints. The 
Ombudsperson  is  the  National  Human  Rights  Institution,  accredited  with  A-Status156.  On 3 
February  2026,  the  former  Parliament  appointed  a  new  Ombudsperson,  filling  the  position 
which had been vacant for nearly a year157. In 2025, the financial and human resources of the 
Ombudsperson’s  office  remained  adequate.  The  amendments  to  the  Human  Rights 
Ombudsperson’s  Act,  which  were  previously  in  preparation  and  were  shared  with  the 
Ombudsperson,  have  been  postponed  to  2026158.  As  regards  the  Ombudsperson’s  powers, 
efforts continued with a view to organising the monitoring of the Convention on the Rights of 

147   Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe (2026), Report: A 2025 Report on SLAPPs in Europe: Democracy in 

the Dock, p. 16.  

148   The Association of Journalists stated that SLAPP cases against journalists are largely underreported, due to 

concerns of journalists on the effectiveness of the protection mechanisms and the legal costs. 

149   In April 2026, the Ministry of Justice organised a conference dedicated to journalists and civil society to 

promote the Anti-SLAPP Act. Country visit Slovenia, Ministry of Justice. 

150   Article 16 of Act on Protective Measures against Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. The focal 
point for providing relevant information on available support measures was already established within the 
Ministry of Justice in 2026. Ministry of Justice (2026). 

151   Country visit Slovenia, Association of Journalists. 
152   The Peace Institute (2026), written input, p. 5. 
153   Slovenian Government (2026b), additional written input, p.  10. As reported by the  former Government, a 
dedicated website has also been set up, and some public events aimed at raising awareness and informing 
the public have been organised. 

154   Council of Europe Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists (2026). One of 
the cases concerned a Slovenian municipality filing a criminal complaint against investigative outlet Oštro 
for  allegedly  misusing  and  misreporting  personal  data  while  investigating  a  mayor’s  assets,  which 
journalists  and  the  Slovenian  Journalists’  Association  argue  is  an  attempt  to  suppress  legitimate  public-
interest reporting on political transparency. The former Government responded to both alerts providing the 
explanations.  

155   European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (2026). 
156   Accreditation by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI).  The new process 
of  re-evaluation  was  conducted  in  2025-2026,  followed  by  GANHRI  re-confirming  status  A  for  the 
Ombudsperson as of 5 June 2026. 

157   Slovenian Government (2026), written input, p. 17. 
158   The Ombudsperson’s Office reiterated its opposition to the previously proposed change that the election in 
Parliament would be carried out by a secret ballot (which would decrease the transparency). Country visit 
Slovenia, Ombudsperson and Ministry of Justice. 2025 Rule of Law Report, Slovenia, p. 20.  

17 

 
 
 
 
 
Persons  with  Disabilities  within  the  Ombudsperson’s  office159.  In  2025,  the  Ombudsperson 
issued 62 new recommendations (95 in 2024)160. In addition, the Ombudsperson acting in the 
capacity of National  Prevention Mechanism issued further  329 recommendations to  various 
institutions  (294  in  2024).  In  2025,  the  Ombudsperson  highlighted  approximately  253 
especially  relevant  past  recommendations  that  remain  either  unimplemented  or  partially 
implemented  (100  in  2024).  Of  the  latter,  139  were  under  the  National  Prevention 
Mechanism (114 beyond). In 2025, the Ombudsperson continued to respond to an important 
number of complaints.  It handled more than 6 500 cases, representing a nearly 4% increase 
compared  to  2024,  including  3 681  individual  complaints161.  Among  207  substantiated 
complaints,  the  Ombudsperson  identified  238  violations  of  human  rights,  fundamental 
freedoms,  and  other  irregularities162.  According  to  the  Ombudsperson’s  findings,  the 
authority most frequently responsible for violations or irregularities in 2025 was the Ministry 
of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, followed by municipalities,  and 
the Ministry of Solidarity-Based future163. 

