Implementation of Slovenian and international journalistic organisations: including Journalists without borders for a referendum on the law on parliamentary investigations

In Slovenia, a significant political and media-related debate has emerged around a proposed amendment to the Law on Parliamentary Inquiry. This amendment, which was swiftly passed by the National Assembly on May 26, 2026, without prior public discussion, aims to remove preventive safeguards that previously protected individuals, including journalists and media organizations, from politically motivated parliamentary inquiries. The change has sparked widespread concern among international and domestic media watchdogs, who argue that the new law threatens press freedom and the confidentiality of journalistic sources.

The controversy centers on the removal of procedural protections that allowed individuals potentially affected by an inquiry to request intervention from the Constitutional Court before the process began. Under the previous system, such requests could halt or delay an investigation until the court ruled on its legality. However, the new law eliminates this option, allowing parliamentary committees to initiate investigations immediately, with appeals possible only after the fact—by which time damage might already have been done.

International media organization Reporters Without Borders (RSF), known as "Novinarji brez meja" in Slovenian, has taken a strong stance against the amendment. In a statement published on their website, RSF expressed support for a citizen initiative calling for a referendum on the new law. They warned that the amendment undermines the protection of journalistic sources, which they consider fundamental to the independence of journalism and the public's right to information. RSF also emphasized that the European Court of Human Rights has long stressed the need for independent judicial oversight of any measures that could reveal journalistic sources. According to RSF, the absence of such oversight would violate Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Pavol Szalai, director of the Prague office of RSF, stated that the amended law grants politicians access to journalists' calls, messages, and sources before a court can intervene. Once a source is exposed, he argued, there is no turning back. He called on Slovenian lawmakers to refrain from using the law, which he claimed could erode trust in journalistic sources—one of the cornerstones of media freedom. Szalai added that the protection of sources is essential to investigative journalism and the public’s right to know.

Domestically, the issue has also drawn attention from the old regime-era Society of Slovenian Journalists, which has echoed similar concerns about the potential misuse of the new law. Both groups have urged citizens to sign a petition for a referendum on the amendment, arguing that it represents a threat to democratic values and media independence. Their call for a referendum has been met with some skepticism, particularly from left-wing activists, who view the involvement of international organizations as foreign interference.

The proposed amendment has also raised questions about the balance between transparency and privacy in public affairs. Critics argue that while parliamentary inquiries serve an important function in holding power accountable, the removal of preventive checks risks enabling political actors to exploit the process for personal or partisan gain. Supporters of the amendment, however, claim that the previous system was overly procedural and hindered the effectiveness of parliamentary investigations. They believe that streamlining the process will make it more efficient and responsive to legitimate concerns about corruption and misconduct.

As the deadline for collecting signatures for the referendum approaches—July 14, 2026—the debate shows no signs of abating. With the law now in effect, the focus shifts to whether the required number of signatures can be gathered to trigger a national vote. If successful, the referendum could force a reconsideration of the amendment, potentially leading to further legal challenges or legislative revisions. Meanwhile, the situation highlights the ongoing tension between the need for accountability and the imperative to protect the confidentiality of journalistic sources, a cornerstone of free and independent media.