Minister for Economy, Labour and Sport Anže Logar has condemned what he calls “absurdity” in the free transfer of insolvent company Progros from MP Borislav Mijič to tax advisor Rok Snežič, calling it a mockery of unpaid workers and state institutions. The incident, which took place this week, has sparked widespread public outrage and legal scrutiny. According to Logar, the move represents a severe breach of the rule of law and undermines trust in government institutions. He accused both Mijič and Snežič of engaging in a cynical maneuver that disregards the rights of employees and the integrity of public administration. The controversy began when Mijič transferred his 100% ownership of Progros to Snežič without compensation. This followed months of financial irregularities within the company, including unpaid wages to employees, outstanding taxes owed to the Republic of Slovenia’s Financial Administration, and debts to business partners. Despite these unresolved obligations, Mijič claimed responsibility before cameras and announced his intention to step down, leaving behind a legacy of unpaid debts. However, critics argue that his actions have been little more than a symbolic gesture, with real consequences falling on workers and public authorities. In response, Logar called the situation “an extremely poor sense of humor,” accusing both parties of exploiting legal loopholes to evade accountability. He emphasized that such actions damage public confidence and hinder efforts to build a functioning democracy. “Ministers and members of parliament must take all necessary steps to fulfill their commitments under the coalition agreement,” he stated. “The fight against corruption and abuse of power is essential for the proper functioning of state institutions.” Legal experts have since weighed in, noting that while the transfer itself may not be illegal, its implications raise serious concerns. According to the law on commercial companies, transferring shares in a limited liability company does not alter the position of creditors or change the legal status of the company. However, the transfer of Progros, a company known for its insolvency, has raised questions about whether the transaction was motivated by genuine intent to resolve financial issues or by evasion of personal responsibility. Bojan Podgoršek, president of the Slovenian Bar Association, explained that notaries are required to verify certain conditions before approving such transfers. In this case, he noted that the new owner, Rok Snežič, did not face any restrictions that would have prevented the transfer. “The notary had no grounds to refuse the registration of the share transfer,” he clarified. “The new owner was not subject to any limitations, and therefore, the notary acted correctly.” Nevertheless, some legal scholars argue that the transfer could still be considered unethical, especially given the ongoing debts owed to employees and the state. Meanwhile, labor representatives have expressed deep concern over the potential impact on workers who remain unpaid. Goran Lukić, a representative of the Workers' Advisory Board, described the situation as “beyond all reason.” He pointed out that Mijič’s former employees continue to suffer financially, while the political class continues to operate without facing meaningful consequences. “This is not just a legal issue, it’s a moral one,” Lukić said. “It shows how easily power can be used to shield individuals from accountability.” Legal scholar Miha Juhart, a professor at the University of Ljubljana Law Faculty, added that the transfer does not legally absolve Mijič of his responsibilities. “The company remains the debtor, and all claims against it remain intact,” he explained. “The new owner is not personally liable for the company’s debts unless specific conditions are met.” Juhart warned that if the transfer was intended to avoid legal consequences, it could lead to criminal charges against Mijič, particularly if evidence of intentional wrongdoing is found. The situation has also drawn attention from the public, with many citizens expressing frustration over the lack of transparency and accountability in political circles. Social media platforms have become a space for debate, with users criticizing both Mijič and Snežič for what they see as a blatant disregard for the interests of ordinary workers and taxpayers. As the controversy unfolds, the focus will likely shift toward whether the transfer constitutes a violation of ethical standards or even criminal behavior. Legal proceedings may follow, particularly if evidence emerges that the transfer was orchestrated to evade responsibility. Meanwhile, the broader implications for governance and public trust remain a central point of discussion among legal and political analysts.
6 izvještaja
VečerNeovisan🔒ProgresivnoČinjenice 85Objektivnost 65prije 8 danaSlovenski ministar gospodarstva, rada i sporta Anže Logar kritizirao je 24. srpnja 2026. prenošenje tvrtke Progros od zastupnika Borisa Mijiča iz Stranke slobode na Roka Snežiča, opisujući ga kao ismijavanje neplaćenih radnika i državnih institucija.
