Minister for Economy, Labour and Sport Anže Logar has condemned what he calls “absurdity” in the free transfer of insolvent company Progros from MP Borislav Mijič to tax advisor Rok Snežič, calling it a mockery of unpaid workers and state institutions. The incident, which took place this week, has sparked widespread public outrage and legal scrutiny. According to Logar, the move represents a severe breach of the rule of law and undermines trust in government institutions. He accused both Mijič and Snežič of engaging in a cynical maneuver that disregards the rights of employees and the integrity of public administration. The controversy began when Mijič transferred his 100% ownership of Progros to Snežič without compensation. This followed months of financial irregularities within the company, including unpaid wages to employees, outstanding taxes owed to the Republic of Slovenia’s Financial Administration, and debts to business partners. Despite these unresolved obligations, Mijič claimed responsibility before cameras and announced his intention to step down, leaving behind a legacy of unpaid debts. However, critics argue that his actions have been little more than a symbolic gesture, with real consequences falling on workers and public authorities. In response, Logar called the situation “an extremely poor sense of humor,” accusing both parties of exploiting legal loopholes to evade accountability. He emphasized that such actions damage public confidence and hinder efforts to build a functioning democracy. “Ministers and members of parliament must take all necessary steps to fulfill their commitments under the coalition agreement,” he stated. “The fight against corruption and abuse of power is essential for the proper functioning of state institutions.” Legal experts have since weighed in, noting that while the transfer itself may not be illegal, its implications raise serious concerns. According to the law on commercial companies, transferring shares in a limited liability company does not alter the position of creditors or change the legal status of the company. However, the transfer of Progros, a company known for its insolvency, has raised questions about whether the transaction was motivated by genuine intent to resolve financial issues or by evasion of personal responsibility. Bojan Podgoršek, president of the Slovenian Bar Association, explained that notaries are required to verify certain conditions before approving such transfers. In this case, he noted that the new owner, Rok Snežič, did not face any restrictions that would have prevented the transfer. “The notary had no grounds to refuse the registration of the share transfer,” he clarified. “The new owner was not subject to any limitations, and therefore, the notary acted correctly.” Nevertheless, some legal scholars argue that the transfer could still be considered unethical, especially given the ongoing debts owed to employees and the state. Meanwhile, labor representatives have expressed deep concern over the potential impact on workers who remain unpaid. Goran Lukić, a representative of the Workers' Advisory Board, described the situation as “beyond all reason.” He pointed out that Mijič’s former employees continue to suffer financially, while the political class continues to operate without facing meaningful consequences. “This is not just a legal issue, it’s a moral one,” Lukić said. “It shows how easily power can be used to shield individuals from accountability.” Legal scholar Miha Juhart, a professor at the University of Ljubljana Law Faculty, added that the transfer does not legally absolve Mijič of his responsibilities. “The company remains the debtor, and all claims against it remain intact,” he explained. “The new owner is not personally liable for the company’s debts unless specific conditions are met.” Juhart warned that if the transfer was intended to avoid legal consequences, it could lead to criminal charges against Mijič, particularly if evidence of intentional wrongdoing is found. The situation has also drawn attention from the public, with many citizens expressing frustration over the lack of transparency and accountability in political circles. Social media platforms have become a space for debate, with users criticizing both Mijič and Snežič for what they see as a blatant disregard for the interests of ordinary workers and taxpayers. As the controversy unfolds, the focus will likely shift toward whether the transfer constitutes a violation of ethical standards or even criminal behavior. Legal proceedings may follow, particularly if evidence emerges that the transfer was orchestrated to evade responsibility. Meanwhile, the broader implications for governance and public trust remain a central point of discussion among legal and political analysts.
