El referéndum sobre la "policía política" ya ha recogido 30.442 firmas

VečerIndependiente🔒CentroVeracidad 85Objetividad 80hace 12 h

The Constitutional Court of Slovenia is set to decide whether the amended law governing RTVS (Radio Television of Slovenia) is constitutional. The amendment, which came into effect after a referendum in December 2022, introduced changes to the management structure of RTVS, including the early termination of mandates for members of the Program Council, Supervisory Board, and General Director, as well as the directors of radio and television. In February 2023, the court temporarily suspended parts of the amendment related to the formation of new governing bodies, but later revoked this suspension in May 2023 due to differing opinions among judges. The court has until July 20th to issue final rulings, with some judges possibly revising their positions. Two judges were excluded from the decision-making process due to potential conflicts of interest.

Lectura del sesgo (Centro): The article presents the legal proceedings and decisions of the Constitutional Court regarding a controversial law amendment without overtly favoring any side. It provides factual information about the timeline of events, judicial actions, and reasons for exclusions of certain judges, maintaining a

Por qué estas puntuaciones (Veracidad 85 · Objetividad 80): Aligns closely with the primary source, includes details about the three-year delay and the split vote. Presents information objectively.

DnevnikIndependiente🔒CentroVeracidad 85Objetividad 80hace 15 h

The Constitutional Court of Slovenia has ruled that the new law regarding RTVS (Radio Televizija Slovenija) is constitutional. The court initially temporarily suspended parts of the law in February 2023 but later revoked the suspension in May 2023. The decision was reached after a contentious process involving multiple legal challenges. The law, which was approved by referendum in November 2022, introduced changes to the governance structure of RTVS, including the appointment of new board members and leadership roles. Critics argued that the law allowed premature termination of mandates for certain officials, leading to legal challenges. The ruling allows the implementation of the law, though some justices were excluded from the final decision due to potential conflicts of interest.

Lectura del sesgo (Centro): The article presents the legal proceedings and outcomes objectively, detailing both the arguments against the law and the court’s eventual ruling. While the issue involves political stakeholders and public institutions, the framing remains balanced, focusing on legal interpretation rather than overt

Por qué estas puntuaciones (Veracidad 85 · Objetividad 80): Accurately reports on the decision by the Constitutional Court regarding the RTV Slovenia law, aligning with the primary source. Mentions the split vote but lacks specific details from the source document.

N1 SlovenijaIndependienteDerechaVeracidad 80Objetividad 85hace 15 h

The Constitutional Court of Slovenia has finally made a decision regarding the new law on RTV Slovenija (RTVS), after three years of deliberation. The court reportedly ruled that the amended law, which introduced a new management structure for RTVS, is constitutional. This decision came shortly after the appointment of five new judges and following the formation of the new government led by Prime Minister Janez Janša. The ruling was reportedly passed by a vote of 5 to 2 against the initiators of the constitutional review. The initiators had challenged the law due to concerns over premature termination of mandates for members of the Program and Supervisory Councils, as well as the director of RTVS. Earlier, the court had temporarily suspended parts of the law but later lifted the suspension. Two judges were excluded from the decision-making process due to potential conflicts of interest.

Lectura del sesgo (Derecha): The article frames the court’s decision in favor of the government’s legislative changes, emphasizing the ruling’s alignment with the constitution and the new government under Janez Janša. It highlights the narrow majority (5–2) in favor of the law, suggesting support for the current administration.

Por qué estas puntuaciones (Veracidad 80 · Objetividad 85): Matches the primary source on the Constitutional Court decision and timeline. Neutral tone, provides context without bias.

DnevnikIndependiente🔒IzquierdaVeracidad 80Objetividad 85ayer

The 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.

Lectura del sesgo (Izquierda): 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,

Por qué estas puntuaciones (Veracidad 80 · Objetividad 85): Reports accurately on the Constitutional Court decision, mentions the split vote and ongoing processes. Maintains neutrality.

N1 SlovenijaIndependienteCentroVeracidad 80Objetividad 85ayer

The 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.

Lectura del sesgo (Centro): 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,

Por qué estas puntuaciones (Veracidad 80 · Objetividad 85): Reports facts consistently with the primary source, mentions the delay and the split vote. Objectively presents the situation without clear bias.