More  than  two  thirds  of  companies  surveyed  in  Slovenia  express  confidence  in  the 
effectiveness of investment protection. 67% of companies are very or fairly confident that 
investments  are  protected  by  law  and  courts,  a  figure  which  has  slightly  decreased  in 
comparison with 2025 (69%) 164. As regards authorities relevant for economic operators, 53% 
of  companies  perceive  the  level  of  independence  of  the  national  competition  authority 
(Slovenian Competition Protection Agency) as very or fairly good, a figure which has slightly 
declined in comparison with 2025 (57%)  165. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction in several 
business-related cases, including in cases related to public procurement, public concessions, 
public  contracts  and  economic  regulation.  A  number  of  judicial  mechanisms  to  improve 
efficiency  are  available  in  these  cases,  including  the  possibility  to  apply  interim  measures, 
joint examination of similar cases and the consolidation of multiple appeals166. 

On  1  January  2026,  Slovenia  had  five  leading  judgments  of  the  European  Court  of 
Human  Rights  pending  implementation,  an  increase  of  one  compared  to  the  previous 
year167.  At  that  time,  Slovenia’s  rate  of  leading  judgments  from  the  past  10  years  that  had 
been implemented was at 85% (compared to 88% in 2025; 15% remained pending), and the 
average time that the judgments had been pending implementation was two years (compared 
to  one  year  and  seven  months  in  2025)168.  The  oldest  leading  judgment,  pending 
implementation  for  more  than  four  years,  concerns  the  authorities’  failure  to  introduce 
remedies  that  would  provide  the  applicants  with  a  reasonable  opportunity  to  challenge  the 

159   Country visit Slovenia, Ombudsperson. 
160   Data provided by the Ombudsperson. 
161   Slovenian Government (2026), written input, p. 18. 
162   In  addition,  there  were  147  cases  in  the  field  of  child  advocacy,  in  which  no  violations  are  formally 

determined but which are nevertheless treated as substantiated complaints. 

163   Slovenian Government (2026), written input, p. 18. 
164   Figures 52 and 53, 2026 EU Justice Scoreboard. Only 19% and 13% of the surveyed investors respectively 
perceive  the frequent  changes  in  legislation  or  concerns  about  the  quality  of  the  law-making  process  and 
concerns  about  quality,  efficiency  or  independence  of  justice  as  a  reason  for  the  lack  of  confidence  in 
investment protection. 

165   Figure 60, 2026 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
166   Figures 66 and 67, 2026 EU Justice Scoreboard. The data presented reflects exclusively the mechanisms in 
place at the level of the highest administrative jurisdictions; the same or other mechanisms may be in place 
at lower instance administrative courts. 

167   For an explanation of the supervision process, see the website of the Council of Europe.   
168   All figures calculated by the  European Implementation Network (EIN) and based on the number of cases 
that are considered pending at the annual cut-off date of 1 January 2026. EIN (2026), written input, p. 9. 

18 

 
 
 
Bank of Slovenia’s 2013-2014 decisions169. As regards the respect of payment deadlines, on 
31 December 2025 there were no cases in total awaiting confirmation of payments (same as 
in  2024)170.  By  17  June  2026,  the  number  of  leading  judgments  pending  implementation 
increased to six171.  

