In Slovenia, a significant political movement has gained momentum as citizens mobilize against a proposed amendment to the law on parliamentary investigations. The initiative, known as a referendum, seeks to challenge the new legislation that critics have labeled as enabling the creation of a "political police." As of June 30, 2026, organizers have collected over 30,442 signatures—more than three-quarters of the required 40,000 needed to proceed with the referendum. They now need approximately 9,558 more signatures within the next two weeks, until July 14, to officially trigger the vote.
The proposed amendment was passed by the National Assembly (Državni zbor) at the end of May 2026, supported by members of the ruling coalition including the Social Democrats (SDS), New Slovenia (NSi), Slovenian Left (SLS), and Focus. It received additional backing from the Democratic Party (Demokrati) and the Res Publica party. This change would significantly alter the legal framework surrounding parliamentary inquiries, particularly concerning the ability of individuals under investigation to challenge the legality of such proceedings before the Constitutional Court.
According to the current law, anyone subject to a parliamentary inquiry can request a review of its validity by the Constitutional Court. However, the proposed amendment would limit this right, allowing only the Supreme Court or the Office of the Prosecutor General to initiate such challenges. Critics argue that this shift removes a crucial safeguard designed to prevent potential misuse of parliamentary investigations for political purposes.
Organizers of the referendum, which include former members of the Committee for Human Rights Protection such as Franco Juri, Pavel Gantar, Spomenka Hribar, Gregor Tomc, Rastko Močnik, Igor Vidmar, and Vlado Miheljak, emphasize their commitment to democracy, the rule of law, and human rights. They warn that without these protections, individuals could face unjust accusations without recourse, potentially leading to violations of fundamental freedoms.
The controversy has also sparked debate within the National Assembly itself. On June 30, an extraordinary session was convened to address the initiation of two parliamentary inquiries into the activities of the private intelligence firm Black Cube and the financing of political parties. However, the motion to set the agenda was rejected due to insufficient support. A total of 38 members of the governing coalition voted against it, while 34 members of the opposition parties Svoboda, SD, and the Left and Green Alliance supported it. Four members of the Democratic Party abstained.
Opposition leaders expressed frustration over the outcome, with Asta Vrečko, head of the Left and Green Alliance parliamentary group, describing the situation as a "treading on democracy." She criticized the ruling majority for failing to uphold democratic principles. Meanwhile, Borut Sajović, leader of the Freedom parliamentary group, remarked that the incident marked another low point for Slovenian democracy, especially around its 35th anniversary as an independent state.
The situation took a further turn when technical issues arose during the voting process, forcing the assembly to repeat the ballot. Some opposition members claimed they were unable to cast their votes despite pressing the appropriate buttons on the electronic voting system. These incidents added to the growing tension between the ruling coalition and the opposition.
Critics of the proposed amendment argue that it undermines the balance of power by removing judicial oversight of parliamentary inquiries. Legal experts, including Professor Barbara Rajgelj from the Faculty of Social Sciences, have raised concerns about the narrowing of checks and balances. They suggest that the amendment could allow for prolonged investigations without sufficient scrutiny, potentially leading to abuse of authority.
Legal organizations, such as the Network for the Protection of Democracy, have emphasized the importance of constitutional review as a safeguard against political pressure and public exposure of individuals. They argue that the removal of this check could lead to arbitrary use of parliamentary powers against critics or opponents.
As the deadline approaches, the organizers of the referendum continue to urge citizens to submit their signatures either through local administrative offices or via the eGovernment portal. Their efforts aim to ensure that the public voice is heard in a matter they view as critical to preserving democratic values and protecting civil liberties. With the final push for the remaining signatures underway, the coming weeks will determine whether the referendum proceeds, marking a pivotal moment in Slovenia's ongoing political discourse.
10 reports
VečerIndependent🔒CenterFactual 85Objective 808 hr. agoThe Constitutional Court of Slovenia is set to decide whether the amended law governing RTVS (Radio Television of Slovenia) is constitutional. The amendment, which came into effect after a referendum in December 2022, introduced changes to the management structure of RTVS, including the early termination of mandates for members of the Program Council, Supervisory Board, and General Director, as well as the directors of radio and television. In February 2023, the court temporarily suspended parts of the amendment related to the formation of new governing bodies, but later revoked this suspension in May 2023 due to differing opinions among judges. The court has until July 20th to issue final rulings, with some judges possibly revising their positions. Two judges were excluded from the decision-making process due to potential conflicts of interest.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the legal proceedings and decisions of the Constitutional Court regarding a controversial law amendment without overtly favoring any side. It provides factual information about the timeline of events, judicial actions, and reasons for exclusions of certain judges, maintaining a
Why these scores (Factual 85 · Objective 80): Aligns closely with the primary source, includes details about the three-year delay and the split vote. Presents information objectively.
