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 poročil
DeloNeodvisen🔒SredinaDejstva 95Objektivnost 85pred 4 dneviVrhovno sodišče je pozvalo k ponovnemu razmisleku o zakonu "Skok", pri čemer je poudarilo, da so potrebne spremembe kazenskega postopkovnega zakona, da bi se učinkoviteje preganjali najhujše kazniva dejanja. Pravni strokovnjaki in tožilci trdijo, da sedanji pravni okvir ni zadosten za učinkovito obravnavanje težkih kaznivih dejanj.
Ocena pristranskosti (Sredina): Članek predstavlja uravnoteženo stališče s sklicevanjem na pravne strokovnjake in tožilce, ki poudarjajo potrebo po reformi, ne da bi zavzeli jasno ideološko stališče.
Zakaj dejstva (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.
Zakaj 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 SlovenijaNeodvisenProgresivnoDejstva 95Objektivnost 75pred 4 dneviPredlagani zakon o Skoku se je soočil s kritiko visokih pravnih oseb v Sloveniji. Generalna državna tožilka Katarina Bergant je navedla, da spremembe, ki jih zakon uvaja, ne prispevajo k učinkovitejšemu preganjanju kaznivih dejanj, temveč slabšajo poklicno avtonomijo tožilstva z povečanjem političnega vpliva na celoten sistem državnega tožilstva. Predsednik vrhovnega sodišča Damjan Orož je opozoril, da bi sprejetje zakona znatno vplivalo na raven pravne varnosti.
Ocena pristranskosti (Progresivno): V članku so predstavljeni kritični pogledi pravnih organov, kot sta generalni državni tožilec in predsednik vrhovnega sodišča, ki trdijo, da predlagani zakon spodkopava neodvisnost sodstva in povečuje politični vpliv.
Zakaj dejstva (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.
Zakaj 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.
DnevnikNeodvisen🔒ProgresivnoDejstva 95Objektivnost 70pred 4 dneviSlovenska vlada je predlagala zakon, znan kot "Skok" (skok), katerega namen je prestrukturiranje specializiranih državnih tožilcev v nov organ, osredotočen na korupcijo in organizirani kriminal. Predlog je sprožil močne reakcije tožilcev, sodnih institucij, neodvisnih organizacij in opozicijskih strank. Kritičarji trdijo, da zakon ne obravnava temeljnih vzrokov dolgotrajnih kazenskih postopkov, ampak namesto tega spodkopava poklicno avtonomijo tožilcev z povečanjem političnega vpliva na njihova imenovanja in potencialno vodi do novih sodnih zamud.
Ocena pristranskosti (Progresivno): V članku se predlagani zakon obravnava kot poskus povečanja političnega nadzora nad imenovanji tožilcev in zmanjšanja institucionalne neodvisnosti, kar se ujema z levičarsko usmerjeno kritiko presežkov izvršne oblasti.
Zakaj dejstva (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.
Zakaj 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.
VečerNeodvisen🔒SredinaDejstva 90Objektivnost 80pred 4 dneviPredsednik vrhovnega sodišča Damjan Orož je izrazil zaskrbljenost glede predloga zakona o specializiranih sodiščih za obravnavo korupcijskih kaznivih dejanj v organiziranem kriminalu (Skok). Orož meni, da bi predlog podaljšal čas reševanja kazenskih zadev in povzročil manjkovanje predhodnega obdobja za pripravo novega sodišča. Tudi rok ustanovitve sodišča 1. januarja 2027 je ocenjen kot nerealen in nevaren za stabilnost sodnega sistema. Vrhovno sodišče zahteva poseben neposredni odpor v poročilih predsednika Specializiranega sodišča državnemu zboru, da bi varovala neodvisnost sodstva. Orož opozarja, da še vedno obstaja problem z izločevanjem sodnikov v predodeljevanju zadev, kar lahko vpliva na pravice obtoženca.
Ocena pristranskosti (Sredina): Članek predstavlja pomisleke predsednika vrhovnega sodišča glede predlaganega zakona, vendar ne zavzema jasnega stranskega stališča.