Procjena pristranosti (Progresivno): U članku se prebacivanje Progrosa prikazuje kao ismijavanje neplaćenih radnika i državnih institucija, koristeći snažan negativni jezik ("norčevanje", "nedelovanje pravne države") i naglašava antikorupcijsku politiku i politiku zaštite radnika koja se obično povezuje s ljevičarskim programima.
Zašto činjenice (85): This article provides detailed explanations from financial authorities regarding the legal status of the company after the transfer, citing specific laws and regulations. It aligns with other sources on the legal aspects of the transfer and its impact on debts.
Zašto objektivnost (65): The tone is somewhat critical of Mijič's actions, especially in relation to the treatment of workers and the state. The article emphasizes the legal consequences but also highlights the lack of accountability, suggesting a biased viewpoint.
DnevnikNeovisan🔒SredinaČinjenice 80Objektivnost 65prije 8 danaPredsednik Notarske zbornice Slovenije Bojan Podgoršek rekao je da je notarij pri prenosu poslovnog deleža tvrtke Progros s poslanik Resnice Borisa Mijiča na Roka Snežiča ne mogao odkloniti sastav notarske zapise, jer su bili uvjeti za neispunjenje u nijednom slučaju nemoralnog djelovanja. Podgoršek je objasnio da je prenos uređen zakonom o gospodarskim društvima, što predstavlja najstrožijih u Europi, da notarij ima preventivnu funkciju, i uključuje pregled određenih uvjeta.
Procjena pristranosti (Sredina): Artikel predstavlja objektivno razlago notarskega procesa pri prenosu poslovnega deleža, brez evidentnega političkog slanja ali preferenc. Vsebinske informacije so osnovane na zakonskih predpisih in profesionalnih razlagah, kar kaže na neutralnost. Ne obstaja jasna tendencija v izboru izvorov ali p
Zašto činjenice (80): This article accurately reports on the transfer of Progros and includes quotes from Mesec, who is now the new owner. It provides a clear and consistent account of the events, aligning with other sources and offering detailed context.
Zašto objektivnost (65): The article maintains a balanced tone, presenting both sides of the issue—Mijič’s actions and Mesec’s response. It avoids overly emotional language and stays focused on the facts.
Slovenske noviceNeovisanSredinaČinjenice 80Objektivnost 60prije 8 danaU članku se raspravlja o pravnim implikacijama prijenosa vlasništva nesolventne tvrtke Progros od Borisa Mijiča na Roka Snežića. Objašnjava se da, iako promjena vlasništva ne utječe na obveze tvrtke ili njenu sposobnost ispunjavanja dugova, prijenos bi mogao biti problematičan ako je namijenjen izbjegavanju odgovornosti umjesto rješavanju financijskih pitanja tvrtke. Pravni stručnjaci pojasnjavaju da tvrtka ostaje odgovorna za svoje dugove, a i prethodna i trenutna upravljačka tijela dijele odgovornost za upravljanje nesolventnošću.
Procjena pristranosti (Sredina): Iako se članak bavi pravnim i ekonomskim pitanjima vezanim uz insolventnost poduzeća, koja mogu imati političke implikacije, okvir ostaje uravnotežen predstavljanjem mišljenja stručnjaka iz obje pravne perspektive bez otvorene favoriziranja bilo kojeg određenog političkog stajališta.
Zašto činjenice (80): The article reports on the transfer of Progros and quotes Katja Kokot, who comments on the implications for creditors. It provides context about the legal process and the responsibilities of the new owner, aligning with other sources on the matter.
Zašto objektivnost (60): The tone is supportive of the idea that Mijič made a strategic move to protect creditors, though it also implies that he might have been motivated by self-interest. The language suggests a nuanced but still somewhat biased interpretation.
