Ahmetović o primeru Švicarca: Ščitili bi državljane kot leta 2015
Mirela Ahmetović, zastopnica SDP, je komentirala sodbo Vrhovnega sodišča v primeru 'švicarac', kjer so potrošniki dobili pravo na zatezne obresti, vendar ne na povrat predplačane glavnice.
In Croatia, the process of selecting new constitutional judges has entered a critical phase as the first five candidates were heard before the Parliamentary Committee for the Constitution, Statute, and Political System. This marks a significant step in an ongoing political struggle between the ruling HDZ party and the opposition SDP over the composition of the Constitutional Court. The HDZ aims to appoint three new judges before the summer recess, while the SDP has refused to engage in negotiations, citing past controversies involving Premier Andrej Plenković.
The selection process began after initial candidates failed to secure the necessary two-thirds majority support in the parliament. As a result, the committee reopened the call for candidates, receiving 17 applications. One candidate withdrew, leaving 16 eligible names. Among these, three had previously been discussed but did not gain sufficient backing. The first five candidates—Nevena Aljinović, Branka Genzić Horvat, Ana Horvat Vuković, Davorin Ivanjek, and Jadranko Jug—were presented to the committee, with the remaining ten scheduled for hearings on the following day.
The SDP's stance is clear: they will not negotiate with the HDZ regarding the selection of constitutional judges. According to SDP representative Tonči Restović, the previous attempts at negotiation have been tainted by political maneuvering initiated by the premier. The SDP plans to evaluate all candidates after their hearings and propose those deemed most qualified, professional, and ethical. However, Restović expressed doubt about whether three judges could be appointed before the summer break, when the parliament will be in recess for two months.
On the other hand, HDZ representative Ivan Malenica urged the opposition to engage in talks to finalize the appointments. Without such discussions, the Constitutional Court would remain incomplete, operating with only 10 members instead of the full complement of 15. Malenica criticized the SDP’s current approach, noting that they now intend to unilaterally propose candidates—a strategy the HDZ has long opposed.
The debate over the selection process has also brought attention to historical sensitivities. During the hearing of Ana Horvat Vuković, a discussion arose regarding the salute "Za dom spremni," which she described as fascist and comparable to the Nazi salute "Sieg Heil." The exchange highlighted tensions around historical symbols and their relevance in contemporary politics. Other candidates, including Nevena Aljinović and Jadranko Jug, also commented on the issue, emphasizing its controversial nature.
Meanwhile, the political discourse extended beyond the Constitutional Court. In response to a statement by SDP leader Siniša Hajdaš Dončić, who suggested that the Supreme Court might have ruled differently on the "Swiss franc" case if the SDP had been in power, HDZ representatives accused him of undermining judicial independence. Krunoslav Katičić condemned the remarks as an attempt to manipulate institutions and emphasized the need for respect towards the judiciary's autonomy.
SDP representative Mirela Ahmetović defended her party's position, stating that while the SDP would not interfere with the judiciary, it would ensure the protection of citizens' rights. She pointed to the recent Supreme Court decision on Swiss franc loans, which left many consumers dissatisfied, and called on the government to take more active measures to safeguard public interests.
The controversy surrounding the selection of constitutional judges has also spilled into personal exchanges within the parliamentary chamber. Sandra Benčić, a member of the Možemo party, was caught on camera saying "stoka" (a derogatory term implying stupidity or foolishness) as she left a session discussing the court appointments. HDZ responded by accusing her of using inappropriate language against their colleagues, including former university dean Ivan Malenica. Benčić later clarified that her remark was directed at the HDZ and stemmed from frustration over the rushed appointment process and perceived manipulation of institutions.
As the hearings continue, the focus remains on ensuring the integrity of the Constitutional Court and maintaining the balance of power within the Croatian political landscape. With both parties holding firm positions, the outcome of these deliberations will likely shape the future dynamics of governance and judicial independence in Croatia.
