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 izvještaja
DeloNeovisan🔒SredinaČinjenice 95Objektivnost 85prije 4 danaVrhovni sud pozvao je na ponovno razmatranje zakona "Skok", naglašavajući da su promjene u kaznenom postupku potrebne kako bi se učinkovitije progonili najteži prekršaji. Pravni stručnjaci i tužitelji tvrde da trenutni pravni okvir nije dovoljan za učinkovito rješavanje teških zločina.
Procjena pristranosti (Sredina): Članak predstavlja uravnoteženo gledište, pozivajući se na pravne stručnjake i tužitelje koji ističu potrebu za reformom, bez da zauzmu jasan ideološki stav.
Zašto činjenice (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.
Zašto objektivnost (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 SlovenijaNeovisanProgresivnoČinjenice 95Objektivnost 75prije 4 danaPredloženi zakon o Skoku suočio se s kritikama visokih pravnih ličnosti u Sloveniji. Glavna državna tužiteljica Katarina Bergant izjavila je da promjene koje je zakon uveo ne doprinose učinkovitijem progonu kaznenih djela, već umjesto toga slabe profesionalnu autonomiju tužiteljstva povećanjem političkog utjecaja na cijeli državni sustav kaznenog progona. Predsjednik Vrhovnog suda Damjan Orož upozorio je da će usvajanje zakona znatno utjecati na razinu pravne sigurnosti. Kritizirao je preraspodjelu kaznenih predmeta i primijetio brojna neriješena pitanja u vezi s organizacijom novog specijaliziranog suda.
Procjena pristranosti (Progresivno): U članku su predstavljene kritičke perspektive pravnih tijela, kao što su državni tužitelj i predsjednik Vrhovnog suda, koji tvrde da predloženi zakon potkopava neovisnost pravosuđa i povećava politički utjecaj.
Zašto činjenice (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.
Zašto objektivnost (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.
DnevnikNeovisan🔒ProgresivnoČinjenice 95Objektivnost 70prije 4 danaSlovenska vlada predložila je zakon poznat kao "Skok" (skok), čiji je cilj restrukturiranje specijaliziranih državnih tužitelja u novo tijelo usmjereno na korupciju i organizirani kriminal. Prijedlog je izazvao jake reakcije tužitelja, pravosudnih institucija, neovisnih organizacija i opozicijskih stranaka. Kritičari tvrde da se zakon ne bavi korijenima dugih kaznenog postupka, već umesto toga potkopava profesionalnu autonomiju tužitelja povećavajući politički utjecaj na njihova imenovanja i potencijalno dovodeći do novih pravosudnih kašnjenja.
Procjena pristranosti (Progresivno): U članku se predlazan zakon prikazuje kao pokušaj povećanja političke kontrole nad imenovanjem tužitelja i smanjenja institucionalne neovisnosti, što je u skladu s lijevo orijentiranim kritikama prekomjernog djelovanja izvršne vlasti.
Zašto činjenice (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.
Zašto objektivnost (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.
VečerNeovisan🔒SredinaČinjenice 90Objektivnost 80prije 4 danaPredsednik Vrhovnog suda Damjan Orož izrazio je zabrinutost zbog prijedloga zakona o specijaliziranim sudovima za rješavanje korupcijskih kaznenih djela u organiziranom kriminalu (Skok). Orož meni, da bi taj prijedlog mogao produljiti vrijeme rješavanja kazenskih stvari i uzrokovati manjkovanje prethodnog razdoblja za pripremu novog suda. Tudi rok ustanovitve sodišča 1. siječnja 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 neovisnost suda. Orož upozorava, da i dalje postoji problem izločevanjem sodnika u predodeljevanjem, što može utjecati na prava građana.
Procjena pristranosti (Sredina): U članku se prikazuju zabrinutosti koje je izrazio predsjednik Vrhovnog suda u vezi s predloženim zakonom, ali ne zauzima jasan strankarski stav.
Zašto činjenice (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.
Zašto objektivnost (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.
VečerNeovisan🔒ProgresivnoČinjenice 90Objektivnost 65prije 4 dana Tužiteljstvo o Skoku: Predloženi zakon neće ojačati borbu protiv korupcije, već će oslabiti neovisnost tužiteljstvaVrhovni sud Slovenije i Specijalizirano državno tužiteljstvo (SDT) kritizirali su predloženi zakon čiji je cilj poboljšanje borbe protiv korupcije i organiziranog kriminala. Oni tvrde da zakon ne jača napore protiv korupcije, već umesto toga slabi neovisnost tužitelja povećanjem političkog utjecaja na odluke o osoblju. Zakon bi reorganizirao SDT u novo tijelo pod nazivom StKOK, promijenio bi sustav imenovanja i ocjenjivanja državnih tužitelja i smanjio ulogu glavnog državnog tužitelja u imenovanju vodstva. Obje institucije tvrde da zakonu nedostaju značajne reforme i ne rješavaju sistemska pitanja u kaznenom pravosuđu, kao što su produženi sudski postupci. Naglašavaju da istinska poboljšanja zahtijevaju sveobuhvatne reforme kaznenog postupka, a ne samo organizacijske promjene.
