By: Peter Jančič (Spletni časopis)
“With such dictatorial and hysterical behaviour, the question is not only whether we are dealing with a personality disorder of the committee chair but also the question of the very existence of parliamentary democracy in Slovenia.” This is how MEP Romana Tomc (SDS) assessed the leadership of the Justice Committee, where Gibanje Svoboda MP Lena Grgurevič summoned the heads of the prosecution and judiciary and demanded the criminal prosecution of SDS and the leader of the largest opposition party, Janez Janša, for an alleged attack on the judiciary.
When Golob lies about an attack
This is how MEP Romana Tomc responded:
The prosecution of SDS and Janez Janša was demanded by Lena Grgurevič after a gathering of peaceful protesters in Celje shocked ruling politicians. The protest was in response to yet another legal case against Janša, who has previously been unjustly imprisoned twice: once in the JBTZ case and again in the Patria affair. In both instances, the judiciary, through unfair trials, was used to help the left maintain power by abusing authority. In the Patria affair, Janša was even imprisoned during the official election campaign, just before the vote. Before the upcoming elections, all public opinion polls again show SDS as the most popular party.
The seriousness of the situation was underscored by a statement from Prime Minister Robert Golob (Svoboda), made during his questioning by the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption (CPC) regarding allegations of political purges in the police, raised by former Interior Minister Tatjana Bobnar and former police chief Boštjan Lindav. These purges, carried out twice, were allegedly aimed at influencing who would face legal proceedings.
Golob stated: “Today’s procedure is truly a farce. I am being questioned by the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption solely because I advocated for depoliticising the police, as we promised in our pre-election programme. We wanted to annul the measures of the previous government, which sought to subordinate the police entirely. Meanwhile, in Celje, we are witnessing the most brutal attack on the judiciary in the history of the Republic of Slovenia, and this contrast clearly shows what should take precedence.”
If such remarks about a brutal attack on the judiciary came from an extremist like Miha Kordiš, they might be dismissed as propaganda from a fringe politician. However, coming from the Prime Minister, such claims are extremely serious. An attack on the judiciary demands a response from law enforcement, which operates under the government’s authority.
In reality, there was no attack on the court in Celje. The Prime Minister lied, deliberately. Nor was there an attack on the media in Celje.
Grgurevič, chair of the Committee on Justice, took Golob’s false narrative – describing peaceful protests and criticism as a brutal attack on the court in Celje – and extended it logically. She demanded that representatives of the judiciary prosecute SDS and Janez Janša, arguing that such “attacks” meet all the criteria of criminal acts requiring prosecution ex officio. The Speaker of the National Assembly, Urška Klakočar Zupančič (Svoboda), also urged judges to show courage, stating that Janša is a dictator they should not fear, and that if they refuse to fear him, he will no longer have any power over them. “Straighten your spines,” she urged.
It appeared that she would have been pleased if Janša were convicted once again, this time before the elections – if not imprisoned yet again, for a third time.
Lena Grgurevič, at the Justice Committee meeting, emphasised that prosecutors and judges must take action against SDS and Janša, stating:
“Let me begin by explaining the purpose of convening this session. Namely, the discreditation, crude, primitive, and dangerous attacks (…) by one party and its leader over the past 30 years. Not only does this show no signs of stopping, but his attacks on independent institutions and individuals simply doing their jobs cross all acceptable boundaries. As before, they fulfil all the legal criteria for criminal acts, both those prosecuted by complaint and those prosecuted ex officio.”
Despite this clear demand for the prosecution of the largest opposition party and its leader for political reasons, the judges and prosecutors present did not walk out in protest. Nor did anyone point out that Grgurevič has no authority to decide what should be prosecuted ex officio. Additionally, no one noted that her extreme demands put independent judges and prosecutors in a very awkward position.
Who will believe in their independence now? There were already few who did.
Will Đorđević and Bergant act on the lies of Svoboda?
The top figures in the judiciary, appointed by government MPs, remained in the room and later nodded in agreement with Grgurevič and Golob’s claims of a brutal attack on the judiciary. Among those present were Supreme Court President Miodrag Đorđević, Chief State Prosecutor Katarina Bergant, Judicial Council President Urška Keržman, State Prosecutorial Council Head Harij Furlan, and Sabina Perko, President of the Prosecutors’ Association.
Do you believe that prosecutors and judges will act fairly when their superiors calmly listen to directives on how to prosecute the opposition, based on the claim that criticism and peaceful protests constitute a brutal attack on the judiciary?
Nothing about this disturbed them!
It was reminiscent of the style of the faltering Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. Or Vladimir Putin.
The new Chief Prosecutor, Katarina Bergant, nodded in agreement with Grgurevič’s call to prosecute SDS and Janša, framing it as a warning about the dangers of hate speech. This is the same Bergant who, during protests against Janez Janša’s government, declined to prosecute clear hate speech when Ludvik Tomšič publicly called for Janša’s murder for an extended period, while protesters waved numerous large signs calling for his death. At the time, Bergant, as a prosecutor, stated that the calls for Janša’s death would not be prosecuted as hate speech due to principles of free speech. She also claimed there would be no action against Tomšič because no legal proceedings had been initiated and the prosecution did not even know who had issued the calls for murder. This assertion – that there would be no proceedings against Tomšič – later turned out to be false. He was brought to trial and acquitted on the grounds of insanity.
