Absurd slovenskega pravosodja: Smodej se zagovarja prek videa iz Francije, bolnega Radonjića so privedli v lisicah

The case of Dušan Josip Smodej and Zvjezdana Radonjić has sparked intense public scrutiny and raised serious questions about the fairness and consistency of Slovenia’s judicial system. At the heart of this controversy lies a stark contrast in how two individuals accused of similar offenses were treated during their legal proceedings—one granted remote participation via video call while the other was forcibly brought in despite being hospitalized. The situation has ignited widespread criticism on social media platforms, where users have condemned what they perceive as double standards and an unjust application of the law.

The affair began in August 2022 when anonymous reports surfaced alleging sexual misconduct by Smodej, a prominent figure associated with the "Fotopub" group. An initial police investigation concluded in the autumn of the same year, and the prosecutor filed formal charges against Smodej in March 2025. However, it wasn’t until March 2026 that the court finally issued the indictment, marking nearly a full year of delay and over three and a half years since the incident first came to light. During this time, Smodej lived abroad, primarily in Italy and France. His legal team managed to secure remote participation in the preliminary hearing, which took place behind closed doors due to concerns for the safety of the alleged victims.

In sharp contrast, Zvjezdana Radonjić faced a markedly different treatment. Despite submitting medical documentation confirming his hospitalization, the judge in Celje, Gordana Malović, ordered him to be forcibly brought to the court. This decision was later overturned by a higher court, which ruled that the judge had violated procedural rules by failing to assess Radonjić's health condition before ordering his forced appearance. Furthermore, the judge imposed an additional charge of €128 for the cost of transportation, which was deemed unlawful.

The legal framework under Slovenia’s Criminal Procedure Code (ZKP) does provide for remote participation in legal proceedings, particularly in cases involving foreign nationals or where physical attendance poses practical or safety challenges. Article 244a and 304a of the ZKP explicitly allow for the use of video conferencing to ensure secure data transmission and proper identification of participants. These provisions are intended to facilitate fair and efficient legal processes without compromising the rights of the accused or witnesses.

Despite these clear legal guidelines, the courts in both cases chose different paths. While Smodej was allowed remote access, Radonjić was subjected to a physically demanding process that disregarded his documented health conditions. Legal experts argue that such disparities highlight deeper structural issues within the Slovenian judiciary, including potential political influences, institutional biases, and inconsistent interpretations of legal procedures.

Commentators have drawn attention to the broader implications of these contrasting approaches. One analyst noted that Smodej’s case exemplifies how the system might offer leniency to high-profile individuals, even when facing serious allegations. Meanwhile, Radonjić’s experience underscores the risks of rigid adherence to traditional courtroom practices without considering individual circumstances. Such discrepancies raise concerns about the impartiality of the justice system and its ability to uphold equal protection under the law.

Public reaction has been largely critical, with many accusing the judiciary of favoring certain parties based on external factors rather than solely on the merits of each case. Social media platforms have become arenas for expressing frustration, with some users likening the situation to a form of selective justice. Others have pointed out the irony of using technology to enable one defendant’s participation while forcing another into a physically stressful situation.

Looking ahead, the ongoing legal battles between Smodej and Radonjić will likely continue to draw public and academic interest. The outcomes could set important precedents regarding the interpretation and application of remote legal participation laws. Additionally, there may be calls for reform aimed at ensuring greater transparency, accountability, and fairness in judicial decisions, especially in complex or politically sensitive cases. As the legal processes unfold, the broader debate about the integrity of Slovenia’s judicial system is expected to remain a focal point of national discourse.