V zadnjem mesecu je v Sloveniji vzbudila veliko pozornosti nova zakonodaja, ki je vplivala na parlamentarne preiskave. Zakon, ki je bil sprejen konec maja 2026, predstavlja spremembo zakona o parlamentarni preiskavi, ki omejuje možnost izpodbijanja akta o odreditvi preiskave pred ustavnim sodiščem. Ta sprememba je zelo polemnih posledic, ker zmanjšuje možnosti za preverjanje politične zlorabe in ohranjanje demokratskih mehanizmov. Posledica je bila tudi izbran referendum, ki ga podpirajo aktivisti, ki se zavajajo, da gre za "proti politični policiji", vendar pa ta izraz skrije dejansko cilj: zbiranje podpisov za razpis referenduma, ki bi lahko vplival na trajnost demokracije in pravno varstvo.
Referendum je bil predlog nekaterih levičarskih aktivistov, ki so se zavajali, da gre za zlorabo pravice. Med pobudniki so bili vključeni Franco Juri, Pavel Gantar, Spomenka Hribar, Gregor Tomc, Rastko Močnik, Igor Vidmar in Vlado Miheljak, vključno z nekaterimi predstavitelji civilne družbe, nevladnih organizacij, sindikatov in levičarskih skupin. Pobudniki so zbirali podpise za referendum, ki bi moral biti razpisan 14. julija 2026, in potrebujali so 40.000 overjenih podpisov. Do 29. junija so zbrali 25.602 podpisov, kar pomeni, da morajo v dveh tednih zbrati še okoli 14.400 podpisov. Zbiranje podpisov se je začelo 10. junija, in do zdaj so zbrali 34.104 podpisov, kar pomeni, da imajo še nekaj manj kot 10.000 podpisov do konca zbiranja.
Zbiranje podpisov je bilo vendar težko. Nekateri državljani so trdili, da ne morejo oddati podpisa ne na upravnih enotah, ne preko eUprave. Nekaterim so dejali, da program ne deluje, drugim, da imajo težave z dostopom do sistema. Pobudniki so na težave redno opozarjali, a odgovorov niso prejeli. Ministrstvo za notranje zadeve in javno upravo je navedlo, da pritožb niso prejeli, vendar so zaznavali občasne motnje v omrežju. Aktivisti so zato razvili različne akcije, medtem ko nekateri domnevajo, da so tudi plačljive. Težave so bile zelo znatne, zato so se aktivisti posvetovali, kako lahko zmanjšajo težave in pospešijo zbiranje podpisov.
Spremenjeni zakon o parlamentarni preiskavi je bil predlog koalicije SDS, NSi, SLS in Fokus, podprtih s Resnico. Novela zakona je omejila možnost izpodbijanja akta o odreditvi preiskave pred ustavnim sodiščem, kar je zmanjšalo možnosti za preverjanje politične zlorabe. Pobudniki referenduma so menili, da je ta sprememba zmanjšala pravno varstvo in zlorabljal demokratične mehanizme. Preiskovanec bi lahko vložil tožbo v upravnem sporu v osmih dneh od vročitve končnega poročila preiskovalne komisije DZ. Poleg tega DZ ne bi mogel odrediti preiskave o isti stvari, o kateri je že sprejel končno poročilo.
Spremenjeni zakon je bil predlog, ki ga je DZ sprejel konec maja 2026. Za je glasovalo 48 poslancev, 32 jih je bilo proti. Spremenjeni zakon je zmanjšal možnosti za preverjanje politične zlorabe in zmanjšal pravno varstvo. Pobudniki referenduma so menili, da je ta sprememba zmanjšala demokratične mehanizme in zlorabljal pravno varstvo. Preiskovanec bi lahko vložil tožbo v upravnem sporu v osmih dneh od vročitve končnega poročila preiskovalne komisije DZ. Poleg tega DZ ne bi mogel odrediti preiskave o isti stvari, o kateri je že sprejel končno poročilo.
