President of the Chamber of Notaries Podgoršek: The notary could not have acted differently when transferring the Progrosi
The president of the Notarial Chamber, Podgoršek, explained that the transfer of business shares in Slovenia is strictly regulated by law, emphasizing that no European country has such strict limitations. He stated that notaries have a preventive role and must verify certain conditions before composing a notarial deed for the transfer of business shares. If any conditions are unmet, the notary must reject the composition. The conditions apply to the recipient of the share, not the transferor. Podgoršek clarified that the transfer of Progros does not fall into cases where a notary would reject the composition, as the recipient, Snežič, had no restrictions. He also noted that obligations like debts, employee liabilities, and those to the Financial Administration of the Republic of Slovenia do not justify rejecting the composition, as the transfer does not affect the company’s assets. Podgoršek acknowledged that public statements regarding the transfer were 'immoral, untrue, and inappropriate,' but he did not comment on the specific intentions behind the transfer.
The Supreme Court has ruled against Rok Snežič’s attempt to rename the former business of Boris Mijič as Novo Necenzurirano d.o.o., according to documents obtained by the media outlet Necenzurirano. The court denied the request, which was made shortly after Snežič became the owner of the company. These documents were acquired by the outlet's editorial team during their routine investigations. The legal battle began when Snežič, who previously operated under a different name, sought to change the company's registered name to reflect his new ownership. However, the court rejected the application, citing procedural or legal grounds. As a result, the company was instead renamed Klukec d.o.o. In public statements, Snežič claimed that the renaming was done in response to a lawsuit he had lost against Levice coordinator Luka Mesec. He stated that the decision to rename the company was partly motivated by the need to settle legal costs associated with the case. Necenzurirano has expressed skepticism about Snežič’s motives, suggesting that the renaming might have been part of a broader strategy to assert control over the media outlet. The outlet claims that Snežič has long harbored ambitions to take over the platform, particularly given its critical coverage of Mijič and his business practices. Recent reports by Necenzurirano detailed numerous irregularities in the operations of Progros, the company formerly led by Mijič. These revelations contributed to calls for Mijič’s resignation, as well as increased scrutiny of his management style. In the past, Necenzurirano has also published articles detailing Snežič’s involvement in a network of businesses linked to political figures. A few years ago, Mesec accused Snežič of being a criminal connected to the third government of Janez Janša. This accusation led to a legal dispute, in which Snežič filed a lawsuit against Mesec. However, he lost the initial hearing. Given that Snežič does not officially hold substantial assets, it is unlikely that Mesec will ever receive compensation for the legal expenses incurred. The situation highlights ongoing tensions between media outlets and individuals seeking to influence or control them. It also underscores the complex relationships between journalists, politicians, and business owners in Slovenia. Legal battles often serve as a means of asserting power or settling personal grievances, especially when financial resources are limited. The outcome of this case could have implications for how media outlets handle ownership changes and potential conflicts of interest. It may also prompt further discussions about transparency and accountability in both media and corporate governance. For now, the focus remains on the legal proceedings and the broader context of these competing interests.
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.
The article reports that Rok Snežič, who recently became the owner of the company Progros, attempted to rename it 'Novo Necenzurirano d.o.o.' immediately after acquiring it, according to documents obtained by the media outlet Necenzurirano. These documents suggest that the court prevented this renaming, and Progros was later renamed to Klukec d.o.o. The article notes that Snežič claimed the change was due to a loss in a lawsuit against Left Coordinators' representative Luke Mesec, whom he had previously sued. Necenzurirano believes Snežič's actions were motivated by a desire to settle scores with their media outlet, citing recent reports by Necenzurirano about irregularities in Progros' operations linked to Boris Mijič. The article also mentions past allegations against Snežič, including claims that he was involved in criminal activities related to the third government of Janez Janša.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the situation as a conflict between Rok Snežič and the media outlet Necenzurano, which is associated with left-wing perspectives. It emphasizes the alleged motives behind Snežič’s attempts to rename the company, suggesting a personal vendetta rather than legitimate business intent
Why factuality (85): The article accurately reports on the attempt by Rok Snežič to rename the company after acquiring it, citing documents from the editorship of necenzurirano.si. It mentions the legal objection from the court and the subsequent renaming to Klukec, aligning with the primary source. However, it includes
Why objectivity (70): The tone suggests a somewhat critical stance towards Snežič and the media, implying potential bias. The phrase 'ocitno je v resnici šlo za obračun z našim medijem' introduces an interpretative angle rather than presenting purely factual information.
Primorske noviceIndependentCenterFactual 75Objective 689 days ago
The president of the Notarial Chamber, Podgoršek, explained that the transfer of business shares in Slovenia is strictly regulated by law, emphasizing that no European country has such strict limitations. He stated that notaries have a preventive role and must verify certain conditions before composing a notarial deed for the transfer of business shares. If any conditions are unmet, the notary must reject the composition. The conditions apply to the recipient of the share, not the transferor. Podgoršek clarified that the transfer of Progros does not fall into cases where a notary would reject the composition, as the recipient, Snežič, had no restrictions. He also noted that obligations like debts, employee liabilities, and those to the Financial Administration of the Republic of Slovenia do not justify rejecting the composition, as the transfer does not affect the company’s assets. Podgoršek acknowledged that public statements regarding the transfer were 'immoral, untrue, and inappropriate,' but he did not comment on the specific intentions behind the transfer.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced explanation of legal procedures and regulations related to the transfer of business shares in Slovenia. It includes quotes from Podgoršek, who provides his perspective on the legal framework and clarifies common misunderstandings. There is no evident bias toward one政治
Why factuality (75): The article provides detailed information about the legal framework surrounding business share transfers in Slovenia, citing the role of notaries and referencing specific regulations. It explains the conditions under which a notary might refuse to draft a notarial record, but does not provide direct
Why objectivity (68): The tone remains professional and informative, focusing on explaining legal processes and not taking sides. However, there is some subtle implication that the transfer may have been legally justified, which could be seen as slightly biased depending on the reader's perspective.
The 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 €4/month.
Slovenia