The  environment  for  civil  society  organisations  remained  favourable  and  the  former 
Government adopted two framework strategies in this area. The civic space in Slovenia 
remains ‘open’ according to Civicus172. In December 2025, the former Government adopted a 
new  Strategy  of  the  Development  of  Civil-Society  Organisations  (CSOs)  until  2030  and  a 
Volunteering  Development  Strategy  until  2030,  as  a  continuation  of  the  previous  joint 
strategy until 2023, which was welcomed by civil society organisations (CSOs)173. The main 
aims of the two strategies are to strengthen cooperation with CSOs throughout the legislative 
process  and  the  implementation  of  legislation,  strengthen  the  transparency  and  stability  of 
public  funding  of  CSOs,  create  a  stable  and  sustainable  environment  for  the  operations  of 
volunteer organisations; and increase the number of volunteers. According to the CSOs, the 
civic  space  continues  to  be  supported  by  a  comparatively  strong  legal  framework 
guaranteeing  freedom  of  association  and  participation174.  At  the  same  time,  CSOs  reported 
that during 2025 the political  discourse surrounding  civil  society has grown more polarised 
and included more frequent direct confrontations or targeted verbal attacks175.  

169   Judgment of the ECtHR, 49969/14, Pintar and Others v. Slovenia, pending implementation since 2021.  
170   Council of Europe (2026), p. 163.   
171   Data according to the online database of the Council of Europe (HUDOC). 
172   Slovenia’s  score  is  85/100.  Ratings  by  Civicus  are  on  a  five-category  scale  defined  as:  open,  narrowed, 

obstructed, repressed and closed. 

173   Country visit Slovenia, CNVOS and Peace Institute. Slovenian Government (2026), written input, pp. 18-
19.  According  to  the  CSOs,  the  adoption of  the  two  strategies  signalled  the  recognition  of  civil  society’s 
democratic  role  and  establishing  a  long-term  framework  for  cooperation  with  public  authorities  and 
included structured consultation with CSOs. Liberties (2026), p. 33. 

174   Liberties (2026), p. 3. 
175   Liberties (2026), p. 34. 

19 

 
 
 
 
Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order* 

* The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2026 Rule of Law Report 
can 
https://commission.europa.eu/publications/2026-rule-law-report-targeted-
stakeholder-consultation_en. 

found 

be 

at 

Administrative Court (2024), judgment of 22 October 2024, U-I-2199-2024-22. 

Association  of  Journalists  (2025),  Access  to  public  data  is  not  a  privilege,  it  is  the  foundation  of 
democracy,  26  September  2025  https://novinar.com/novica/dostop-javnih-podatkov-ni-privilegij-je-
temelj-demokracije/.  

Bar Association (2026), additional written input. 

the  Commission 

Cabinet of the Prime Minister (2026),  Reaction of the Prime Minister's Office to the public letter of 
the  President  of 
the  Prevention  of  Corruption,  9  October  2025 
https://www.gov.si/novice/2025-10-09-odziv-kabineta-predsednika-vlade-na-javno-pismo-
predsednika-komisije-za-preprecevanje-korupcije/.  
Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe (2026), A 2025 Report on SLAPPs in Europe: Democracy in the 
Dock, CASE-2025-Report-layoutted-vf.pdf  

for 

Commission  for  the  Prevention  of  Corruption  (2025),  Press  release  of  28  August  2025, 
https://www.kpk-rs.si/sl/novice/vse-novice/korupcijska-tveganja-pri-zaposlitvi-v-sdh-vlada-naj-
sistemsko-omeji-prehajanje-med-politiko-in-gospodarstvom 

Commission  for  the  Prevention  of  Corruption  (2026),  Annual  Report  2025,  https://www.kpk-
rs.si/storage/uploads/66adb178-c231-4df3-bbfa-6ca6ec7be0a4/Letno-poro%C4%8Dilo-2025_za-
objavo.pdf.   

Constitutional Court (2023), judgment of 6 July 2023, U-I-144/19_3 (PART THREE) https://www.us-
rs.si/odlocitev/?q=U-I-144%2F19&order=desc&id=120340 . 

Directorate-General  for  Communication  (2026),  Flash  Eurobarometer  582  on  Businesses’  attitudes 
towards corruption and businesses’ perception of the independence of national justice systems in the 
EU and in selected enlargement countries in 2026. 

Directorate-General  for  Communication  (2026),  Special  Eurobarometer  573  on  citizens’  attitudes 
towards corruption in the EU in 2026. 

