The Supreme Court has called for reconsideration regarding the proposed law known as "Skok," which aims to establish specialized organs for handling corruption-related criminal acts and organized crime. The law, introduced by the government on Thursday for consideration in the National Assembly, has sparked sharp criticism from the prosecution, judiciary, independent institutions, and opposition parties. Critics argue that the law does not address the root causes of lengthy criminal proceedings but instead strengthens political influence over the appointment of prosecutors and could lead to new judicial delays. According to the proposed law, the Specialized State Prosecution would be transformed into Skok. This change would end the mandates of the current leadership, with the head of the new organization and its deputies being appointed by the government and the National Assembly. The General Prosecutor, Katarina Bergant, criticized this approach, stating that the changes brought by the Skok law do not contribute to more effective prosecution of criminal acts. Instead, she argued, the primary aim is to weaken the professional autonomy of the prosecution. Bergant highlighted that the proposal alters not just the structure of the specialized state prosecution but also the method of appointing all state prosecutors. Under the new proposal, the minister would no longer be bound by the opinion of the State Prosecution Council, increasing the possibility of political influence on staffing decisions. The transformation of the specialized state prosecution into Skok involves organizational changes rather than granting additional powers for prosecuting the most severe crimes. Ivan Pridigar, head of the Specialized State Prosecution, noted that despite the new name and organizational structure, Skok would not significantly increase the authority for pursuing the most serious criminal acts. He emphasized that the law primarily introduces organizational changes and the restructuring of the specialized state prosecution into Skok. According to Pridigar, the specialized state prosecution already handles corruption, organized crime, and so-called white-collar crime. The proposal does not introduce prosecutorial investigations, as such investigative actions would still be carried out by the courts. Therefore, the prosecution believes that before reorganizing judicial bodies, there is a need for a comprehensive revision of the Criminal Procedure Act. The President of the Supreme Court, Damjan Orož, warned about the implications of establishing a new specialized court. He pointed out that the new specialized court would handle cases currently dealt with by specialized judges, potentially prolonging the resolution time of criminal cases. This delay would affect both the accused and victims, particularly those waiting for justice after crimes such as rape. Orož also expressed concerns about the unrealistic deadline for setting up the new specialized court, which is scheduled to begin operations on January 1, 2027, coinciding with the extensive reorganization of the entire first-instance regular judiciary under the previous government's judicial reform. He stated that such a deadline is not realistic and does not ensure an orderly and smooth transition. Furthermore, he emphasized that this deadline undermines the stability of the judicial system, especially the criminal judiciary. The Supreme Court has also raised concerns about the manner and timing of the establishment of the new specialized court. They pointed out that the new specialized court would have to start operating immediately without a transitional period during which it could prepare organizationally, technically, and personnel-wise. This situation was compared to starting a business and expecting it to operate at full capacity on the very first day. The Supreme Court stressed the importance of maintaining the independence of the judiciary and ensuring the appropriate balance between branches of power. They highlighted that even after the adoption of the Skok law, existing problems within the current procedures remain unresolved. These include issues related to the exclusion of judges and the continuous reassignment of cases to new judges due to the exclusion of improperly obtained evidence and the challenge of securing the presence of the accused at the main hearing. The Supreme Court supports seeking solutions within the judiciary but emphasized the need for appropriate amendments to the outdated Criminal Procedure Act, which does not provide sufficient response to modern criminal activities. However, they did not explicitly oppose the legitimacy of the Skok law, expressing a desire for certain legal solutions to be reconsidered. The Supreme Prosecution and the Specialized State Prosecution have criticized the preparation of the Skok law, noting that it was developed in secrecy without involving expert public opinion and institutions directly affected by the changes. They were informed of the content of the law through the government's website, which was publicly accessible for only a few hours before the law was adopted. They assessed that the proposed changes are primarily organizational and will not achieve the intended goals. The content of the proposal exceeds the declared objectives, altering not only the organization and appointment process of the leadership and prosecutors of Skok but also changing the method of appointing all state prosecutors in Slovenia. Under the proposed law, the Minister of Justice would no longer be bound by the opinion of the State Prosecution Council, thereby systematically weakening the professional autonomy of the prosecution and increasing the possibility of political influence on staffing decisions concerning the prosecution. The Supreme Prosecution emphasized that the main challenge in criminal prosecution is the prolonged duration of proceedings. They believe that for a significant reduction in the time taken to resolve cases, a comprehensive revision of the Criminal Procedure Act is necessary, not merely renaming the specialized state prosecution to Skok, which would continue to operate under the unchanged criminal procedural legislation. They also pointed out that the proposal does not include some crucial solutions that could impact faster processing times and leaves many questions open regarding the transitional period and the handling of ongoing cases. Both institutions believe that the proposed arrangement does not bring substantial improvements in the prosecution of the most severe criminal acts but highlights organizational and systemic changes that could affect the functioning of the state prosecution.