DeloIndependiente🔒IzquierdaVeracidad 80Objetividad 85hace 3 d

An 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

Lectura del sesgo (Izquierda): 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

Por qué estas puntuaciones (Veracidad 80 · Objetividad 85): Consistent with the primary source on the Constitutional Court decision, mentions the split vote and ongoing processes. Neutral and factual.

DnevnikIndependiente🔒IzquierdaVeracidad 75Objetividad 80hace 3 d

The 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.

Lectura del sesgo (Izquierda): 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

Por qué estas puntuaciones (Veracidad 75 · Objetividad 80): Provides relevant information about the referendum, though less detailed on the Constitutional Court decision. Maintains a neutral tone.

Žurnal24IndependienteCentroVeracidad 70Objetividad 75hace 14 h

The Constitutional Court of Slovenia has ruled that the new law on RTVS (Radio Televizija Slovenija) is constitutional after nearly two years of legal proceedings. The court initially suspended parts of the law in February 2023 but later lifted the suspension in May 2023, citing disagreements among judges. The ruling was based on a law passed in December 2022, which was approved by a referendum in November 2022. Critics argued that the law prematurely ended mandates for members of the program and supervisory boards and the general director, prompting a constitutional challenge. The court allowed further review and potential reconsideration of individual judges' votes before July 20. Key judges were excluded from the decision due to conflicts of interest.

Lectura del sesgo (Centro): The article presents the constitutional ruling as a balanced outcome, noting both the initial suspension and subsequent lifting of the law. It reports the positions of different judges without overtly favoring any side, though it highlights the controversy surrounding the law’s implementation and affi

Por qué estas puntuaciones (Veracidad 70 · Objetividad 75): Focuses on the referendum issue rather than the main event. Some details match the primary source, but overall less aligned with the core event.

RTV Slovenija (MMC)Estatal / públicoCentroVeracidad 60Objetividad 70hace 15 h

The Slovenian Constitutional Court is currently reviewing a law amendment related to RTV Slovenia, which changed the management structure of the national broadcaster. The amendment was approved by referendum in November 2022 and came into effect on December 28, 2022. The petitioners, led by former program council member Peter Gregorčič, argued that the amendment prematurely ended mandates for members of the program and supervisory councils, as well as the general director and radio/TV directors. They requested a temporary suspension of the amendment’s implementation. On February 20, 2023, the court temporarily suspended parts of the amendment, including the constitution of new boards and the formation of a new statute. However, on May 26, 2023, the court revoked the suspension, citing disagreements among seven judges and the need for a new decision. Two judges, Roka Čeferin and Neža Kogovšek Šalamon, were excluded from the decision due to conflicts of interest.

Lectura del sesgo (Centro): The article presents factual developments regarding a legal challenge to a law amendment affecting state-owned media, without overtly favoring any political side. It reports on procedural steps taken by the Constitutional Court, including suspensions, revocations, and judicial exclusions, while omit

Por qué estas puntuaciones (Veracidad 60 · Objetividad 70): Shifts focus to the referendum and union involvement, less aligned with the primary source on the Constitutional Court decision. Less objective in framing the issue.

DomovinaIndependienteIzquierdaayer

El artículo analiza los esfuerzos de los iniciadores del referéndum con respecto a una reforma de la ley de investigación parlamentaria, señalando que algunos sindicatos están ayudando con la recolección de firmas. Destaca que si bien los sindicatos están legalmente autorizados a participar en tales campañas, su mandato central se centra en representar los derechos económicos, sociales y laborales de los trabajadores, lo que puede entrar en conflicto con la nueva legislación. El artículo critica el contenido de una publicación sindical, sugiriendo que se desvía de su papel tradicional al promover el activismo político de izquierda en lugar de centrarse únicamente en cuestiones laborales. También menciona que la iniciativa ha recolectado más de 30,000 firmas, pero aún necesita más para cumplir con el umbral, con un lento progreso. El artículo señala además que la Unión de Sindicatos (SIZV) y su secretario jefe Branimir Štrukelj se han involucrado activamente en la recolección de firmas, a pesar de que esto no es parte de sus responsabilidades principales.

Lectura del sesgo (Izquierda): El artículo enmarca la iniciativa del referéndum como una acción democrática necesaria contra el posible abuso de poder, utilizando un lenguaje que hace hincapié en el empoderamiento de los ciudadanos y la protección democrática.