Amendment of the law on parliamentary inquiry reduces the level of judicial protection

In June 2024, during a podcast interview, Andrej Poglajen, a member of the Slovenian Democratic Party (SDS) and later elected as a parliamentary representative, addressed concerns about a proposed constitutional amendment related to parliamentary investigations. The amendment, which aimed to alter the legal framework governing such inquiries, sparked significant debate over its implications for judicial protection and the rights of individuals under investigation. Poglajen was asked whether the collection of signatures for a referendum on this legislative change represented a paradox, given that political abuses had allegedly occurred during the previous government's tenure. He responded by stating that the current ruling coalition was introducing a law that would provide greater judicial protection than its predecessor. The new legislation, which was adopted by the National Assembly in a shortened procedure during an extraordinary session on May 26, sought to modify the process for initiating parliamentary investigations. One of the most contentious aspects of the bill was its potential impact on the right of individuals and state institutions to request a constitutional review of acts that determine the establishment of such investigations. This right had been introduced by a previous amendment to the law, enacted at the end of 2024 during the term of the prior government. That amendment added Article 1.a, which allowed physical and legal persons participating in an investigation, along with certain state organs, to request a constitutional review of the act establishing the parliamentary inquiry. However, the decision of the Constitutional Court regarding such a request could not be made until after the formation of the investigative committee. If the court determined that the act was unconstitutional or violated existing laws, it would invalidate the act, thereby concluding the process of establishing the parliamentary investigation. Under the revised provisions, an investigator could file a lawsuit in administrative proceedings only after the conclusion of the parliamentary investigation—within eight days of the submission of the final report by the parliamentary investigative committee. This change raised concerns among legal experts, including the legal advisory service of the National Assembly, which warned that the new arrangement would lower the standard of legal protection for investigators. They also described the new provision as ineffective and unclear, noting that this legal remedy would not be available unless the parliamentary investigation concluded with a report. According to available data, out of 43 parliamentary investigative committees established thus far, only 12 have successfully completed their work with the adoption of a report—a success rate of just under 28 percent. This low completion rate has further fueled criticism of the effectiveness of the current system and the potential consequences of the proposed changes. The controversy surrounding the new legislation highlights broader concerns about the balance between governmental oversight and individual rights. Critics argue that the amendments could limit the ability of affected parties to challenge the legality of parliamentary investigations through constitutional means, potentially undermining due process protections. Supporters, however, contend that the changes aim to streamline the investigative process and prevent unnecessary delays or legal challenges that might hinder the effective functioning of parliamentary oversight mechanisms. As discussions around the proposed law continue, the response from Andrej Poglajen remains pending. His perspective will offer additional insight into the political motivations behind the proposed changes and how they align with the broader goals of the current government. With the issue still unfolding, the future of the legislation and its potential impact on judicial procedures remain uncertain.