DnevnikIndependent🔒CenterFactual 85Objective 8011 hr. agoThe Constitutional Court of Slovenia has ruled that the new law regarding RTVS (Radio Televizija Slovenija) is constitutional. The court initially temporarily suspended parts of the law in February 2023 but later revoked the suspension in May 2023. The decision was reached after a contentious process involving multiple legal challenges. The law, which was approved by referendum in November 2022, introduced changes to the governance structure of RTVS, including the appointment of new board members and leadership roles. Critics argued that the law allowed premature termination of mandates for certain officials, leading to legal challenges. The ruling allows the implementation of the law, though some justices were excluded from the final decision due to potential conflicts of interest.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the legal proceedings and outcomes objectively, detailing both the arguments against the law and the court’s eventual ruling. While the issue involves political stakeholders and public institutions, the framing remains balanced, focusing on legal interpretation rather than overt
Why these scores (Factual 85 · Objective 80): Accurately reports on the decision by the Constitutional Court regarding the RTV Slovenia law, aligning with the primary source. Mentions the split vote but lacks specific details from the source document.
N1 SlovenijaIndependentRightFactual 80Objective 8511 hr. agoThe Constitutional Court of Slovenia has finally made a decision regarding the new law on RTV Slovenija (RTVS), after three years of deliberation. The court reportedly ruled that the amended law, which introduced a new management structure for RTVS, is constitutional. This decision came shortly after the appointment of five new judges and following the formation of the new government led by Prime Minister Janez Janša. The ruling was reportedly passed by a vote of 5 to 2 against the initiators of the constitutional review. The initiators had challenged the law due to concerns over premature termination of mandates for members of the Program and Supervisory Councils, as well as the director of RTVS. Earlier, the court had temporarily suspended parts of the law but later lifted the suspension. Two judges were excluded from the decision-making process due to potential conflicts of interest.
Bias read (Right): The article frames the court’s decision in favor of the government’s legislative changes, emphasizing the ruling’s alignment with the constitution and the new government under Janez Janša. It highlights the narrow majority (5–2) in favor of the law, suggesting support for the current administration.
Why these scores (Factual 80 · Objective 85): Matches the primary source on the Constitutional Court decision and timeline. Neutral tone, provides context without bias.
DnevnikIndependent🔒LeftFactual 80Objective 85yesterday TVS: Problems in collecting signatures for the referendum on the amendment to the parliamentary inquiry lawThe organizers of a referendum on a proposed amendment to the law on parliamentary investigations are facing difficulties in collecting signatures. According to their reports, some citizens cannot submit their signatures either at local administrative units or through the eUprava portal. The Ministry of Internal Affairs and Public Administration stated these issues are occasional technical problems. As of July 2, 2026, they had collected 34,104 signatures out of the required 40,000 by July 14. The proposed amendment, passed by the National Assembly in late May, limits individuals under investigation from challenging decisions before the Constitutional Court and prevents the Assembly from initiating new investigations on the same matter after issuing a final report. Organizers argue this removes a crucial safeguard against potential misuse of parliamentary investigations.
Bias read (Left): The article frames the issue as a challenge to democratic safeguards, emphasizing concerns over potential political abuse of parliamentary investigations. It highlights the opposition's perspective, describing the amendment as removing 'crucial protections' and focusing on the negative implications,
Why these scores (Factual 80 · Objective 85): Reports accurately on the Constitutional Court decision, mentions the split vote and ongoing processes. Maintains neutrality.
N1 SlovenijaIndependentCenterFactual 80Objective 85yesterday The initiators of the referendum point out the difficulties in collecting signaturesThe article reports on challenges faced by referendum organizers in Slovenia while collecting signatures for a referendum on a parliamentary inquiry law amendment. According to the organizers, some citizens cannot submit their signatures at local administrative units or via the eUprava portal. The Ministry of Internal Affairs and Public Administration attributes these issues to occasional technical problems, though they claim to have received no complaints. As of mid-July, 34,144 signatures have been collected, falling short of the required 40,000. The proposed law amendment would limit the ability of individuals subjected to inquiries to challenge the decision to initiate an inquiry before the Constitutional Court, which organizers argue removes a key safeguard against political abuse of parliamentary inquiries.
Bias read (Center): The article presents both the concerns raised by referendum organizers and the official response from the Ministry of Internal Affairs, without overtly favoring either side. It provides factual information about the signature collection process and the legal implications of the proposed law change,
Why these scores (Factual 80 · Objective 85): Reports facts consistently with the primary source, mentions the delay and the split vote. Objectively presents the situation without clear bias.
DeloIndependent🔒LeftFactual 80Objective 853 days agoAn initiative seeking a referendum on a parliamentary inquiry law amendment has collected 30,442 signatures, meaning the petitioners need just under 10,000 more signatures within two weeks to trigger a referendum. The petitioners, former members of the Human Rights Protection Committee including Franco Juri, Pavel Gantar, and others, argue that the proposed law threatens fundamental rights by limiting the ability of individuals to challenge parliamentary inquiries. They emphasize that even if such inquiries seem unlikely to affect them personally, they could still become victims, similar to winning the lottery. The National Assembly passed the amendment proposed by SDS, NSi, SLS, and Fokus, supported by Democrats and Resnica. The amendment limits the ability to challenge the decision to initiate a parliamentary inquiry before the Constitutional Court, allowing only the Supreme Court or the Public Prosecutor to review compliance with the constitution and law within 30 days. Critics, including legal expert Barbara Rajgelj and the Democracy Protection Network, warn that the amendment narrows the possibility of verifying whether the inquiry is justified by public interest, potentially滥
Bias read (Left): The article frames the issue as a threat to democratic principles, human rights, and legal protections, emphasizing the risks posed by the proposed law. It highlights concerns about the erosion of checks and balances, the potential for abuse of parliamentary inquiries, and the lack of judicial redem
Why these scores (Factual 80 · Objective 85): Consistent with the primary source on the Constitutional Court decision, mentions the split vote and ongoing processes. Neutral and factual.
