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 poročil
VečerNeodvisen🔒ProgresivnoDejstva 85Objektivnost 65pred 8 dnevi24. julija 2026 je slovenski minister za gospodarstvo, delo in šport Anže Logar kritiziral prenos podjetja Progros iz poslanca Borisa Mijiča iz Stranke svobode na Roka Snežiča in ga opisal kot posmehovanje neplačanim delavcem in državnim institucijam.
Ocena pristranskosti (Progresivno): V članku je prenos Progrosa označen kot posmehovanje neplačanim delavcem in državnim institucijam, z uporabo močno negativnega jezika ("norčevanje", "nedelovanje pravne države") in poudarek na protikorupcijskih politikah in politikah varstva delavcev, ki so običajno povezane z levičarskimi programi.
Zakaj dejstva (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.
Zakaj 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.
DnevnikNeodvisen🔒SredinaDejstva 80Objektivnost 65pred 8 dneviPredsednik Notarske zbornice Slovenije Bojan Podgoršek je dejal, da je notarij pri prenosu poslovnega deleža podjetja Progros s poslancem Resnice Borisa Mijiča na Roka Snežiča ne mogel odkloniti sestave notarske zapise, ker so bili pogoji za neizpolnjevanje in ni bil zgodjen noben nemoralen dejanje. Podgoršek je pojasnil, da je prenos urejen v zakonu o gospodarskih družbah, ki eno predstavlja najstrožjih v Evropi, in da notarij ima preventivno funkcijo, ki vključuje pregled določenih pogojev. Natančne razlage so podrobno razvili, kot so omejitve, preverjanje sod v registru, v smislu definicije fiktivnega posla. Tudi glede premoženja podjetja je treba poudariti, da prenos ne vpliva na njihovo pozicijo, temveč slabša.
Ocena pristranskosti (Sredina): Artikel predstavlja objektivno razlago notarskega procesa pri prenosu poslovnega deleža, brez očitnega političnega slanja ali preferenc. Vsebinske informacije so osnovane na zakonskih predpisih v profesionalnih razlagah, kar kaže na nevtralnost. Ne obstaja jasna tendencija v izboru izvorov ali p
Zakaj dejstva (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.
Zakaj 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 noviceNeodvisenSredinaDejstva 80Objektivnost 60pred 8 dneviV članku so obravnavane pravne posledice prenosa lastništva nesolventne družbe Progros iz Borisa Mijiča na Roka Snežiča. V članku je pojasnjeno, da čeprav sprememba lastništva ne vpliva na obveznosti družbe ali njeno sposobnost izpolnjevanja dolgov, bi prenos lahko bil problematičen, če je namenjen izogibanju odgovornosti, ne pa reševanju finančnih vprašanj družbe. Pravni strokovnjaki pojasnjujejo, da družba ostaja odgovorna za svoje dolgove in da sta tako prejšnji kot sedanji vodstveni organi deležni odgovornosti za upravljanje nesolventnosti. V članku so poudarjene pomisleke, da bi se takšni prenosi lahko uporabili za izogibanje odgovornosti.
Ocena pristranskosti (Sredina): Čeprav se članek ukvarja s pravnimi in ekonomskimi vprašanji, povezanimi s plačilno nesposobnostjo podjetij, ki lahko imajo politične posledice, je oblikovanje uravnoteženo, saj predstavlja mnenja strokovnjakov iz obeh pravnih vidikov, ne da bi očitno podpirali katero koli posebno politično stališče.
Zakaj dejstva (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.
Zakaj 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 / javniProgresivnoDejstva 80Objektivnost 60pred 9 dneviV intervjuju za RTV Slovenija sindikalist Goran Lukić in odvetnik Miha Juhart razpravljata o spornem prenosu lastništva podjetja Progros s strani poslanca Borisa Mijiča. Mijič je podjetje, ki je v celoti v njegovi lasti, brezplačno prenesel na svojega davčnega svetovalca Roka Snežiča, s načrti, da bo podjetje sčasoma končalo pod nadzorom levičarskega koordinatorja Luka Mesca. Lukić izraža ogorčenje nad situacijo, ki jo imenuje izven človeške inteligence in ugotavlja, da Mijičevo podjetje še vedno dolguje 37 000 evrov sodelavcu. Poudarja širše posledice za delavce in upnike in navaja, da so bila dejanja izvedena na način, ki je hkrati javna in nezakonita.
Ocena pristranskosti (Progresivno): V članku so dejanja poslanca Borisa Mijiča v zelo negativni luči, poudarjajo pa se etične in pravne posledice prenosa lastništva podjetja za osebno korist.
Zakaj dejstva (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.
Zakaj 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.
DnevnikNeodvisen🔒ProgresivnoDejstva 80Objektivnost 55pred 8 dnevi Kako so Butalci gojili kameleV članku se razpravlja o neuspehu poslovne družbe Progros in kritizira politika Borisa Mijiča za njegovo ravnanje s situacijo.
Ocena pristranskosti (Progresivno): V članku so dejanja politika Borisa Mijiča postavljena v kritično svetlobo, s čimer se namiguje na to, da se on izogiba osebni odgovornosti z uporabo javnih platform, da bi zahteval odgovornost in se izognil finančnim posledicam.
Zakaj dejstva (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.
Zakaj 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.
NecenzuriranoNeodvisenProgresivnoDejstva 75Objektivnost 55Članek poroča o domnevah o finančnih kršitvah, ki vključujejo Borisa Mijiča in njegovo nekdanje podjetje Progros. Trdi, da je Rok Snežič po tem, ko se je Mijič soočil z znatnimi težavami, pomagal s preimenovanjem podjetja v "Novo necenzurirano d.o.o". Ta ukrep naj bi preprečil sodno odločbo proti Mijiču. Članek navaja notranje dokumente, ki jih je pridobil "necenzurirano.si", ki kažejo, da je Snežič kasneje preimenoval podjetje v "Klukec" in promoviral pripoved, ki pripisuje to spremembo Luku Mesiču. Članek nadalje trdi, da sta bila Mijič in Snežič vpletena v finančne nepravilnosti, vključno z dolgovanjem več tisoč evrov zaposlencem in državi. Članek tudi sprašuje verodljivost pravne dokumentacije o prenosu lastništva, pri čemer je opozoril, da ni bil uradni notar Tacav Pasar Mojčar obveščen o vseh okoliščinah in ni odkril vseh znakov morebitnih nepravilnosti in ni odkrilnega poročanja o navzovanju o navzkih o navzkrižju interesov.
Ocena pristranskosti (Progresivno): V članku so dejanja Roka Snežiča in Borisa Mijiča predstavljena na način, ki nakazuje na prikrivanje ali namerno napačno predstavitev finančnih poslov.
Zakaj dejstva (75): Reports on the transfer, company renaming, and legal consequences. Includes documents and quotes from Snežič and Mijič. Some parts contain speculative commentary.
Zakaj 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.
★
Ohranimo novice poštene.
ObjectiveNews financirajo bralci in je brez oglasov – pristranskost vam pokažemo, ne skrijemo. Podprite neodvisno novinarstvo za 5 €/mesec.
Postani podpornik
Slovenia