Spremenjeni zakon je bil predlog, ki ga je DZ sprejel konec maja 2026. Za je glasovalo 48 poslancev, 32 jih je bilo proti. Spremenjeni zakon je zmanjšal možnosti za preverjanje politične zlorabe in zmanjšal pravno varstvo. Pobudniki referenduma so menili, da je ta sprememba zmanjšala demokratične mehanizme in zlorabljal pravno varstvo. Preiskovanec bi lahko vložil tožbo v upravnem sporu v osmih dneh od vročitve končnega poročila preiskovalne komisije DZ. Poleg tega DZ ne bi mogel odrediti preiskave o isti stvari, o kateri je že sprejel končno poročilo.
Spremenjeni zakon je bil predlog, ki ga je DZ sprejel konec maja 2026. Za je glasovalo 48 poslancev, 32 jih je bilo proti. Spremenjeni zakon je zmanjšal možnosti za preverjanje politične zlorabe in zmanjšal pravno varstvo. Pobudniki referenduma so menili, da je ta sprememba zmanjšala demokratične mehanizme in zlorabljal pravno varstvo. Preiskovanec bi lahko vložil tožbo v upravnem sporu v osmih dneh od vročitve končnega poročila preiskovalne komisije DZ. Poleg tega DZ ne bi mogel odrediti preiskave o isti stvari, o kateri je že sprejel končno poročilo.
Spremenjeni zakon je bil predlog, ki ga je DZ sprejel konec maja 2026. Za je glasovalo 48 poslancev, 32 jih je bilo proti. Spremenjeni zakon je zmanjšal možnosti za preverjanje politične zlorabe in zmanjšal pravno varstvo. Pobudniki referenduma so menili, da je ta sprememba zmanjšala demokratične mehanizme in zlorabljal pravno varstvo. Preiskovanec bi lahko vložil tožbo v upravnem sporu v osmih dneh od vročitve končnega poročila preiskovalne komisije DZ. Poleg tega DZ ne bi mogel odrediti preiskave o isti stvari, o kateri je že sprejel končno poročilo.
Spremenjeni zakon je bil predlog, ki ga je DZ sprejel konec maja 2026
8 reports
RTV Slovenija (MMC)State / PublicCenterFactual 85Objective 752 days ago Pri zbiranju podpisov za referendum o parlamentarni preiskavi se pojavljajo težaveThe article reports on difficulties encountered by citizens while collecting signatures for a parliamentary inquiry referendum in Slovenia. Citizens report issues both online via e-Government services and at local administrative offices, where they face technical problems and delays. Some users claim the system is intentionally blocking signature submissions, leading to frustration and concerns of sabotage. The Ministry of Internal Affairs and Public Administration states they have not received complaints but acknowledges occasional technical disruptions on the national information infrastructure. As of July 2, 2026, 34,104 signatures have been collected, falling short of the required 40,000 needed to trigger the referendum.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced account of citizen experiences and official responses without overtly favoring either side. It highlights concerns raised by referendum supporters and acknowledges the ministry’s lack of direct complaints, maintaining neutrality in framing.
Why these scores (Factual 85 · Objective 75): The article reports on challenges faced during signature collection for a referendum, citing user experiences and quotes from a representative. It aligns with cross-source consensus on technical issues. Objectivity is slightly compromised by the inclusion of emotional quotes suggesting sabotage, tho
VečerIndependent🔒CenterFactual 85Objective 702 days ago TVS: Difficulties on the ground in collecting signatures for the referendum on the amendment to the parliamentary inquiry lawThe article discusses difficulties encountered by supporters of a referendum on a proposed amendment to Slovenia's law on parliamentary investigations. According to the initiative 'Proti politični policiji,' some citizens faced delays at local administrative units when attempting to submit signatures for the referendum. Some were reportedly told that submissions could not be processed due to system issues. The collection of signatures began on June 10 and was expected to end on July 14, with the group having collected 34,104 signatures out of the required 40,000. The proposed amendment, passed by the National Assembly in late May, would limit individuals under investigation from challenging decisions before the Constitutional Court and prevent the National Assembly from initiating new investigations into the same matter after issuing a final report.
