The 8th of March Institute is withdrawing its lawsuit against Aleš Hojs due to defamation
The Institute March 8 has withdrawn its lawsuit against former Interior Minister Ales Hojs for allegedly damaging their reputation. The hearing scheduled for Wednesday at the Ljubljana District Court was cancelled because the institute's director, Nika Kovac, had to remain in the United States due to professional obligations. The organization stated via social media that they prioritized Kovac's duties over the legal proceedings and plan to focus on their domestic referendum campaign upon her return. The lawsuit, filed in early 2023 during the third Janez Jansa government, stemmed from posts on the platform X claiming that the water law referendum organized by civil society groups caused a lack of water for extinguishing fires in the Kras region. The institute argued that such accusations were defamatory and part of a broader pattern of insults directed at them during the previous administration.
The Institute 8 March has withdrawn its lawsuit against former interior minister Aleš Hojs, ending a legal dispute that has lasted over three years. The organization announced on social media that it would abandon the claim for 3,000 euros in damages because director Nika Kovač could not attend the scheduled court hearing at the Ljubljana District Court due to extended professional obligations in the United States. The institute stated that fulfilling Kovač’s duties abroad was currently more important than continuing the judicial proceedings. Following the withdrawal, Hojs publicly rejected allegations of a settlement, posting a photo of the court ruling on the social network X to assert that his claims regarding the water law referendum were valid and that no agreement had been reached with the plaintiffs. The legal conflict originated in early 2023, during the third government led by Janez Janša. At that time, the Institute 8 March filed a defamation suit against Hojs, who served as the interior minister. The lawsuit targeted specific posts Hojs made on X, formerly known as Twitter, in July 2022. During the wildfires in the Kras region, Hojs responded to a post by then-presidential candidate Nataša Pirc Musar, who wore a shirt supporting the institute and criticized the previous administration for blaming the group for the fires. Hojs countered that the institute was not blamed for starting the fires but had recorded itself in history as a non-governmental organization that succeeded in causing a lack of water in Primorska and Kras through deception. He argued that the institute’s involvement in a referendum on a new Water Act contributed to the water shortage used for firefighting. The institute maintained that these accusations were false and damaging. Representatives noted that during the Janša government, they were frequently targets of insulting posts on social media. They specifically identified Hojs’s comments linking the referendum campaign, which involved numerous civil society organizations and experts, to the fire tragedy as one of the most severe attacks. Kovač stated at the time of filing that political opponents were exploiting the Kras disaster to gain political points. The institute sought compensation for the alleged damage to its reputation. On Wednesday, November 4, 2026, a hearing was set to take place at the Ljubljana District Court. However, the day before the session, the institute announced via Instagram and X that it would drop the case. The statement explained that Kovač was required to testify but had to remain in the United States longer than planned due to additional work commitments. The organization declared that after her return to Slovenia, all efforts would be directed toward a referendum campaign and domestic activities. The institute did not mention any settlement or payment of procedural costs in this initial announcement. Hojs reacted swiftly to the news. On November 3, he posted on X stating that after more than three years, the institute had apparently realized that his arguments regarding the manipulation and deception surrounding the drinking water referendum were factual. He emphasized that the lawsuit was withdrawn. Later, addressing rumors circulating on X that suggested a secret deal had been struck to end the litigation, Hojs published a photograph of the court judgment. He addressed critics directly, referring to them as leftists with paychecks who claimed he had settled with the institute. He asserted that the document proved there was no settlement and that the institute’s claim had been dismissed. The court ruling, dated November 3, indicates that the institute formally waived its claim and requested the court issue a decision based on this waiver. Consequently, the court dismissed the request without making a substantive determination on whether Hojs’s original statements were true or defamatory. While the claim was technically rejected, the judgment does not constitute a final verdict on the merits of the defamation allegation. Hojs highlighted the dismissal and the absence of a settlement as evidence of his victory in the public debate. According to the ruling, the institute is also liable to reimburse Hojs for the costs of the procedure, though the exact amount will be determined by a separate order. Political analyst Miran Videtič commented on the situation, describing the institute’s statement as "stagecraft" and "literal Balkan nonsense." He compared the move to promotional tactics associated with Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić and suggested the strategy mirrored methods used by American Democrats. He labeled the incident with the hashtag #bleferka. The institute had previously characterized the water referendum as protection for drinking water and a fight against privatization of coastal zones and water sources. Critics have pointed out that the institute remained silent on the construction of the C0 canal, which local mayor Zoran Janković proposed routing through a clean drinking water aquifer. Similar patterns of emotional alarmism and mobilization through fear have appeared in subsequent campaigns by the institute, including disputes over data security agreements and intervention laws, according to observers. The withdrawal leaves the legal question of whether Hojs’s remarks constituted defamation unresolved by a substantive court finding. The institute has shifted its focus back to domestic political activism, specifically preparing for upcoming referendum efforts. Hojs continues to frame the outcome as a vindication of his earlier criticisms regarding the impact of the water law referendum on regional resources. The episode highlights the ongoing tension between the former government officials and civil society groups active in environmental and legal advocacy in Slovenia.
The Institute March 8 has withdrawn its defamation lawsuit against former Slovenian Interior Minister Aleš Hojs after more than three years. The organization stated that director Nika Kovač could not attend the court hearing because she remains in the United States for additional professional obligations. Hojs responded on social media, claiming the withdrawal confirms his arguments regarding manipulation during the 2023 water law referendum were correct. Political analyst Miran Videtič criticized the move as theatrical and compared it to promotional tactics used by other political figures. The article notes that the institute was a key actor in the campaign against the Water Act amendment but did not speak out against the construction of the C0 canal through a drinking water aquifer.
