Rule of law

Overall, participants called for vigilance on the rule of law given what they considered as attacks led by the previous governments.

With regard to the independence of judges, it was explained that the Slovenian Parliament was preparing a change in the procedure for the nominations: candidates would still be chosen by the judicial council, but appointed by the President, and no longer by the Parliament.

Participants considered that courts were generally doing well in terms of management of cases: the backlog had decreased, as had the time taken to process cases. However, it was highlighted that the increase in strategic lawsuits (SLAPPs) might contribute to the remaining backlog. It was also said that an increasing number of cases did not end up in court, but were handled via alternative dispute 6/6 resolution mechanisms. The Slovenian authorities mentioned that some measures regarding the conditions of judges were under consideration, including assigning certain tasks to judges' assistants, in order to reduce the workload.

One participant pointed out the fact that politicians tended to see the judiciary as subordinate to the other powers, despite the fact that constitutional guarantees were clear on the matter. As a consequence of a lack of political will, salaries of judges had not been revaluated adequately. One participant considered that dissatisfaction of judges about their economic and social conditions was high. Judges would not consider as sufficient the future regulation on salaries in the public sector. The participant also regretted that the premises of the courts were old and below standard in terms of facilities, and that self-organisation of the courts was weak, as illustrated by their inability to organise online justice during the COVID-19 period.

It was explained that the Ombudsman office had received one third more cases between 2020-21 compared to pre-COVID-19 times. It was however regretted that most of its recommendations were not taken on board by the relevant authorities and that a rising number of Constitutional Court judgements remained unimplemented.

Concerning the profession of lawyers, one participant believed that the Slovenian authorities appeared to be reluctant to sign the European Convention on the Legal Profession. The participant also regretted the lack of action to address the fact that some semi-professionals gave legal services without being registered lawyers. One participant highlighted the need for additional measures to provide free legal aid, for amending the criminal victim compensation act as well as hiring more judicial experts. The Slovenian authorities did not consider that the material situation of the judiciary was so negative, and they confirmed their willingness to continue the dialogue with the courts.

Participants explained that, during the COVID-19 crisis, the government had pursued a "rule-bydecree" policy, imposing restrictions without parliamentary scrutiny and without always publishing decisions in the Official Journal. The Constitutional Court had declared some of these urgent decrees, notably restricting freedom of movement, as unconstitutional. It was also explained that, during that period, the police had begun claiming the costs of policing against protesters, as a way to restrict freedom of protest.

Participants explained that Slovenia had a bad track record concerning corruption and they regretted that not enough political priority was given to the issue. In 2021, Slovenia, on a downward trend, ranked below the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and EU average in the Transparency International Corruption Perception Index. It was said that only a tiny minority of alleged corruption cases were investigated, and that the number of cases addressed was lower than before. This was believed to explain the fact that surveys showed that half of Slovenians doubted the usefulness of reporting corruption cases. Participants regretted the absence of a strategy on transparency, the last one having expired in 2019. The Slovenian authorities said that proposals for a future strategy on transparency were under preparation.

One participant explained that the legal protection of whistle-blowers took the form of the 2022 Whistle-blower Protection Act, which was going to go through Parliament. The participant regretted that the draft law still presented some shortcomings, and called for protection to be extended to reporting on breaches against the spirit of the law, not only the narrow reading of the law, and for the limitation of reporting cases to be extended beyond the limit of two years.