Kako je poročala vsaka stran
Isti dogodek, razvrščen po političnem nagibu medijev, ki so o njem poročali.
levo
sredina
desno
★
Kako je poročala vsaka stran
Podprite neodvisne novice z zavedanjem pristranskosti in odklenite družbeni utrip, glasovanje skupnosti in svoj prilagojen pregled Zame.
Mirela Ahmetović, zastopnica SDP, je izjavila, da SDP nikoli ni poskušala vplivati na pravosuđe, vendar je našla način za zaščito državljanov, kot je to storila leta 2015.
Ocena pristranskosti (Levo): V članku so predstavljene izjave predstavnika SDP, ki kritizira vladajočo stranko (HDZ) zaradi neustrezne zaščite državljanov v finančnih zadevah.
Zakaj te ocene (Dejstva 95 · Objektivnost 85): Highly factual with direct quotes from Mirela Ahmetović and references to court decisions. However, the article has a clear political bias favoring SDP, using phrases like 'ne bi odmahivao rukom kao HDZ' which implies criticism of HDZ.
Odbor hrvaškega parlamenta za ustavo, statut in politični sistem je zaslišal prvih pet od 15 kandidatov za ustavne sodnike. Vladajoča stranka HDZ namerava pred poletnimi počitnicami imenovati tri nove sodnike, opozicijska SDP pa se s poimenovanjem preteklih sporov, v katerih je sodeloval premier Andrej Plenković, zavrača pogajanja.
Ocena pristranskosti (Sredina): V članku so predstavljeni stališča obeh strank, HDZ in SDP, glede postopka imenovanja ustavnih sodnikov. V članku so navedeni neposredni navedki predstavnikov obeh strank, ki poudarjajo njihove različne stališče in motivacije, ne da bi naklonjeni eni strani.
Zakaj te ocene (Dejstva 95 · Objektivnost 80): Factual with specific names and events mentioned. The article presents both sides but leans slightly towards SDP by highlighting their refusal to negotiate with HDZ.
Člani parlamentarne skupine HDZ so kritizirali predsednika SDP Sinišo Hajdaša Dončića, ker je predlagal, da če bi bila SDP na oblasti, Ustavno sodišče ne bi izdalo odločbe o "Švicarjih" (švicarskih državljanih).
Ocena pristranskosti (Desno): Članek predstavlja perspektivo HDZ z močno negativnim jezikom do SDP, obtožuje jih, da spodkopavajo neodvisnost sodstva in vplivajo na institucije.
Zakaj te ocene (Dejstva 95 · Objektivnost 80): Highly factual with detailed information about the candidates and the selection process. The article remains relatively neutral despite mentioning political tensions.
Novi listNeodvisenLevoDejstva 95Objektivnost 80pred 16 dnevi
Mirela Ahmetović, zastopnica SDP, je komentirala sodbo Vrhovnega sodišča v primeru Švicarac in trdila, da SDP nikoli ni poskušala vplivati na pravosode, vendar je našla način za zaščito državljanov. Ahmetović je naglasila, da SDP, kot druge politične stranke, nima pravice komentirati javno dostopne sodne sodbe.
Ocena pristranskosti (Levo): V članku so predstavljene izjave uradnikov SDP, ki kritizirajo sodno odločbo in navajajo, da se odločba ne bi zgodila, če bi bila SDP na oblasti.
Zakaj te ocene (Dejstva 95 · Objektivnost 80): Very factual with direct quotes and references to court decisions. The article maintains a moderate tone but subtly supports SDP's position through its narrative.
Hrvaška stranka HDZ je na Facebooku objavila video, v katerem je prikazan incident, pri katerem je bila vključena parlamentarna predstavnica Sandra Benčić (z stranke Možemo), ki je trdila, da je urazila ministra Ivana Malenića z besedo "stoka" (ki pomeni "stoka"). Benčić je kasneje potrdil, da je to besedo izrekel, vendar je pojasnil, da je bila usmerjena proti HDZ stranki, ne posameznikom.