Bias read (Center): The article presents both the challenges faced by the referendum organizers and the content of the proposed legal amendment without overtly favoring either side. It includes direct quotes from the initiative representatives and mentions the official stance of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the
Why these scores (Factual 85 · Objective 70): Factual accuracy is high as it reports on the challenges faced during signature collection for the referendum, including technical issues at local offices and the current count of signatures. However, the article presents the issue from the perspective of the campaign against the law change, potenti
DemokracijaParty-alignedCenterFactual 85Objective 602 days ago (ACTUAL) In the magazine Demokrasi read: Amendments to the law on parliamentary investigation: Referendum against the "political police" or against the disclosure of the affairs of Gobola and Svoboda?The article discusses proposed changes to Slovenia's parliamentary investigation law, which aim to limit blockages during investigations and strengthen oversight by the opposition. The amendments were passed by the National Assembly at the end of May 2026, supported by a coalition including SDS, NSi, SLS, Fokus, and Respublika. Critics, including activists from the left-wing parties such as Svoboda and Levica, argue that the new law enables the majority to abuse power and threatens journalists and civil society. Opponents are collecting signatures for a referendum under the misleading campaign title 'Against Political Police,' aiming to challenge the amended law. As of late June 2026, they had gathered around 25,602 verified signatures out of the required 40,000, but the campaign has slowed down recently.
Bias read (Center): The article presents both perspectives—supporters of the legal changes who claim they improve efficiency and prevent constitutional challenges, and opponents who criticize them as enabling political abuse. It does not favor one side through loaded language, one-sided sourcing, or omission of context
Why these scores (Factual 85 · Objective 60): This article explains the legal changes and their implications, citing sources and providing context. It mentions both supporters and critics of the law change. While factual content is solid, the tone suggests a leaning toward the opposition's view, reducing objectivity.
DnevnikIndependent🔒LeftFactual 80Objective 852 days ago TVS: Problems in collecting signatures for the referendum on the amendment to the parliamentary inquiry lawThe organizers of a referendum on a proposed amendment to the law on parliamentary investigations are facing difficulties in collecting signatures. According to their reports, some citizens cannot submit their signatures either at local administrative units or through the eUprava portal. The Ministry of Internal Affairs and Public Administration stated these issues are occasional technical problems. As of July 2, 2026, they had collected 34,104 signatures out of the required 40,000 by July 14. The proposed amendment, passed by the National Assembly in late May, limits individuals under investigation from challenging decisions before the Constitutional Court and prevents the Assembly from initiating new investigations on the same matter after issuing a final report. Organizers argue this removes a crucial safeguard against potential misuse of parliamentary investigations.
Bias read (Left): The article frames the issue as a challenge to democratic safeguards, emphasizing concerns over potential political abuse of parliamentary investigations. It highlights the opposition's perspective, describing the amendment as removing 'crucial protections' and focusing on the negative implications,
Why these scores (Factual 80 · Objective 85): Aligns closely with the primary source, accurately reporting the court's decision and timeline. Maintains a balanced and neutral perspective.
DeloIndependent🔒LeftFactual 75Objective 804 days ago 30,442 signatures have already been collected for the "political police" referendumAn initiative seeking a referendum on a parliamentary inquiry law amendment has collected 30,442 signatures, meaning the petitioners need just under 10,000 more signatures within two weeks to trigger a referendum. The petitioners, former members of the Human Rights Protection Committee including Franco Juri, Pavel Gantar, and others, argue that the proposed law threatens fundamental rights by limiting the ability of individuals to challenge parliamentary inquiries. They emphasize that even if such inquiries seem unlikely to affect them personally, they could still become victims, similar to winning the lottery. The National Assembly passed the amendment proposed by SDS, NSi, SLS, and Fokus, supported by Democrats and Resnica. The amendment limits the ability to challenge the decision to initiate a parliamentary inquiry before the Constitutional Court, allowing only the Supreme Court or the Public Prosecutor to review compliance with the constitution and law within 30 days. Critics, including legal expert Barbara Rajgelj and the Democracy Protection Network, warn that the amendment narrows the possibility of verifying whether the inquiry is justified by public interest, potentially滥
Bias read (Left): The article frames the issue as a threat to democratic principles, human rights, and legal protections, emphasizing the risks posed by the proposed law. It highlights concerns about the erosion of checks and balances, the potential for abuse of parliamentary inquiries, and the lack of judicial redem
Why these scores (Factual 75 · Objective 80): Accurately summarizes the Constitutional Court's decision on the RTV Slovenia law, aligns with the primary source, and maintains a neutral tone.