Bias read (Conservative): The article frames the lawsuit withdrawal as evidence of institutional weakness, uses mocking terms like 'show' and 'Balkan nonsense,' and highlights the defendant's victory while omitting counterarguments from the plaintiff.
Former Interior Minister Ales Hojs publicly rejected allegations that he reached a settlement with the Institute March 8, led by Nika Kovac, which would explain their withdrawal of a 3,000-euro defamation lawsuit against him. Hojs shared the court ruling on social media platform X, explicitly stating that the institute's claim was dismissed rather than settled, while using sharp language to criticize his political opponents. The legal dispute stems from 2023, when the institute sued Hojs for linking a water law referendum to a lack of firefighting resources during wildfires in the Karst region. The institute withdrew the case shortly before a scheduled hearing because Kovac extended her stay in the United States for professional obligations, prioritizing those duties over the litigation. They indicated they would focus on their upcoming referendum campaign upon returning to Slovenia.
Bias read (Conservative): The headline uses inflammatory metaphors like 'pouring gasoline on fire' and quotes the defendant's derogatory terms for critics ('leftists with paychecks'), emphasizing his aggressive rebuttal over the plaintiff's stated reasons for dropping the suit.
A legal dispute between former Interior Minister Aleš Hojs and the Institute March 8 has concluded after the institute withdrew its lawsuit seeking 3,000 euros in damages. The case originated in 2023 when Hojs posted on social media linking a referendum on water law amendments to a lack of water available for extinguishing fires in the Kras region. The institute argued these comments damaged their reputation by exploiting a tragedy for political gain. The lawsuit was dropped because director Nika Kovač extended her stay in the United States for professional duties and could not attend the scheduled court hearing. Hojs publicly shared the court ruling on social media, explicitly denying allegations that he had reached a private settlement with the organization. He characterized the withdrawal as proof that his arguments regarding the water law referendum were justified.
Bias read (Conservative): The headline uses aggressive combat language ('struck back') and heavily features the defendant's self-serving denial of a settlement while omitting independent verification of the court document.
The Institute March 8 has withdrawn its lawsuit against former Interior Minister Ales Hojs, citing the need for director Nika Kovac to remain in the United States for professional duties. The legal action was originally filed in early 2023 in response to allegations made on the social media platform X, which claimed that a water law referendum supported by civil society organizations had caused a lack of water for firefighting efforts during fires in the Kras region. The institute stated that they decided to prioritize Kovac's work over the court proceedings but plan to refocus their energy on the upcoming referendum campaign upon her return to Slovenia. The organization noted that it and other experts involved in the referendum were frequently targeted by insulting posts on X during the third Janez Janse government.
Bias read (Center): The report neutrally presents the administrative reason for dropping the suit and quotes the organization directly regarding their strategic shift toward the referendum campaign.
The Institute March 8 has withdrawn its lawsuit against former Interior Minister Ales Hojs for allegedly damaging their reputation. The hearing scheduled for Wednesday at the Ljubljana District Court was cancelled because the institute's director, Nika Kovac, had to remain in the United States due to professional obligations. The organization stated via social media that they prioritized Kovac's duties over the legal proceedings and plan to focus on their domestic referendum campaign upon her return. The lawsuit, filed in early 2023 during the third Janez Jansa government, stemmed from posts on the platform X claiming that the water law referendum organized by civil society groups caused a lack of water for extinguishing fires in the Kras region. The institute argued that such accusations were defamatory and part of a broader pattern of insults directed at them during the previous administration.
Bias read (Center): The report relies exclusively on direct quotes from the plaintiff regarding the withdrawal and provides neutral background on the specific allegations involving the former minister and the water law referendum.
The Institute March 8 has withdrawn its lawsuit against former Interior Minister Ales Hojs, which was scheduled for hearing at the Ljubljana District Court. The organization sought 3,000 euros in damages for alleged defamation related to online posts claiming that their participation in a water law referendum caused a lack of water for extinguishing fires in the Kras region. The institute stated that the withdrawal was necessary because director Nika Kovac had to remain in the United States for professional duties. They added that upon her return, they would focus their efforts on the upcoming referendum campaign and domestic work. The lawsuit was originally filed in early 2023 during the third Janez Jansa government, citing repeated offensive comments directed at civil society organizations involved in the legislative process.
Bias read (Center): The report neutrally presents the legal decision and quotes the institution's justification regarding staff availability and future campaigning priorities without adding editorial judgment or partisan framing.
The Institute March 8 has withdrawn its lawsuit against former Interior Minister and SDS Vice President Aleš Hojs, which was scheduled for hearing at the Ljubljana District Court. The organization cited director Nika Kovač’s extended stay in the United States due to additional professional obligations as the reason for dropping the case. The lawsuit stemmed from Hojs’ social media comments linking the institute and other civil society groups involved in a water law referendum to water shortages during fires in the Kras region. Hojs had previously responded to a post by then-presidential candidate Nataša Pirc Musar, who criticized the previous government for blaming the institute for the fires. The institute sought 3,000 euros in damages, arguing that such accusations damaged their reputation, particularly during the third Janša government.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the withdrawal as a strategic pivot toward the referendum campaign and highlights the institute's grievance over reputational damage from a right-wing politician, using sympathetic language like 'drop in the bucket' for the insult.
How each side covered it
The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.
progressive
center
conservative
★
How each side covered it
Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.
Slovenia