Ocena pristranskosti (Desno): V članku se situacija razkrije tako, da poudarja domnevno žalitev Benčića in HDZ-jev odgovor predstavlja kot upravičen odziv.
Zakaj te ocene (Dejstva 95 · Objektivnost 76): The article accurately details the debate within the Constitutional Committee and the controversy surrounding the selection of judges. It remains relatively neutral but does include some emotionally charged descriptions of the political conflict.
Sandra Benčić, predstavnica stranke Možemo, je potrdila, da je v času sestanka ustavnega odbora, usmerjenega proti članom HDZ, uporabila besedo "stoko" (ki se lahko razlaga kot žalitev).
Ocena pristranskosti (Levo): V članku je Benčićina izjava bila neposredno kritika HDZ in vladnih ukrepov, ki je poudarjala njeno frustracijo zaradi političnega procesa in uporabe politične moči nad državljani.
Zakaj te ocene (Dejstva 95 · Objektivnost 75): High factual accuracy as it directly quotes Benčić's statements and provides context from her Facebook post. However, the tone is somewhat biased towards her perspective, lacking counterpoints.
Sandra Benčić je pojasnila, da je njena uporaba besede "stoka" (ki se v parlamentu prevajata kot "kradalci") v času zasedanja usmerjena v Hrvaško demokratično zvezo (HDZ).
Ocena pristranskosti (Levo): V članku je Sandra Benčić kritik HDZ z uporabo močnega jezika, kot so "drumski razbojnici" ("banditi"), in HDZ kot neetično in manipulativno delovanje.
Zakaj te ocene (Dejstva 95 · Objektivnost 70): The article accurately reports Sandra Benčić's admission of using the word 'stoka' referring to HDZ. It includes her explanation of the context and quotes from her Facebook post. The tone is somewhat biased as it presents her perspective without counterpoints from HDZ.
Novi listNeodvisenDesnoDejstva 95Objektivnost 65pred 26 dnevi
Hrvaška demokratična zveza (HDZ) je odgovorila Sandri Benčić iz Možemo, ki je članov HDZ označila za "stoka" (stove), s tem, da jo obtožujejo, da uporablja vulgarno jezik in branijo svoje izjave kot upravičeno.
Ocena pristranskosti (Desno): V članku se HDZ odziva kot obramba za svoje dejanja in kritizira Benčićovo jezik, ki predlaga desno usmerjeno vidik, ki poudarja stališče HDZ in prikazuje Benčićove pripombe kot neprimerne, namesto da obravnava temeljno vprašanje postopkovne preglednosti.
Zakaj te ocene (Dejstva 95 · Objektivnost 65): This article repeats similar information to article 5 but with slightly different phrasing. It accurately reports Benčić's admission and the context surrounding it. The tone remains biased in favor of HDZ.
Novi listNeodvisenSredinaDejstva 95Objektivnost 65pred 26 dnevi
Sandra Benčić (Možemo) je na Facebooku potrdila, da je rekla "stoko" (kar se prevajata kot "sram") med zasedanjem parlamentnega odbora za ustavo, statut in politični sistem, s sklicevanjem na stranko HDZ. HDZ je prej objavila videoklip, ki prikazuje Benčića, ko se približuje kameri, preden je bila slišana beseda "stoko". Benčić je pojasnila, da je njena komentarja prišla po prejemu 17 kandidatov za sodnike Ustavnega sodišča in odloženem razpravi.
Ocena pristranskosti (Sredina): V članku je bila predstavljena neposredna izjava Sandre Benčić, ki potrjuje njeno pripombe in jo pojasnjuje.
Zakaj te ocene (Dejstva 95 · Objektivnost 65): The article accurately reports Benčić's admission of using the word 'stoka' referring to HDZ. It includes her explanation of the context and quotes from her Facebook post. The tone is somewhat biased as it presents her perspective without counterpoints from HDZ.
