The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) receives around 240 complaints from Slovenia every year. The court convicted Slovenia of human rights violations in 332 cases so far (93 percent). Slovenia has so far paid 295,644,418.49 euros in compensation from the state budget.
In addition to the media, the judiciary is also a big problem in Slovenia. And not because there would be no relevant laws, but because the transition from the previous political system has not yet been completed, and the laws are not being implemented correctly or are only being implemented unilaterally. The rule of law does not work; we could even say that there is currently no legal security in Slovenia because there is no equality before the law. The judiciary does not prosecute the real culprits; however, there has been a number of criminal charges and proceedings against well-known representatives of the side of political spring – such as civil society representatives, politicians, journalists and theologists, for exercising their constitutional right to freedom of speech.
No changes were made in the judiciary after Slovenia gained its independence
In the short period of time when there were no parties of continuity in power, the government began implementing changes, but so far, it did not have enough time to complete this proves, and their changes were always followed by protests. Everything is a bit reminiscent of times gone by, which some obviously want back. Back then, many critics of the measures of the ruling communist government or the one-party system that was in power at the time found themselves in court. Not to mention the opponents of interwar and post-war revolutionary violence. Some of these people were, of course, murdered without even being brought before the court.
Rulings at the rigged trials were, of course, predetermined in party bodies – and they were severe. When it came to the selection of judges, political suitability took precedence over professional qualifications. Human rights violations were common during the investigation, during the trial, and in prison. The courts did not take into account the testimonies of witnesses or the material that spoke in favour of the accused, and they did not care about the motives for the actions they were ruling on. If necessary, they also falsified the evidence. None of those responsible for crimes during the communist regime have had to defend themselves in court. There was supposedly not enough evidence to bring the assistant chief of the Department for People’s Protection – OZNA, who was also partially responsible for the post-war massacres, Mitja Ribičič, before the court.
The Slovenian judiciary has not experienced lustration
As there was no proper lustration in Slovenia, the people responsible for the crimes of the previous regime, who were in positions of power, did not automatically have to withdraw after Slovenia gained its independence. They stayed and waited to see what would happen, destroying archival material that would testify to their human and civil rights violations. Thank God they failed to destroy everything. In contrast to the Slovenian system, after the annexation of East Germany to West Germany, persons in socially and politically important positions – members of the government, the army, the judiciary, civil servants and university professors – all had their backgrounds checked, to make sure that they never served the German secret police Stasi or collaborated with it. This statutory review was extended by the German Parliament until the year 2030. From 1991 to the end of 2020, the Stasi archives received 1,756,592 requests for screening of persons employed in public services at the request of public authorities. The Stasi managed to destroy about five percent of the archives, while in Slovenia, about eighty percent were destroyed.
In many cases, the Slovenian judiciary does not operate according to legal norms
Trials in Slovenia do not begin within a reasonable time; cases drag on for years and years and often even become time-barred. As Slovenia has violated the right to a trial without undue delay in many cases, some have turned to the European Court of Human Rights. In 1995, the Constitutional Court found that “the former Yugoslav, and within its framework, the Slovenian constitutional and state institutional system, contrary to the traditions of European legal civilisation, did not place human rights at the forefront and did not create legal restrictions on state power and its violence.” (U-I-158/94 of the 9th of March 1995)
Apparently, we have not yet completely moved away from this system. Judicial proceedings are still lengthy, and rulings often come without sufficient justification – some even without any justification whatsoever. The same judges judge in appeals, as well as judgments sent by the higher court for a retrial, which is inadmissible in a state governed by the rule of law. Prosecutors are also involved in criminal proceedings that could be affected by their personal interests. Of course, unlike judges, prosecutors cannot be rejected in such cases on the grounds of bias, but in legal states, it is perfectly clear to everyone that they do not take part in such proceedings but instead voluntarily exclude themselves from them. Cases where this does not happen, are an abuse of the law.
Judges are directly or indirectly burdened by the past
Thus, in Slovenia, there is only one lustration law – the Judicial Service Act, which stipulates in the 3rd paragraph of point 8 that those “who have judged or decided in investigative and judicial proceedings in which fundamental human rights and freedoms have been violated,” do not meet the conditions to obtain a permanent judicial mandate, but this law has actively been implemented only once. However, we did have judges who should not have received a permanent mandate, for example, the former President of the Supreme Court, Branko Masleša.
Numerous examples show that a large part of the judiciary in Slovenia does not operate according to the legal norms in force in democratic countries. The most famous example, but by no means the only one, is the Patria trial, which was an attempt to exclude the hated leader of the largest opposition party in Slovenia from politics. Let us also remind you of the case of Franc Kangler, which is now the subject of a parliamentary commission’s inquiry; however, the Constitutional Court halted the investigation against judges, and another example – the case of Dr Milko Novič, who was sentenced to 25 years in prison on very dubious charges and served 40 months. The judge who finally acquitted Novič, experienced severe pressuring.
Appeals to the European Court of Human Rights have so far cost Slovenia almost 300 million euros
At a time when death threats written on banners and made by those who protest against the Prime Minister get no judicial epilogue, allegedly because this is a matter of freedom of speech, the Constitutional Court adopted a diametrically opposite decision in April this year. Historian Jože Pirjevec appealed against the decision of the Supreme Court, which annulled the judgment of the District Court and the High Court against Dr Boštjan Turk. Prijevec stated that his human rights had been violated because Turk pointed out the indisputable fact that Pirjevec was still signing his name as Giuseppe Pierazzi, even at a time when this was no longer necessary. According to Pirjevec’s own statement, he only changed his name back to its original state in 2004.
The Supreme Court found that Turk’s column, which was published in the Reporter magazine in 2011, entitled Referenti in renegati (Clerks and Renegades), was partly harsh, but that it did not cross the line of the right to freedom of expression – especially since Pirjevec is a public figure. Contrary to the previous practice, the Constitutional Court (in a different composition, of course) intervened in the acquittal, which, however, could not be annulled. Despite the fact that the author wrote something that is true, the majority in the Constitutional Court apparently believes that he was allegedly insulting in his writing, and thus he violated human rights with his column.
The European Court of Human Rights, which Turk turned to because of the violation of freedom of expression, now has the floor. It should be pointed out that the ECHR receives around 240 complaints from Slovenia every year. By the end of 2017, as many as 9,238 complaints had been lodged with the European Court of Human Rights. The ECHR issued a verdict in 353 cases by the end of 2017 and three more in 2018. Slovenia was convicted of human rights violations in 332 cases (93%). And thus, Slovenia has so far had to pay 295,644,418.49 euros in compensation from the state budget.