Zakaj dejstva (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.
Zakaj 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.
VečerNeodvisen🔒ProgresivnoDejstva 90Objektivnost 65pred 4 dnevi Tožilstvo o Skoku: Predlagani zakon ne bo okrepil boja proti korupciji, temveč bo oslabil neodvisnost tožilstvaVrhovno sodišče Slovenije in Specializirano državno tožilstvo (SDT) sta kritizirala predlagani zakon, katerega namen je izboljšati boj proti korupciji in organiziranemu kriminalu. Trdijo, da zakon ne krepi prizadevanj za boj proti korupciji, ampak namesto tega oslabi neodvisnost tožilcev z večjim političnim vplivom na odločitve o zaposlitvi. Zakon bi reorganiziral SDT v novo telo, imenovano StKOK, spremenil sistem imenovanja in ocenjevanja državnih tožilcev in zmanjšal vlogo generalnega državnega tožilca pri imenovanju vodstva. Obe instituciji trdijo, da zakon nima smiselnih reform in ne obravnava sistemskih vprašanj v kazenskem pravosodnem sistemu, kot so podaljšani pravni postopki. Poudarjajo, da resnične izboljšave zahtevajo celovite reforme kazenskega zakonika, ne pa zgolj organizacijske spremembe.
Ocena pristranskosti (Progresivno): V članku je predlagani zakon označen kot politično motiviran in škodljiv za neodvisnost sodstva, poudarjajo pa so zaskrbljenost zaradi povečanega političnega vpliva na imenovanja tožilcev.
Zakaj dejstva (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.
Zakaj 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.
DeloNeodvisen🔒SredinaDejstva 85Objektivnost 75pred 4 dnevi Vrhovno in specializirano državno tožilstvo kritična do zakona o SkokuVrhovno sodišče Slovenije (VDT) in Specializirano državno tožilstvo (SDT) sta kritizirala predlog zakona o specializiranih organih za obravnavo primerov korupcije in organiziranega kriminala (StKOK), ki ga je vlada predstavila 15. julija 2026. Obe instituciji trdijo, da predlagane spremembe ne prinašajo pomembnih izboljšav pri pregonu zapletenih kazenskih primerov in opozarjata na morebitne organizacijske in sistemske spremembe, ki bi lahko vplivale na delovanje državne tožilske službe. Poudarjata, da je bil predlog pripravljen brez posvetovanja s strokovnimi javnimi in ustreznimi organi, in sprašujejo o upravičenosti uporabe nujnih zakonodajnih postopkov, saj pogoji za to niso izpolnjeni. VDT ugotavlja, da vlada ni imela dostopa do uradnega besedila, temveč le do različice, ki je bila kratko objavljena na spletu, ki je lahko še vedno revidirana pred končnim odobritvijo. Predlog je videti kot presežek cilja učinkovitejšega boja proti korupciji in organiziranemu kriminalu, saj bi tudi oviral zahtevo za vključitev vseh ključnih sprememb v imenovanje sistema državnega tožilstva za državno tožilstvo.
Ocena pristranskosti (Sredina): Članek kritizira predlog zakona dveh državnih tožilstev, vendar ne zavzema jasnega ideološkega stališča.
Zakaj dejstva (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.
Zakaj 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.
ReporterNeodvisenProgresivnoDejstva 85Objektivnost 60pred 4 dneviV članku se razpravlja o zaskrbljenosti, ki jo je izrazila generalna državna tožilka Ana Bergant glede predlaganega zakona (Skok), katerega namen je prestrukturiranje specializiranih organov za obravnavo primerov korupcije in organiziranega kriminala. Bergant kritizira tajni postopek priprave zakona, pomanjkanje sodelovanja s strokovnjaki in ustreznimi institucijami in njegov potencialni vpliv na avtonomijo državnega tožilstva. Trdi, da bi zakon zmanjšal neodvisnost tožilcev, saj bi ministrinu za pravosodje omogočil vplivati na odločitve o kadrovstvu brez posvetovanja z državnim tožilskim svetom. Zakon predlaga tudi spremembe notranje strukture državnega tožilskega sistema, za katere Bergant trdi, da bi lahko oslabila učinkovitost tožilske službe. Medtem Ivan Prigarid, vodja specializiranega državnega tožilstva (SDT), navaja, da zakon ne razširi obsega uvedbe novih kazenskih kaznivih dejanj, temveč notranjo podporo za tožilce.