Sandra Benčić, članica stranke Možemo in parlamentarna predstavnica, je priznala, da je v času zasedanja ustavnega odbora rekla 'stoka' (kar se prevajata v 'scum') in se nanašala na stranko HDZ. V odgovoru jo je HDZ obtožila, da je žalila svojo stranko in predstavnika SDP Sašo Đujića, ki je bila vključena v isti sestanek odbora. HDZ je izjavila, da če so bili obravnavani kot 'stoka', potem je tudi Đujić, in kritiziral Možemo za to, kako ravnajo s svojimi mlajšimi partnerji. HDZ je tudi trdil, da se Benčić ni opravičil za njene pripombe, ki so bile značilne za njen govor.
Ocena pristranskosti (Desno): V članku je HDZ odgovor na Benčićovo pripombe z močnim jezikom, ki poudarja žalitev in kritiko premaga Možemo, medtem ko brani svojo lastno stališče in posredno kritizira člana SDP.
Zakaj te ocene (Dejstva 95 · Objektivnost 60): The article accurately reports HDZ's response to Sandra Benčić's comments. It includes direct quotes from HDZ's Facebook post. The tone is clearly biased in favor of HDZ and critical of Možemo.
Hrvaška demokratična zveza (HDZ) je na Facebooku objavila video, v katerem Sandra Benčić govori besedo "stoka" (ki pomeni "esel") ko je odšla iz zasedanja parlamentarne komisije. HDZ trdi, da je bila to usmerjena proti Ivanu Maleniću, nekdanjemu dekanu Univerze v Splitu, in drugim članom parlamentarne večine. Benčić je odgovoril s potrditvijo besede, ki je navedla, da se nanaša na HDZ in izrazil frustracijo zaradi tega, kar je opisala kot politične manipulacije in nepokorjenje do državljanov.
Ocena pristranskosti (Desno): V članku je predstavljena trditev HDZ, da je Benčić uporabil izraz "stoka" za kritizo članov HDZ, kar je bilo oblikovano kot napad na stranko.
Zakaj te ocene (Dejstva 94 · Objektivnost 78): The article accurately reports the incident involving Benčić calling HDZ members 'stoka' and her subsequent clarification. While it presents both sides, it still has a slight lean towards supporting Benčić’s perspective.
Vodja socialdemokratske stranke (SDP) Siniša Hajdaš Dončić je trdil, da bi se ustavno sodišče drugače odločilo o "švicarski zadevi", če bi bila SDP na oblasti.
Ocena pristranskosti (Desno): Članek predstavlja obtožbo HDZ proti Hajdašu kot neposreden izziv njegovim trditvam, z uporabo močnega jezika, kot so "podkopavanje sodstva" in "poskus podjarmovanja institucij", kar pripisuje komentarje vodje SDP politično motiviranim in neprimernim.
Zakaj te ocene (Dejstva 94 · Objektivnost 70): Provides detailed information on the candidates for constitutional judges. The tone remains mostly neutral, though there is a slight lean towards the process being stalled.
V članku se razpravlja o pospeševanju političnih napetosti v Hrvaškem po parlamentarnem zasedanju, na katerem je član vladajoče stranke HDZ obtožil opozicijskega poslanca Možamo Sandre Benčić, da jih imenuje "veje" po tem, ko je kritizirala dodajanje točke na dnevni red glede oblikovanja kandidatov za ustavno sodišče. Benčić je branila svoje pripombe in navedla, da se ni morala opravičiti HDZ. Člani HDZ so njene pripombe obsojali, poslanca Nikola Mažar pa jo obtožila izražanja radikalnih levičnih pogledov na Hrvaške državljane. Spor vključuje tudi nesodnje glede tega, ali je dnevni red
Ocena pristranskosti (Desno): V članku se polemika razkrije iz perspektive predstavnikov HDZ, ki poudarjajo njihovo obsodbo Benčićovih pripomb in jo prikazujejo kot predstavnika "radikalnih levičarskih" pogledov.