9 reports
DeloIndependent🔒CenterFactual 95Objective 854 days agoThe Supreme Court has called for reconsideration regarding the 'Skok' law, emphasizing that changes to the criminal procedure law are necessary to more effectively pursue the most serious offenses. Legal experts and prosecutors argue that the current legal framework is insufficient to address severe crimes efficiently. The call comes amid ongoing discussions about improving the justice system's ability to handle complex and high-stakes cases. This development highlights concerns over the effectiveness of existing procedures in combating serious criminal activities.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced view by citing legal experts and prosecutors who highlight the need for reform without taking a clear ideological stance. It focuses on procedural improvements rather than partisan issues, maintaining neutrality in its framing.
Why factuality (95): The article accurately reports on the Supreme Court's concerns regarding the proposed law, citing specific statements from Damjan Orož. It aligns closely with the primary source document's focus on legal reforms but does not mention the Democrats' stated priorities directly.
Why objectivity (85): The article presents the Supreme Court's perspective with some concern over potential negative impacts, using terms like 'negatively impact' and 'ruin stability.' While not overtly biased, it leans toward highlighting challenges rather than presenting a balanced view.
N1 SlovenijaIndependentProgressiveFactual 95Objective 754 days agoThe proposed law on Skok has faced criticism from high-ranking legal figures in Slovenia. General State Prosecutor Katarina Bergant stated that the changes introduced by the law do not contribute to more efficient prosecution of criminal acts but rather weaken the professional autonomy of the prosecution by increasing political influence over the entire state prosecution system. The Supreme Court President, Damjan Orož, warned that adopting the law would significantly impact the level of legal security. He criticized the reassignment of criminal cases and noted numerous unresolved issues regarding the organization of the new specialized court. Bergant emphasized that the proposal was developed in secrecy without involving professional experts or relevant institutions. She pointed out that the content of the proposed law goes beyond its stated goals, altering not just the structure and appointment process of leadership and prosecutors at Skok but also changing the method of appointing all state prosecutors. According to her, this would systematically undermine the professional independence of the prosecution and allow the Minister of Justice, as a politically accountable figure, to
Bias read (Progressive): The article presents critical perspectives from legal authorities such as the General State Prosecutor and the President of the Supreme Court, who argue that the proposed law undermines judicial independence and increases political influence. These voices represent institutional legal authority, and
Why factuality (95): The article thoroughly covers the information found in the primary source document, accurately representing Mihael Zupančič's priorities and the nature of the proposed law. It includes detailed insights from various stakeholders involved in the discussion.
Why objectivity (75): The article maintains a highly objective tone by presenting multiple viewpoints on the proposed law. It ensures that both supporters and critics are given equal attention, promoting a balanced understanding of the issue at hand.
DnevnikIndependent🔒ProgressiveFactual 95Objective 704 days agoThe Slovenian government has proposed a law known as 'Skok' (Jump), which aims to restructure specialized state prosecutors into a new body focused on corruption and organized crime. The proposal has sparked strong reactions from prosecutors, judiciary institutions, independent organizations, and opposition parties. Critics argue that the law does not address the root causes of lengthy criminal proceedings but instead undermines the professional autonomy of prosecutors by increasing political influence over their appointments and potentially leading to new judicial delays. General State Prosecutor Katarina Bergant criticized the bill for reducing the independence of prosecutors and for being prepared in secrecy without involving experts or institutions directly affected. She noted that the law would remove current leadership mandates and replace them with appointments made by the government and parliament, excluding the chief prosecutor from the process. Specialized prosecutor Ivan Pridigar stated that while the organization would change, the new body would not gain significant additional authority over prosecuting complex crimes.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the proposed law as an attempt to increase political control over prosecutorial appointments and reduce institutional independence, which aligns with left-leaning critiques of executive overreach. While the law is presented as a reform, the emphasis on undermining professional aut
Why factuality (95): The article aligns closely with the information provided in the primary source document by accurately reflecting Mihael Zupančič's stated priorities and the nature of the proposed law. It provides comprehensive coverage of the situation without omitting key points.
Why objectivity (70): The article maintains a balanced tone by acknowledging both the supporters and opponents of the proposed law. It avoids taking a strong stance on either side, allowing readers to form their own opinions based on presented facts.