RTV Slovenija (MMC)Državni / javniProgresivnoČinjenice 80Objektivnost 60prije 9 danaU intervjuu za RTV Slovenija, sindikalist Goran Lukić i odvjetnik Miha Juhart raspravljaju o kontroverznom prijenosu vlasništva nad tvrtkom Progros od strane poslanika Borisa Mijića. Mijić je tvrtku, koja je u potpunosti u njegovom vlasništvu, besplatno prebacio svom poreznom savjetniku Roku Snežiću, s planovima da na kraju tvrtka završi pod kontrolom ljevičanskog koordinatora Luka Mesca. Lukić izražava ogorčenje zbog situacije, nazivajući je izvan ljudske inteligencije i napominjući da Mijićeva tvrtka još uvijek duguje 37 000 eura suradniku. Naglašava šire implikacije za radnike i vjerovnike, navodeći da su postupci provedeni na način koji je i javni i nezakonit. Pravnik Juhart objašnjava da prijenos dionica u društvu s ograničenom odgovornošću ne mijenja pravni položaj zahtjeva protiv tvrtke, te da svi vjerovnici ostaju neplaćeni.
Procjena pristranosti (Progresivno): U članku se djelovanje zastupnika Borisa Mijića prikazuje u vrlo negativnom svjetlu, naglašavajući etičke i pravne implikacije prijenosa vlasništva nad tvrtkom za osobnu korist.
Zašto činjenice (80): The article reports on the formal transfer of Progros and includes quotes from Rok Snežič explaining his intentions. It provides specific details about the legal process and the new name of the company, aligning with other sources on the matter.
Zašto objektivnost (60): The tone is somewhat promotional, emphasizing Snežič's business strategy and his confidence in the outcome. There is a subtle suggestion that the transfer was beneficial for Snežič, indicating a possible bias.
DnevnikNeovisan🔒ProgresivnoČinjenice 80Objektivnost 55prije 8 dana Kako su budale uzgajale kameleU članku se raspravlja o neuspjehu poslovne tvrtke Progros i kritizira političara Borisa Mijiča zbog njegovog rukovanja situacijom.
Procjena pristranosti (Progresivno): Članak kritički ocrtava postupke političara Borisa Mijiča, sugerirajući da on izbjegava osobnu odgovornost koristeći javne platforme kako bi se zatražio odgovornost, a izbjegavao financijske posljedice.
Zašto činjenice (80): The article accurately reports the transfer of Progros from Mijič to Snežič and the subsequent renaming to Klukec. It also references legal challenges and the impact of media coverage on Mijič.
Zašto objektivnost (55): The article is highly critical of Mijič and Snežič, using strong language and framing the situation as a deliberate attempt to avoid responsibility. It shows a clear bias against them.
NecenzuriranoNeovisanProgresivnoČinjenice 75Objektivnost 55U članku se izvještava o navodima o financijskom kršenju koje uključuju Borisa Mijića i njegovu bivšu tvrtku Progros. Tvrdi se da je nakon što se Mijić suočio s značajnim poteškoćama, Rok Snežić pružio pomoć preimenovanjem tvrtke u "Novo necenzurirano d.o.o". Ova je radnja navodno spriječila sudsku presudu protiv Mijića. U članku se navode unutarnji dokumenti koje je dobio "necenzurirano.si" koji sugeriraju da je Snežić kasnije preimenovao tvrtku u "Klukec" i promovirao narativ koji pripisuje ovu promjenu Lukeu Mesiću.
Procjena pristranosti (Progresivno): U članku se radnje Roka Snežića i Borisa Mijića prikazuju na način koji sugerira prikrivanje ili namjerno krivo predstavljanje financijskih poslova.
Zašto činjenice (75): Reports on the transfer, company renaming, and legal consequences. Includes documents and quotes from Snežič and Mijič. Some parts contain speculative commentary.
Zašto objektivnost (55): The tone is somewhat critical of Mijič and Snežič, suggesting they are aware of the media coverage and have used it strategically, which may introduce bias.
★
Neka vijesti ostanu poštene.
ObjectiveNews financiraju čitatelji i bez oglasa je – pristranost vam pokazujemo, ne skrivamo. Podržite neovisno novinarstvo za 5 €/mjesec.
Postani podupiratelj
Slovenia