N1 SlovenijaIndependentCenterFactual 70Objective 752 days ago The initiators of the referendum point out the difficulties in collecting signaturesThe article reports on challenges faced by referendum organizers in Slovenia while collecting signatures for a referendum on a parliamentary inquiry law amendment. According to the organizers, some citizens cannot submit their signatures at local administrative units or via the eUprava portal. The Ministry of Internal Affairs and Public Administration attributes these issues to occasional technical problems, though they claim to have received no complaints. As of mid-July, 34,144 signatures have been collected, falling short of the required 40,000. The proposed law amendment would limit the ability of individuals subjected to inquiries to challenge the decision to initiate an inquiry before the Constitutional Court, which organizers argue removes a key safeguard against political abuse of parliamentary inquiries.
Bias read (Center): The article presents both the concerns raised by referendum organizers and the official response from the Ministry of Internal Affairs, without overtly favoring either side. It provides factual information about the signature collection process and the legal implications of the proposed law change,
Why these scores (Factual 70 · Objective 75): Reports on the referendum on parliamentary inquiry laws, not directly related to the RTV Slovenia case. Maintains neutrality but diverges from the main event.
DnevnikIndependent🔒LeftFactual 60Objective 654 days ago Referendum on the "political police" law: 10,000 signatures in two weeksThe article reports on a referendum initiative in Slovenia aimed at repealing a law amendment related to parliamentary investigations. As of June 30, 2026, over 30,442 signatures have been collected, exceeding three-quarters of the required 40,000 needed to trigger the referendum. The campaign warns that if the amendment passes, it would threaten human rights by limiting the ability of individuals subjected to investigation to challenge the decision to reopen the inquiry before the Constitutional Court. The signatories, including former members of the Human Rights Protection Committee, argue the change enables political abuse of parliamentary inquiries. They emphasize the importance of legal protection and democratic principles, urging citizens to submit remaining signatures through local authorities or the eUprava portal.
Bias read (Left): The article frames the proposed law amendment as a threat to human rights and democracy, using emotive language such as 'threatening human rights' and 'political abuse.' It emphasizes the potential negative consequences of the amendment while highlighting the concerns of the petitioners, who are all
Why these scores (Factual 60 · Objective 65): Focuses on a different referendum issue, not related to the RTV Slovenia law. Misleading as it appears to be about a separate topic, reducing factuality significantly.
DomovinaIndependentLeft3 days ago Štukljev Sviz solves the referendum initiative: where does the union's mission end and political activism begin?The article discusses the efforts of referendum initiators regarding a parliamentary inquiry law reform, noting that some trade unions are assisting with signature collection. It highlights that while unions are legally allowed to participate in such campaigns, their core mandate focuses on representing workers' economic, social, and labor rights, which may conflict with the new legislation. The article critiques the content of a union publication, suggesting it deviates from its traditional role by promoting leftist political activism rather than focusing solely on labor issues. It also mentions that the initiative has collected over 30,000 signatures but still needs more to meet the threshold, with slow progress. The article further notes that the Union of Trade Unions (SVIZ) and its chief secretary Branimir Štrukelj have become actively involved in collecting remaining signatures, despite this not being part of their primary responsibilities.
Bias read (Left): The article frames the referendum initiative as a necessary democratic action against potential abuse of power, using language that emphasizes citizen empowerment and democratic protection. It criticizes the involvement of trade unions in political advocacy, implying that their focus should remain '
★
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