Zakaj te ocene (Dejstva 93 · Objektivnost 72): The article accurately describes the political conflict over the agenda item and the verbal exchange between Benčić and HDZ members. However, it frames the situation as an attack on institutions by the SDP, showing some bias.
Odbor za ustavno zakonodajo, statut in politični sistem Hrvaškega parlamenta je začasno odobril seznam kandidatov za tri nove sodnike ustavnega sodišča. Sedemnajst kandidatov je vložilo, vendar je bil eden od njih ocenjen kot neplaten. Odbor namerava kandidatov intervjuvati naslednji teden, nato pa bodo medpartijska pogajanja, ki bodo zahtevala dvotretjinsko parlamentarno večino za njihovo izbiro. Med vložniki so tri posameznike, ki jih je prej razpravljal parlament. Pred odločitvijo je bila pred kratkim, vendar intenzivnim političnim razpravljanjem, s Sandra Benčić (z stranke Možemo!
Ocena pristranskosti (Sredina): V članku je uravnotežen opis postopkov, ki jih je sprejel odbor, navedena politična nesoglasja brez strani in naveden iz nasprotnih pogledov brez uredništva.
Zakaj te ocene (Dejstva 93 · Objektivnost 70): The article accurately reports the SDP's stance on judicial independence and their criticism of the HDZ. However, it uses strong language such as 'bandits on the road' which indicates a lack of complete neutrality.
Predstavniki parlamentarne skupine HDZ so se odzvali na izjavo vodje SDP Siniše Hajdaša Dončića, ki je trdil, da če bi bila SDP na oblasti, Vrhovno sodišče ne bi izdalo odločitve v zvezi s primerom Švicari.
Ocena pristranskosti (Desno): V članku je odgovor HDZ označen za obrambo neodvisnosti sodstva in komentarje vodje SDP kritizirana kot hinavščina in napad na institucije.
Zakaj te ocene (Dejstva 92 · Objektivnost 70): The article presents facts about the HDZ's response to SDP leader's comments on the judiciary. It includes direct quotes but uses emotionally charged language such as 'licentious' and 'absurdly unacceptable,' indicating a lack of neutrality.
Mirela Ahmetović, zastopnica SDP, je komentirala sodbo Vrhovnega sodišča v primeru 'švicarac', kjer so potrošniki dobili pravo na zatezne obresti, vendar ne na povrat predplačane glavnice.
Ocena pristranskosti (Levo): V članku so predstavljene izjave uradnikov SDP, ki kritizirajo sodbo in navajajo, da sedanja vlada (HDZ) ni ustrezno zaščitila državljanov.
Zakaj te ocene (Dejstva 92 · Objektivnost 70): Factual content aligns with other reports about the Swiss case and Ahmetović's comments. The tone remains relatively neutral but shows some political bias in favor of SDP.
The article reports on a call by the HDZ (Croatian Democratic Union) for negotiations with the SDP (Social Democrats) and other parties to appoint three additional judges to the Constitutional Court before the summer recess of parliament, which ends on July 15. HDZ leader Ante Sanader emphasized the importance of completing the court’s composition to ensure it can function fully and make decisions, particularly in light of recent legal disputes involving President Zoran Milanović. He stated that nine days after evaluating all candidates was sufficient time to choose the best candidates. In contrast, the SDP has rejected the idea of negotiating with HDZ, stating they will not agree on names this time and plan to wait until autumn to complete the selection process. The SDP accused HDZ of attempting to block the Constitutional Court, while HDZ argued that the SDP’s refusal undermines institutional integrity.