Procjena pristranosti (Progresivno): U članku se navodi da je predloženi zakon politički motiviran i štetan za neovisnost pravosuđa, naglašavajući zabrinutost zbog povećanog političkog utjecaja na imenovanja tužitelja.
Zašto činjenice (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.
Zašto objektivnost (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.
DeloNeovisan🔒SredinaČinjenice 85Objektivnost 75prije 4 dana Vrhovni i specijalizirani državni tužitelji kritični su prema Zakonu o skokuVrhovni sud Slovenije (VDT) i Specijalizirano državno tužiteljstvo (SDT) kritizirali su predloženi zakon o specijaliziranim tijelima za rješavanje slučajeva korupcije i organiziranog kriminala (StKOK), koji je vlada uvela 15. srpnja 2026. Obje institucije tvrde da predložene promjene ne donose značajne poboljšanja u procesuiranju složenih kaznenih slučajeva i upozoravaju na potencijalne organizacijske i sistemske promjene koje bi mogle utjecati na funkcioniranje državne tužiteljske službe.
Procjena pristranosti (Sredina): Iako članak iznosi kritike dvaju državnih tužiteljstava prema predloženom zakonu, ne zauzima jasan ideološki stav.
Zašto činjenice (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.
Zašto objektivnost (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.
ReporterNeovisanProgresivnoČinjenice 85Objektivnost 60prije 4 danaU članku se razmatra zabrinutost koju je izrazila glavna državna tužiteljica Ana Bergant u vezi s predloženim zakonom (Skok) čiji je cilj restrukturiranje specijaliziranih tijela za rješavanje slučajeva korupcije i organiziranog kriminala.
Procjena pristranosti (Progresivno): U članku se navodi da je predloženi zakon značajna prijetnja neovisnosti tužiteljskog sustava, naglašavajući zabrinutost zbog političkog utjecaja na odluke o osoblju i organizacijskoj strukturi.
Zašto činjenice (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.
Zašto objektivnost (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.
Žurnal24NeovisanSredinaČinjenice 85Objektivnost 60prije 4 danaU članku se raspravlja o kritici predloženog zakona o Državnom tužiteljstvu (StKOK) u Sloveniji, čiji je cilj povećati politički utjecaj na imenovanja i poslovanje tužitelja.
Procjena pristranosti (Sredina): U članku su predstavljene različite perspektive - kritike pravnih stručnjaka, institucija i političkih skupina - bez da se otvoreno favorizira bilo koja strana.
Zašto činjenice (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
Zašto objektivnost (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
Nova24TVStranački povezanProgresivnoČinjenice 80Objektivnost 55prije 4 danaU članku se raspravlja o kritici novog zakona čiji je cilj poboljšanje suradnje između institucija koje se bore protiv organiziranog kriminala i korupcije, što je osporavala glavna državna tužiteljica Katarina Bergant. Ona tvrdi da zakon potkopava profesionalnu autonomiju tužiteljstva i povećava politički utjecaj. U međuvremenu, neki članovi javnosti vjeruju da su potrebne promjene u kaznenim istragama. U članku se pozivaju na prošle iskustva, uključujući incidente u kojima su tranzicijski levičari navodno promovirali svoje usluge unutar korumpiranih sustava i otkrića u Tarčiju koja je potisnula Golobinska administracija. Povjerenje javnosti u istragu gospodarskih zločina, korupcije među javnim dužnosnicima i organiziranog kriminala ostaje nisko. Pristalici zakona, kao što su šef ureda za komunikacije Sebastetijan i bivši premijer Jerže Anar Logarč, tvrde da je osnivanje SKOK-a (Posebnog kaznenog ureda) korak prema djelotvornoj borbi protiv korupcije.
Procjena pristranosti (Progresivno): U članku se propisano pravo prikazuje kao nužna reforma protiv korupcije, podržavajući osnivanje SKOK-a kao odgovor na sistemske nedostatke.
Zašto činjenice (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.
Zašto objektivnost (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.
★
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