6 reports
VečerIndependent🔒ProgressiveFactual 85Objective 658 days agoOn July 24, 2026, Slovenian Minister of Economy, Labour, and Sport Anže Logar criticized the transfer of the company Progros from MP Boris Mijič of the Freedom Party to Rok Snežič, describing it as a mockery of unpaid workers and state institutions. Logar stated this action reflects a poor sense of humor and indicates dysfunction within the legal state. He emphasized the need for strict anti-corruption measures, reducing waiting lists in healthcare, and improving labor protections. The ministry reiterated its stance against any circumvention of legislation and unethical practices, calling for stronger legal frameworks to protect workers and ensure effective oversight by relevant authorities.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the transfer of Progros as a mockery of unpaid workers and state institutions, using strong negative language ('norčevanje', 'nedelovanje pravne države') and emphasizes anti-corruption and worker protection policies typically associated with leftist agendas. The tone criticizes a右
Why factuality (85): This article provides detailed explanations from financial authorities regarding the legal status of the company after the transfer, citing specific laws and regulations. It aligns with other sources on the legal aspects of the transfer and its impact on debts.
Why objectivity (65): The tone is somewhat critical of Mijič's actions, especially in relation to the treatment of workers and the state. The article emphasizes the legal consequences but also highlights the lack of accountability, suggesting a biased viewpoint.
DnevnikIndependent🔒CenterFactual 80Objective 658 days agoPredsednik Notarske zbornice Slovenije Bojan Podgoršek je dejal, da je notar pri prenosu poslovnega deleža podjetja Progros s poslanca Resnice Borisa Mijiča na Roka Snežiča ne mogel odkloniti sestave notarskega zapisa, ker so bili pogoji za to neizpolnjeni in ni bil storjen noben nemoralen dejanje. Podgoršek je pojasnil, da je prenos urejen v zakonu o gospodarskih družbah, ki predstavlja eno najstrožjih v Evropi, in da notar ima preventivno funkcijo, ki vključuje pregled določenih pogojev. Natančne razlage je podrobno razvil, kot so omejitve, preverjanje v sodnem registru, ter definicija fiktivnega posla. Tudi glede premoženja podjetja je poudaril, da prenos ne vpliva na upnike, njihov položaj se ne poslabša.
Bias read (Center): Artikel predstavlja objektivno razlago notarskega procesa pri prenosu poslovnega deleža, brez evidentnega političnega slanja ali preferenc. Vsebinske informacije so osnovane na zakonskih predpisih in profesionalnih razlagah, kar kaže na neutralnost. Ne obstaja jasna tendencija v izboru izvorov ali p
Why factuality (80): This article accurately reports on the transfer of Progros and includes quotes from Mesec, who is now the new owner. It provides a clear and consistent account of the events, aligning with other sources and offering detailed context.
Why objectivity (65): The article maintains a balanced tone, presenting both sides of the issue—Mijič’s actions and Mesec’s response. It avoids overly emotional language and stays focused on the facts.
Slovenske noviceIndependentCenterFactual 80Objective 608 days agoThe article discusses the legal implications of transferring ownership of the insolvent company Progros from Boris Mijič to Rok Snežič. It explains that while the change in ownership does not affect the company’s obligations or its ability to meet debts, the transfer could be problematic if it is intended to evade responsibility rather than resolve the company's financial issues. Legal experts clarify that the company remains responsible for its debts, and both previous and current management bodies share responsibility for managing insolvency. The article highlights concerns that such transfers might be used to avoid accountability.
Bias read (Center): While the article touches on legal and economic matters related to corporate insolvency, which can have political implications, the framing remains balanced by presenting expert opinions from both legal perspectives without overtly favoring any particular political stance. The focus is on legal and財
Why factuality (80): The article reports on the transfer of Progros and quotes Katja Kokot, who comments on the implications for creditors. It provides context about the legal process and the responsibilities of the new owner, aligning with other sources on the matter.
Why objectivity (60): The tone is supportive of the idea that Mijič made a strategic move to protect creditors, though it also implies that he might have been motivated by self-interest. The language suggests a nuanced but still somewhat biased interpretation.
