The case of Dušan Smodej, accused of two criminal acts of sexual abuse, bodily harm, and enabling the use of prohibited drugs, has taken another significant turn as he participated in a preliminary hearing via video conference. This marks a notable shift from his previous absence during a similar hearing just over a month earlier, where his lawyer had cited late notification as the reason for non-attendance. The proceedings took place at the district court in Ljubljana, with the public excluded from the main part of the session, a decision made after consensus among all parties involved.
During this latest hearing, Smodej was present remotely due to his current residence abroad. His legal representative, Miloš Zarić, stated that Smodej resides in Italy but did not specify the exact location. The exclusion of the public from the proceedings was agreed upon by both the prosecution and defense, primarily to protect the privacy of the victims, including a minor who was also a victim of the alleged crimes. The prosecutor, Jrida Mršnik Poljšak, had previously requested the exclusion of the public during the initial hearing, citing concerns about the personal lives of the victims. On this occasion, the higher state prosecutor, Darko Novak, represented the prosecution, handling matters related to juvenile, family, and gender-related crimes.
The hearing lasted approximately one hour before concluding. Afterward, Zarić issued a statement indicating that the preliminary hearing has not yet concluded and will continue following the completion of judicial holidays. He declined to provide further comments or answer questions regarding why Smodej chose to participate via video call instead of in person. The court itself did not offer explanations for the ongoing nature of the proceedings, stating that the exclusion of the public meant that information could not be disseminated.
This situation echoes back to the first preliminary hearing on June 3, when Smodej was absent. At that time, his lawyer claimed that the invitation was sent too late, less than eight days before the hearing, which contradicted the evidence presented by Smodej himself in a phone conversation with journalists on May 25. Despite this, Zarić argued that there was insufficient time to prepare a defense, particularly since copying the file after receiving the invitation would have been impractical. During the hearing, Smodej had also claimed to be in France for work, providing a contract as proof of his commitment to remain there between May 25 and June 12.
The legal process against Smodej began almost four years ago, following anonymous posts on Instagram that accused him of sexual misconduct. In October 2022, police launched a criminal investigation based on these allegations, which led to a formal accusation against Smodej in October 2022. The investigation concluded in mid-2024, followed by a judicial inquiry. In March 2025, the prosecution filed charges against Smodej for two acts of sexual abuse, bodily harm, and enabling drug use. Although the police initially investigated potential charges of violating sexual integrity and extortion, these were later dismissed.
Following the filing of the indictment in March 2025, the court was unable to notify Smodej for nearly a year. It is known that Smodej relocated to Italy during the police investigation. The prosecution submitted a request for custody in January 2026, nine months after the indictment was filed, but the court did not act on the request. Recently, Smodej informed journalists that he and his attorney had discussed the matter shortly before, expressing their stance on the ongoing legal proceedings.
2 reports
N1 SlovenijaIndependentCenterFactual 75Objective 6522 hr. agoDušan Smodej, ki je obtožen dveh kaznivih dejanj spolnega nasilja, telesnih poškodb in omogočanja uživanja prepovedanih drog, je na predobravnavnem naroku v zadevi Fotopub udeležen prek videopovezave. Predsednica sodnega senata Vesna Podjed je javnost izključila iz obravnave, kar je povzročilo, da so novinarji po koncu naroka morali zapustiti sodno dvorano. Smodej ni prišel na predhodni narok pred mesecem dni, kar je njegov odvetnik razložil kot prepozno vročo vabljeno. Tokrat se je Smodej udeležil naroka prek videokonferenčne povezave, ker je po navedbah zastopnika obtoženi v tujini. Tožilstvo je zastopal višji državni tožilec, medtem ko je tožilka Jride Mršnik Poljšak predlagala izključitev javnosti zaradi varovanja osebnega življenja oškodovank. Narok je trajal približno eno uro, medtem ko je Smodejev odvetnik dejal, da predobravnavni narok še ni zaključen in bo nadaljevan na koncu sodnih počitnic. Na sodišču ni bilo pojasnila, zakaj narok ni bil zaključen, ker je javnost izključena.
Bias read (Center): Artikel opisuje sodni postopek v zvezi z obtožbo spolnega nasilja, kar je politično kontroverzno temo. Kljub temu artikel ne uporablja zelo enostavnega ali zmanjševalnega stava, ampak predstavlja faktske dogodke in razpravo. Sodnica je odločila za izključitev javnosti, kar je poudarjeno kot varnostn
Why these scores (Factual 75 · Objective 65): The article provides detailed information about the legal proceedings, including the use of video conferencing due to Smodej being abroad, and mentions the exclusion of the public from the hearing. It aligns with the cross-source consensus but includes some subjective language like 'afera' (scandal)
Svet24IndependentCenterFactual 60Objective 5517 hr. agoThe article discusses a legal case involving 'Fotopub,' where an individual named Smodej appeared before a court via video link while the courtroom doors were closed to the public. The situation has raised questions about transparency and procedural fairness in judicial proceedings. The use of video conferencing in legal settings is becoming more common, especially in cases where security or logistical challenges are present. However, the closure of the courtroom has sparked debate over whether this undermines the principle of open justice. This incident highlights broader concerns about the balance between efficiency and public access in modern court systems.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the event factually without overtly favoring any side. It describes the circumstances of the trial and mentions the public concern regarding transparency but does not take a clear stance or use biased language.
Why these scores (Factual 60 · Objective 55): This article is very brief and lacks specific details beyond the headline. It uses emotionally charged terms like 'afera' which suggests a sensationalist approach. While it confirms the use of video conferencing, it does not provide sufficient context or depth, making it less factual and more biased
★
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