Ocena pristranskosti (Desno): The article frames the situation as a necessary step to restore the functionality of the Constitutional Court, emphasizing the urgency and legitimacy of HDZ’s position. It portrays the SDP’s rejection as obstructionist and harmful to democratic institutions, using language that implies the SDP is un
Zakaj te ocene (Dejstva 92 · Objektivnost 65): Accurate in detailing the conflict between SDP and HDZ regarding judicial decisions. The tone is more aligned with HDZ's viewpoint, lowering the neutrality score.
Mirela Ahmetović, zastopnica SDP, trdi, da bo SDP zaščitila državljane, kot je to storila v letu 2015, brez vpliva na pravosuđe. Komentirala je presudu Vrhovnog suda o konvertiranim kreditima u švicarskim francima, prema kojoj potrošači imaju pravo na zatezne kamate, ali ne i na povrat preplaćene glavnice. Predsjednik SDP-a Siniša Hajdaš Dončić naveo je da bi takva odluka 'ne bi dogodila da je SDP na vlasti'. Ahmetović je dodala da bo presuda razčarala je desetke tisuća građana.
Ocena pristranskosti (Levo): Članek poroča o javnih komentarjih političnih osebnosti glede sodne odločbe, ne da bi sprejel stališče ali uporabil pristranski jezik.
Zakaj te ocene (Dejstva 92 · Objektivnost 65): The article accurately summarizes the events around the selection of constitutional judges and the reactions from various parties. However, it contains a strong critique of HDZ actions and uses humor to mock them, which affects objectivity.
Po komentarju Sandre Benčić na zasedanju Ustavnega odbora, kjer je uporabil besedo "stoka" (ki je bila zapisana), je Hrvaška demokratična zveza (HDZ) odgovorila z kritikami njenih pripomb.
Ocena pristranskosti (Desno): V članku se HDZ odziva na komentarje Sandre Benčić z močno jezikom in uvede situacijo kot primer, kako "možemo" obravnava svoje mlajših partnerje.
Zakaj te ocene (Dejstva 91 · Objektivnost 62): Accurate in presenting Sanader's call for cooperation on constitutional judges. The tone leans slightly towards HDZ's position, reducing the neutrality score.
Odbor hrvaškega parlamenta za ustavo, pravila in politični sistem je začel zaslišanje kandidatov za tri ustavne sodnike. Socialdemokratska stranka (SDP) je napovedala, da tokrat ne bo pogajala z vladajočo stranko HDZ zaradi preteklih sporov, ki so vključevali predsednika vlade Andreja Plenkovića, ki je predhodno enostransko predlagal kandidate brez soglasja. SDP namerava po intervjujih oceniti vse kandidate in predlagati svoje najljubše izbire za odbor. Medtem je predsednik HDZ Ivan Malenica pozval opozicijo, naj se dogovori o imenih kandidatov za dokončanje ustavnega sodišča pred poletnimi počitnicami, opozicijo pa je opozoril, da bi sicer sodišče ostalo brez osebja do jeseni. Odbor je prejel 17 prijav, vendar je bil eden neveljaven, drugi kandidat pa se je umaknil, tako da je 15 kandidatov upravičenih.
Ocena pristranskosti (Sredina): V članku je predstavljena zavrnitev SDP pogajanja s HDZ o ustavnih sodnikih in HDZ-ov poziv k kompromisu, ne da bi naklonil nobeni strani, vključuje pa tudi neposredne citate predstavnikov obeh strank in zagotavlja uravnotežen kontekst o procesu in prejšnjih sporih.
Zakaj te ocene (Dejstva 90 · Objektivnost 75): The article accurately reports statements from SDP and HDZ representatives regarding the constitutional court judges selection process. However, it exhibits a clear bias in favor of the SDP, using terms like 'contaminated process' and 'political trade,' which may not be entirely neutral.
★
Ohranimo novice poštene.
ObjectiveNews financirajo bralci in je brez oglasov – pristranskost vam pokažemo, ne skrijemo. Podprite neodvisno novinarstvo za 5 €/mesec.
Croatia