Higher  Court 
release 
https://www.sodisce.si/sodni_postopki/objave/2026021910221036/.  

Ljubljana 

(2026), 

Press 

in 

of 

16 

February 

2026, 

Judicial  Council  (2025),  Decision  on  dismissal  served  on  the  President  of  the  District  Court  in 
Ljubljana, 2 December 2025 http://www.sodni-svet.si/?p=objave-112.     

Judicial Council (2026a), additional written input. 

Judicial Council (2026b), The Judicial Council has filed a new request for review of constitutionality, 
27 January 2026 http://www.sodni-svet.si/?p=objave-117.  

Ministry of Justice (2026),  Press release: Slovenia among the most successful in protecting against 
SLAPP  lawsuits,  11  May  2026  https://www.gov.si/novice/2026-05-11-slovenija-med-uspesnejsimi-
pri-zasciti-pred-tozbami-slapp/.  

Parliament  (2026a),  Final  Report  on  the  determination  of  political  responsibility  of  public  office 
holders  for  the  alleged  illegal  financing  of  political  parties  and  party  political  propaganda  in  the 
media before and during the 2022 election of members of the National Assembly with funding from 
state-owned enterprises, state institutions and foreign entities’, EPA 2822-IX, 2 March 2026  

Supreme  Court  (2026a),  The  new  digitisation  center  will  carry  out  the  entire  process  of  handling 
2026 
physical 
https://www.sodisce.si/sodni_postopki/objave/2026033110575928/. 

documents, 

March 

court 

31 

20 

 
Supreme  Court  (2026b),  Project  of  new  videoconferencing  and  audio-video  equipment  for  courts 
successfully 
2026  
https://www.sodisce.si/sodni_postopki/objave/2026040110554618/.                                                                 

completed, 

March 

31 

Supreme Court (2026c), written input and additional written input. 

Supreme  Court  (2026d),  First  meeting  of  the  Umbrella  Group  for  the  Implementation  of  Judicial 
Legislation, 2 February 2026 https://www.sodisce.si/sodni_postopki/objave/2026020315352628/.  

21 

 
Annex II: Country visit to Slovenia 

The Commission services held virtual meetings in March 2026 with: 

•  Agency for Communication Networks and Services (AKOS) 
•  Association of Journalists 
•  Bar Association 
•  Commission for the Prevention of Corruption 
•  Constitutional Court 
•  Court of Audit  
Crime division) 

•  Faculty of Social Sciences (Prof. dr. Marko Milosavljević) 
•  Human Rights Ombudsperson Office 
•  Judges’ Association 
•  Judicial Council 
•  Ministry of Culture 
•  Ministry of Justice 
•  Ministry of Public Administration 
•  Ministry of the Interior 
•  National Bureau of Investigation (NPU) and General Police Directorate (Economic  
•  National NGO umbrella network (CNVOS) 
•  National Review Commission (for public procurement) 
•  Parliament Secretariat 
•  Peace Institute 

Prosecution Office, Specialised State Prosecution Office) 

•  Radio-television Slovenia (RTV): Council (President Goran Forbici) 
•  Radio-television Slovenia (RTV): Management Board (President Natalija Gorščak) 
•  State Attorney General (dr. Ana Kerševan) 
•  State Prosecution (State Prosecutor General dr. Katarina Bergant, Supreme State  
•  State Prosecutorial Council 
•  Supreme Court 
•  Transparency International Slovenia 

* The Commission also met the following organisations in a number of horizontal meetings:  

•  Civil Liberties Union for Europe  
•  Civil Society Europe  
•  End FGM EU  
•  European Civic Forum  
•  European Partnership for Democracy  
•  Human Rights Watch  
• 

ILGA-Europe  
International Federation for Human Rights  
• 
•  Philea - Philanthropy Europe Association  
•  Transparency International EU  

22