VečerIndependent🔒CenterFactual 90Objective 804 days agoPredsednik vrhovnega sodišča Damjan Orož je izrazil zaskrbljenost glede predloga zakona o specializiranih sodiščih za obravnavo korupcijskih kaznivih dejanj in organiziranega kriminala (Skok). Orož meni, da bi ta predlog podaljšal čase reševanja kazenskih zadev in povzročil manjkovanje prehodnega obdobja za pripravo novega sodišča. Tudi rok ustanovitve sodišča 1. januarja 2027 je ocenjen kot nerealen in nevaren za stabilnost sodnega sistema. Vrhovno sodišče zahteva poseben neposredni odpor in poročila predsednika Specializiranega sodišča državnemu zboru, da bi se varovala neodvisnost sodstva. Orož opozorja, da obstaja še vedno problema z izločevanjem sodnikov in predodeljevanjem zadev, kar lahko vpliva na pravice obtoženca.
Bias read (Center): The article presents concerns raised by the Supreme Court president regarding a proposed law, but does not take a clear partisan stance. It reports on legal and procedural issues without overtly favoring any political side. The tone remains objective, focusing on the implications of the proposed law
Why factuality (90): The article provides detailed information on the Supreme Prosecution's criticisms of the proposed law, including organizational changes and lack of stakeholder consultation. It aligns with the primary source document's emphasis on legal reforms but doesn't reference the Democrats' stated priorities.
Why objectivity (80): The article maintains a critical stance towards the proposed law, emphasizing concerns raised by the prosecution. While it avoids overt bias, it focuses more on the criticisms than on any positive aspects of the proposal.
VečerIndependent🔒ProgressiveFactual 90Objective 654 days ago Jump Prosecution: The proposed law will not strengthen the fight against corruption but will weaken the independence of the prosecutionThe Slovenian Supreme Court and the Specialized State Prosecutor’s Office (SDT) have criticized a proposed law aimed at improving the fight against corruption and organized crime. They argue that the law does not strengthen anti-corruption efforts but instead weakens the independence of prosecutors by increasing political influence over staffing decisions. The law would reorganize the SDT into a new body called StKOK, change the naming and evaluation system for state prosecutors, and reduce the role of the General State Prosecutor in appointing leadership. Both institutions claim the law lacks meaningful reforms and fails to address systemic issues in the criminal justice system, such as prolonged legal proceedings. They emphasize that true improvements require comprehensive reforms to the Criminal Procedure Code rather than mere organizational changes.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the proposed law as politically motivated and detrimental to judicial independence, emphasizing concerns about increased political influence over prosecutorial appointments. It highlights the perceived lack of substantive reform and criticizes the process of drafting the law, with
Why factuality (90): The article accurately represents the content of the primary source document by detailing Mihael Zupančič's role and the proposed changes to the judicial system. It incorporates relevant information about the concerns expressed by various legal entities.
Why objectivity (65): The article presents a somewhat neutral viewpoint by discussing the criticisms of the proposed law alongside the rationale behind its introduction. Although it leans slightly towards the opposing views, it still attempts to provide a fair representation of different perspectives.
DeloIndependent🔒CenterFactual 85Objective 754 days ago The Supreme and Specialist Public Prosecutor's Office critical of the Jump ActThe Supreme Court of Slovenia (VDT) and the Specialized State Prosecution Office (SDT) have criticized the proposed law on specialized organs for handling corruption and organized crime cases (StKOK), which was introduced by the government on July 15, 2026. Both institutions argue that the proposed changes do not bring significant improvements to the prosecution of complex criminal cases and warn of potential organizational and systemic changes that could affect the functioning of the state prosecution service. They highlight that the proposal was prepared without consultation with expert public and relevant authorities, and they question the justification for using urgent legislative procedures, as the conditions for this are not met. The VDT notes that the government did not have access to the official text but only to a version briefly published online, which may still have been revised before final approval. The proposal is seen as exceeding the goal of more effective fight against corruption and organized crime, as it would also interfere with the naming system of all state prosecutors. Key changes include removing the requirement for the Ministry to consult the State Prosecut
Bias read (Center): While the article presents criticism of a proposed law from two state prosecution offices, it does not take a clear ideological stance. It reports the concerns raised by these institutions without overtly endorsing or opposing their positions. The tone remains objective, focusing on the legal and/or
Why factuality (85): The article discusses opposition from the Left party, referencing specific critiques and social media comments. However, it lacks direct references to the Democrats' stated priorities from the primary source document.
Why objectivity (75): The article has a clear political tone, using phrases like 'piar project' and 'bombastic SKOK.' It frames the issue in a way that supports the opposition's viewpoint, showing a noticeable lean towards one side.
