By: Sara Kovač
The Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia has rejected the lawsuit with which the petitioners sought to challenge the validity of the referendum on the law on assistance in voluntary ending of life. According to the court’s decision, the claimants failed to prove that the identified irregularities in the referendum campaign had actually influenced the will of the voters.
“Victory! The poisoning lobby did not manage to steal the referendum victory of patients, people with disabilities, and pensioners at the Supreme Court. With the referendum victory and the Supreme Court’s decision, patients, people with disabilities, and pensioners are protected from poisonings, abuses, and pressures,” Aleš Primc responded to the Supreme Court’s decision.
In his statement, Primc further described the decision as a day of joy and emphasised that it represents “a victory of solidarity, compassion, and love.” According to him, the ruling brings relief to vulnerable groups and confirms their protection from what he calls harmful legislative solutions. He also thanked those who participated in the campaign, especially attorney Klemen Golob for legal support.
He added that society still faces a great deal of work, particularly in the healthcare system and palliative care. In his view, it is necessary to ensure high‑quality and accessible healthcare as well as appropriate support for patients and their families.
According to the Slovenian Press Agency (STA), however, the court did identify certain irregularities despite rejecting the lawsuit. Among other things, it found instances of unlawful activity by medical organisations that allegedly engaged in campaigning without properly registering their campaign and even within public healthcare institutions. Irregularities were also noted in the posting of promotional leaflets.
Church appeals do not constitute violations
At the same time, the court highlighted a distinction regarding the actions of religious organisations. Their messages, even if substantively connected to the referendum question, are considered part of constitutionally protected religious freedom and therefore do not constitute violations. Nevertheless, the court recognised certain practices as unlawful, such as the distribution of campaign materials and the organisation of transportation for voters to polling stations.
Meanwhile, Bojan Požar raised concerns about the judicial process itself. “Today they are supposed to issue the long‑awaited ruling on the referendum and euthanasia and inform the public about it. What they certainly will not say is the following,” he wrote on X. He revealed that several judges were allegedly excluded during the proceedings and that the final decision was made by a narrower panel consisting of Supreme Court Judge Marijan Debelak and Supreme Court Judge Aleksandra Hočevar Vinski. Both reportedly come from the Labour and Social Court and are said to be personally quite closely connected, which Požar suggests could pose a problem for the legitimacy of the decision. The ruling of the Supreme Court nevertheless upholds the validity of the referendum result.