RTV Slovenija (MMC)State / PublicProgressiveFactual 80Objective 609 days agoIn an interview on RTV Slovenija, sindicalist Goran Lukić and lawyer Miha Juhart discuss the controversial transfer of ownership of the Progros company by MP Boris Mijič. Mijič transferred the company, which is owned entirely by him, to his tax advisor Rok Snežič for free, with plans to eventually have the company end up under the control of Left-wing coordinator Luke Mesc. Lukić expresses outrage over the situation, calling it beyond human intelligence and noting that Mijič’s company still owes 37,000 euros to a cooperator. He emphasizes the broader implications for workers and creditors, stating that the actions have been carried out in a manner that is both public and unlawful. Lawyer Juhart explains that transferring shares in a limited liability company does not change the legal position of claims against the company, and that all creditors remain unpaid. He notes that while the owner can freely dispose of their share, the law is strict regarding who can be a shareholder.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the actions of MP Boris Mijič in a highly negative light, emphasizing the ethical and legal implications of transferring company ownership for personal gain. The language used by Lukić suggests strong criticism of Mijič’s behavior, implying corruption or misuse of power. While the
Why factuality (80): The article reports on the formal transfer of Progros and includes quotes from Rok Snežič explaining his intentions. It provides specific details about the legal process and the new name of the company, aligning with other sources on the matter.
Why objectivity (60): The tone is somewhat promotional, emphasizing Snežič's business strategy and his confidence in the outcome. There is a subtle suggestion that the transfer was beneficial for Snežič, indicating a possible bias.
DnevnikIndependent🔒ProgressiveFactual 80Objective 558 days ago How the Bastards Raised CamelsThe article discusses the failure of the business firm Progros and criticizes politician Boris Mijič for his handling of the situation. It highlights how Mijič claimed responsibility publicly but avoided personal financial accountability, leaving debts unpaid to workers and the state while remaining in parliament. The piece suggests that the issue reflects a broader problem of who bears the cost of decisions in Slovenia, with citizens, workers, and taxpayers ending up paying the price rather than those in leadership positions.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the actions of politician Boris Mijič in a critical light, suggesting he evades personal responsibility by using public platforms to claim accountability while avoiding financial consequences. The tone implies a critique of political leaders prioritizing their positions over moral
Why factuality (80): The article accurately reports the transfer of Progros from Mijič to Snežič and the subsequent renaming to Klukec. It also references legal challenges and the impact of media coverage on Mijič.
Why objectivity (55): The article is highly critical of Mijič and Snežič, using strong language and framing the situation as a deliberate attempt to avoid responsibility. It shows a clear bias against them.
NecenzuriranoIndependentProgressiveFactual 75Objective 55The article reports on allegations of financial misconduct involving Boris Mijič and his former company Progros. It claims that after Mijič faced significant difficulties, Rok Snežič provided assistance by renaming the company to 'Novo necenzurirano d.o.o.' This action allegedly prevented a court ruling against Mijič. The article cites internal documents obtained by 'necenzurirano.si' suggesting that Snežič later renamed the company to 'Klukec' and promoted a narrative attributing this change to Luke Mesic. The piece further alleges that both Mijič and Snežič have been implicated in financial irregularities, including owing thousands of euros to employees and the state. The article also questions the credibility of legal documentation surrounding the transfer of ownership, noting that the notary, Mojca Tavčar Pasar, was not informed of all relevant circumstances and did not detect any signs of wrongdoing. The report raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest and the lack of transparency in the transaction.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the actions of Rok Snežič and Boris Mijič in a manner that suggests a cover-up or deliberate misrepresentation of financial dealings. It emphasizes the involvement of high-profile figures and highlights potential corruption or misuse of power. The tone leans toward exposing what's
Why factuality (75): Reports on the transfer, company renaming, and legal consequences. Includes documents and quotes from Snežič and Mijič. Some parts contain speculative commentary.
Why objectivity (55): The tone is somewhat critical of Mijič and Snežič, suggesting they are aware of the media coverage and have used it strategically, which may introduce bias.
★
Keep the news honest.
ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €5/month.
Become a Supporter
Slovenia