Ocena pristranskosti (Progresivno): V članku se predlagani zakon obravnava kot pomembna grožnja neodvisnosti kazenskega sistema, pri čemer se poudarjajo pomisleki glede političnega vpliva na odločitve o zaposlovanju in organizacijski strukturi.
Zakaj dejstva (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.
Zakaj 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.
Žurnal24NeodvisenSredinaDejstva 85Objektivnost 60pred 4 dneviV članku se obravnava kritika predlaganega zakona o državnem tožilstvu (StKOK), katerega namen je povečati politični vpliv na imenovanja in delovanje tožilstva. Generalna tožilka Katarina Bergant trdi, da zakon spodkopava poklicno avtonomijo, saj daje večjo moč ministrstvu za pravosodje pri izbiri tožilcev, namesto da se zanaša na obstoječi državni svet za tožilstvo. Več institucij, vključno z državnim tožilstvom, zagovornikom človekovih pravic in Računskim sodiščem, je izražalo zaskrbljenost zaradi pomanjkanja preglednosti pri pripravi zakona in odsotnosti prispevkov pravnih strokovnjakov. Kritiki trdijo, da zakon ne obravnava ključnih vprašanj kazenskega pregona, ampak namesto tega krepi politični nadzor nad sodno opozicijo. Stranka "Predrer" trdi, da samo preimenuje zakon in prestrukturira sedanji sistem brez smiselne reforme.
Ocena pristranskosti (Sredina): V članku so predstavljene različne perspektive - kritike pravnih strokovnjakov, institucij in političnih skupin - brez očitne naklonjenosti nobeni strani.V članku so poudarjene pomisleke glede političnega vpliva in postopkovnih pomanjkljivosti, hkrati pa so citirani različni deležniki, pri čemer je ohranjen uravnotežen ton.
Zakaj dejstva (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
Zakaj 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
Nova24TVStrankarsko povezanProgresivnoDejstva 80Objektivnost 55pred 4 dneviV članku se obravnava kritika novega zakona, katerega namen je izboljšati sodelovanje med institucijami za boj proti organiziranemu kriminalu in korupciji, ki ga je izpodbijala generalna državna tožilka Katarina Bergant. Trdi, da zakon spodkopava poklicno avtonomijo tožilske službe in povečuje politični vpliv. Medtem nekateri člani javnosti menijo, da so potrebne spremembe v kazenskih preiskavah. V članku se sklicujejo na pretekle izkušnje, vključno z incidenti, ko so prehodni levi akterji domnevno promovirali svoje storitve v okviru koruptivnih sistemov, in razkritji v Tarčiju, ki jih je zatlačila Golobova administracija. Zaupanje javnosti v preiskavo gospodarskih kaznivih dejanj, korupcije med javnimi uslužbenci in organiziranega kriminala ostaja nizko. Zagovorniki zakona, kot sta vodja komunikacijskega urada Sebastetijan in nekdanji premier Jerže Anč Logar, trdijo, da je ustanovitev SKOK (posebnega kazenskega urada) učinkovit korak proti korupciji.
Ocena pristranskosti (Progresivno): V članku se predlagani zakon obravnava kot nujna reforma proti korupciji, podpora ustanovitvi SKOK-a pa kot odgovor na sistemske napake.
Zakaj dejstva (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.
Zakaj 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.
★
Ohranimo novice poštene.
ObjectiveNews financirajo bralci in je brez oglasov – pristranskost vam pokažemo, ne skrijemo. Podprite neodvisno novinarstvo za 5 €/mesec.
Postani podpornik
Slovenia