ReporterIndependentProgressiveFactual 85Objective 604 days agoThe article discusses concerns raised by General State Prosecutor Ana Bergant regarding a proposed law (Skok) aimed at restructuring specialized organs for handling corruption and organized crime cases. Bergant criticizes the law's secretive preparation process, lack of involvement with professional experts and relevant institutions, and its potential impact on the autonomy of the state prosecutor's office. She argues that the law would reduce the independence of prosecutors by allowing the Minister of Justice to influence staffing decisions without consulting the State Prosecution Council. The law also proposes changes to the internal structure of the state prosecution system, which Bergant claims could weaken the effectiveness of the prosecution service. Meanwhile, Ivan Pridigar, head of the Specialized State Prosecution Office (SDT), states that the law does not expand the scope of prosecuting serious crimes but rather introduces new internal support units for prosecutors.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the proposed law as a significant threat to the independence of the prosecutorial system, emphasizing concerns about political influence over staffing decisions and organizational structure. It highlights the lack of transparency and consultation during the drafting process, which
Why factuality (85): The article accurately conveys the essence of the primary source document by addressing the proposed changes to the judicial structure and the concerns voiced by the General State Prosecutor. However, it could have included more direct references to Zupančič's stated priorities.
Why objectivity (60): The article displays a moderate level of neutrality by presenting the criticisms of the proposed law alongside the reasons given for its implementation. Nonetheless, it tends to highlight the negative aspects more prominently, which might influence reader perception.
Žurnal24IndependentCenterFactual 85Objective 604 days agoThe article discusses criticism of Slovenia's proposed law on the State Prosecution Office (StKOK), which aims to increase political influence over prosecutorial appointments and operations. General Prosecutor Katarina Bergant argues that the law undermines professional autonomy by giving more power to the Ministry of Justice in selecting prosecutors, rather than relying on the existing State Prosecution Council. Multiple institutions, including the State Attorney’s Office, the Human Rights Defender, and the Court of Auditors, have expressed concerns about the lack of transparency in drafting the law and the absence of input from legal experts. Critics argue that the law does not address core issues in criminal prosecution but instead strengthens political control over the judiciary. The opposition party 'Prerod' claims the law merely renames and restructures the current system without meaningful reform.
Bias read (Center): The article presents multiple perspectives—criticisms from legal professionals, institutions, and political groups—without overtly favoring any side. It highlights concerns about political influence and procedural flaws while quoting various stakeholders, maintaining a balanced tone.
Why factuality (85): The article discusses criticism of the proposed law regarding the Specialized Prosecution for Corruption and Organized Crime (SKOK) and mentions concerns raised by various institutions like the General State Prosecutor and the Constitutional Court. However, it lacks specific details about the primar
Why objectivity (60): The article presents a critical perspective towards the proposed law and emphasizes the concerns raised by legal experts and institutions. The tone leans towards highlighting the potential negative impacts of the law, showing a clear bias against the proposal without providing a balanced view of its
Nova24TVParty-alignedProgressiveFactual 80Objective 554 days agoThe article discusses criticism of a new law aimed at improving cooperation between institutions combating organized crime and corruption, which has been challenged by the General State Prosecutor, Katarina Bergant. She argues that the law undermines the professional autonomy of the prosecution service and increases political influence. Meanwhile, some members of the public believe necessary changes are needed in criminal investigations. The article references past experiences, including incidents where transitional leftist actors allegedly promoted their services within corrupt systems, and revelations in Tarči that were suppressed by Golob’s administration. Public trust in the investigation of economic crimes, corruption among public officials, and organized crime remains low. Supporters of the law, such as communication office head Sebastjan Jeretič and former Prime Minister Anže Logar, argue that the establishment of SKOK (Special Criminal Office) is a necessary step toward effective anti-corruption efforts. The article criticizes the current state prosecutor and judiciary for being ineffective, while also highlighting concerns over the legal reasoning behind the proposed law.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the proposed law as a necessary reform against corruption, supporting the establishment of SKOK as a response to systemic failures. It highlights criticisms of the current judicial system and portrays the opposition to the law as politically motivated. While it acknowledges public
Why factuality (80): The article references the primary source document indirectly by discussing the proposed changes to the judicial system and the concerns raised by the General State Prosecutor. However, it lacks explicit mention of Zupančič's specific priorities as detailed in the primary source.
Why objectivity (55): The article exhibits a biased tone by emphasizing the opposition to the proposed law and focusing on the criticisms from various legal institutions. This approach may lead readers to perceive the law negatively without adequately presenting its proponents' arguments.
★
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
