By: AI, C. R.
Former President of the RTV Slovenia Programme Council Dr Peter Gregorčič today filed an application against Slovenia with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The application was drafted by Prof. Dr Matej Avbelj.
The case concerns a decision of the Constitutional Court of Slovenia issued on 2 July 2026 (publicly released on 24 July 2026), in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of legislation that prematurely terminated, directly by operation of law (ex lege), the mandates of members of RTV Slovenia’s governing, management, and supervisory bodies.
Peter Gregorčič was appointed in December 2021 as a member of the RTV Slovenia Programme Council for a four-year term that was due to expire on 27 January 2026. In February 2022, he also became President of the Council. Following the adoption of the ZRTVS-1B amendment, however, the mandates ended already in late December 2022, without an individual decision or any personal grounds being cited.
In the application, he alleges five violations of the European Convention on Human Rights. The central complaint concerns the lack of effective judicial protection: the Constitutional Court reviewed the constitutionality of the law itself but did not examine whether there were individual grounds for the premature termination of his specific mandate. They further highlight the unreasonably long duration of the proceedings: nearly three years and seven months, despite the case having been designated as one of absolute priority. Moreover, the proceedings were concluded only after the applicant’s mandate had already expired; the absence of a public hearing, even though both parties had requested one; the unequal treatment of the parties’ submissions and arguments; the Court’s failure to answer key legal questions, including the request to refer a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for a preliminary ruling; and the lack of an effective legal remedy regarding the excessive length of the proceedings.
The complaint also raises broader questions: whether the safeguards against arbitrary removal from office developed by the European Court of Human Rights in cases such as Baka v. Hungary and Grzęda v. Poland also apply to officeholders in independent public institutions that do not directly exercise state authority; what kind of judicial protection is required, in light of Articles 6 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and European standards concerning the independence of public media, when a legislature uses a single law to prematurely terminate the mandates of entire governing bodies of a public broadcaster; and whether there is a risk of recurrence, given that the Ministry of Culture prepared a new legislative proposal in August 2026 containing similar provisions on the premature termination of mandates.
Because of the broader significance of the case, the potential risk to the independence of public media, and the possibility that a similar interference could occur again, they have requested priority treatment under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court of the European Court of Human Rights. In their press release, they stress that the application is not a political vote of no confidence in the Constitutional Court, but rather an attempt to obtain a legal answer to the question of what is permissible, as well as the conclusion of a nearly four-year-long dispute through legal means. If the ECHR upholds the application, the judgment could become an important part of European case law; if it does not, they will accept that their assessment was wrong.