DnevnikIndependent🔒LeftFactual 75Objective 803 days ago Referendum on the "political police" law: 10,000 signatures in two weeksThe article reports on a referendum initiative in Slovenia aimed at repealing a law amendment related to parliamentary investigations. As of June 30, 2026, over 30,442 signatures have been collected, exceeding three-quarters of the required 40,000 needed to trigger the referendum. The campaign warns that if the amendment passes, it would threaten human rights by limiting the ability of individuals subjected to investigation to challenge the decision to reopen the inquiry before the Constitutional Court. The signatories, including former members of the Human Rights Protection Committee, argue the change enables political abuse of parliamentary inquiries. They emphasize the importance of legal protection and democratic principles, urging citizens to submit remaining signatures through local authorities or the eUprava portal.
Bias read (Left): The article frames the proposed law amendment as a threat to human rights and democracy, using emotive language such as 'threatening human rights' and 'political abuse.' It emphasizes the potential negative consequences of the amendment while highlighting the concerns of the petitioners, who are all
Why these scores (Factual 75 · Objective 80): Provides relevant information about the referendum, though less detailed on the Constitutional Court decision. Maintains a neutral tone.
Žurnal24IndependentCenterFactual 70Objective 7510 hr. agoThe Constitutional Court of Slovenia has ruled that the new law on RTVS (Radio Televizija Slovenija) is constitutional after nearly two years of legal proceedings. The court initially suspended parts of the law in February 2023 but later lifted the suspension in May 2023, citing disagreements among judges. The ruling was based on a law passed in December 2022, which was approved by a referendum in November 2022. Critics argued that the law prematurely ended mandates for members of the program and supervisory boards and the general director, prompting a constitutional challenge. The court allowed further review and potential reconsideration of individual judges' votes before July 20. Key judges were excluded from the decision due to conflicts of interest.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the constitutional ruling as a balanced outcome, noting both the initial suspension and subsequent lifting of the law. It reports the positions of different judges without overtly favoring any side, though it highlights the controversy surrounding the law’s implementation and affi
Why these scores (Factual 70 · Objective 75): Focuses on the referendum issue rather than the main event. Some details match the primary source, but overall less aligned with the core event.
RTV Slovenija (MMC)State / PublicCenterFactual 60Objective 7011 hr. agoThe Slovenian Constitutional Court is currently reviewing a law amendment related to RTV Slovenia, which changed the management structure of the national broadcaster. The amendment was approved by referendum in November 2022 and came into effect on December 28, 2022. The petitioners, led by former program council member Peter Gregorčič, argued that the amendment prematurely ended mandates for members of the program and supervisory councils, as well as the general director and radio/TV directors. They requested a temporary suspension of the amendment’s implementation. On February 20, 2023, the court temporarily suspended parts of the amendment, including the constitution of new boards and the formation of a new statute. However, on May 26, 2023, the court revoked the suspension, citing disagreements among seven judges and the need for a new decision. Two judges, Roka Čeferin and Neža Kogovšek Šalamon, were excluded from the decision due to conflicts of interest.
Bias read (Center): The article presents factual developments regarding a legal challenge to a law amendment affecting state-owned media, without overtly favoring any political side. It reports on procedural steps taken by the Constitutional Court, including suspensions, revocations, and judicial exclusions, while omit
Why these scores (Factual 60 · Objective 70): Shifts focus to the referendum and union involvement, less aligned with the primary source on the Constitutional Court decision. Less objective in framing the issue.
DomovinaIndependentLeftyesterdayThe article discusses the efforts of referendum initiators regarding a parliamentary inquiry law reform, noting that some trade unions are assisting with signature collection. It highlights that while unions are legally allowed to participate in such campaigns, their core mandate focuses on representing workers' economic, social, and labor rights, which may conflict with the new legislation. The article critiques the content of a union publication, suggesting it deviates from its traditional role by promoting leftist political activism rather than focusing solely on labor issues. It also mentions that the initiative has collected over 30,000 signatures but still needs more to meet the threshold, with slow progress. The article further notes that the Union of Trade Unions (SVIZ) and its chief secretary Branimir Štrukelj have become actively involved in collecting remaining signatures, despite this not being part of their primary responsibilities.
Bias read (Left): The article frames the referendum initiative as a necessary democratic action against potential abuse of power, using language that emphasizes citizen empowerment and democratic protection. It criticizes the involvement of trade unions in political advocacy, implying that their focus should remain '
★
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