The ruling coalition’s plan to secure the criminal prosecution of SDS and discredit the opposition party, with the assistance of the judiciary and prosecution leadership, was disrupted by SDS MPs. Their intervention greatly irritated Lena Grgurevič, who tried in every way to block “broadening the discussion”. She insisted that the conversation should focus only on attacks against judges and criticising SDS, avoiding any talk of politically motivated trials or the judiciary’s missteps – standard fare for witch-hunt-style trials.
Grgurevič interrupted opposition MPs, cut them off, and issued warnings. SDS MP Zvone Černač was even barred from speaking after a vote when he attempted to cite a Constitutional Court ruling. That ruling unanimously overturned all verdicts in the Patria case, labelling them legal amateurism and declaring Janša’s trial unfair, partly because Judge Branko Masleša had not recused himself. Like this:
- Considering the above, it was established that when President Branko Masleša participated in deciding on the complainant’s request for the protection of legality against the decision of the Higher Court in Ljubljana, after he critically responded on 6 June 2014 to the complainant’s position expressed regarding the impartiality of the Supreme Court, a doubt regarding the impartiality of the Supreme Court was raised. Therefore, the complainant’s right to impartial adjudication under Article 23, paragraph 1 of the Constitution, was violated.
- The Constitutional Court made this decision based on the first paragraph of Article 59 of the Constitutional Court Act and the third indent of the third paragraph and the fifth paragraph of Article 46 of the Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court (Official Gazette RS, nos. 86/07, 54/10, and 56/11). The panel included President Mag. Miroslav Mozetič and Judges Mag. Mitja Deisinger, Dr Dunja Jadek Pensa, Mag. Marta Klampfer, Dr Etelka Korpič – Horvat, Dr Ernest Petrič, Jasna Pogačar, and Dr Jadranka Sovdat. Judge Jan Zobec was excluded from deciding in this case. The decision was adopted unanimously. Judge Deisinger and Judge Sovdat provided concurring opinions.
To ensure they would not silently accept false accusations, Janša began by thanking the coalition for convening such a session, which opposition parties usually request to scrutinise government actions, while ruling parties try to block them. He said:
“As the president of the Supreme Court said, things have truly gone too far. The first proof is the language used in the proposal for this session and nearly all the speeches we have heard so far. Those of us who are a bit older remember this chamber when it had a slightly different decor. Decades ago, similar discussions were held here about attacks – back then, it was attacks on the Yugoslav People’s Army and the achievements of the socialist revolution. Now, more than three decades after living in an independent democratic state, we hear the same vocabulary, as if we do not live in a democracy where no one is above criticism. It is as if we have not internalised, as most people surely have, the sentiment of one Greek philosopher: ‘Tell me who cannot be criticised, and I will show you a dictator.’ The term attack is being used to describe criticism of an institution that claims to serve in the name of the people. Yet courtrooms allow only two or three representatives of the public, prohibit recordings of panels – those who judge in the name of the people – and heaven forbid that the public could listen to an entire court hearing. Truly, things have gone too far. This resolution proposed by the coalition – if one were to search the online archives of older Slovenian newspapers, one would find similar language from decades ago, when the only permitted political party vehemently condemned the Litostroj strike and the protests outside the military court in 1988. Suddenly, we hear here how problematic the streets are. Let me remind you: when the streets were filled with death threats against hundreds of thousands of people, the streets were not a problem. Even when punishments were issued, they were often overturned. Back then, the streets, Ms. Bergant, were not a problem. We did not hear any criticism from you. At the protest in Celje, no one threatened anyone with death. I did speak there, and I explicitly said that we will not block highways. We will not hang effigies. We will not issue death threats. I also condemned all violence and threats of violence – against judges, prosecutors, or anyone else. We do not have double standards. But you do. For two years during the pandemic, such behaviour occurred twice a week. Did we hear anything from you? We filed dozens of complaints about direct death threats, including threats against me personally. Do you know of anyone who was convicted? Everyone was acquitted, or the prosecution dismissed the complaints altogether.”
Klakočar Zupančič: Janša is a dictator
The Speaker of the National Assembly, Urška Klakočar Zupančič, responded to Janša’s address as follows: “As the still-serving Speaker of the National Assembly, the legislative branch of power, I sincerely hope that you will not participate in the disgraceful gatherings occurring in front of courts, that you will not take part in this farce, that you will not undermine the rule of law, and that you will not shout inappropriate words outside courts. Bear in mind that the country we have is democratic, with power divided among three branches, one of which is the judiciary – a very important one. Respect it; show that you respect it, and let the judiciary have peace so it can work effectively. Judges and all court employees, especially those involved in cases where Janez Janša is a party, in any capacity: straighten your spines, be proud of your mission, and above all, do not fear him!”
Such direct calls against peaceful protests and for condemning opposition leaders with a judiciary submissive to authority are rare even in Russia or Belarus. Moreover, this occurs in the case of a politician who has twice already been the subject of blatant and indisputable judicial abuse for political vendettas through staged trials.
No representatives from NSi attended the session of the Judicial Committee. This absence is notable given that the ruling parties, at the start of their term, assigned NSi control of both parliamentary oversight commissions – on public finance and intelligence – against standard practices. Both commissions should have been led by SDS as the largest opposition party.
This decision alone revealed the hysterical fear of SDS held by Svoboda, SD, and Levica, as well as the misuse of power, in which NSi has also implicated itself.
The ruling coalition behaves like dictators – not Janša.
Romana Tomc’s dilemma hits the mark.
Amid such hysterical and authoritarian conduct, the question is not just about the personal disposition of the committee chairperson; it concerns the very existence of parliamentary democracy in Slovenia.
This issue affects everyone in the community.