By: C. R.
The appointment of Žiga Debeljak for a new term as president of the management board of SDH does not deviate from usual and recommended practice, the Association of Supervisors of Slovenia responded. In doing so, they effectively endorsed the practice of the “deep state.”
They did note, however, that it would have been sensible for the supervisory board to decide on the reappointment in full composition, while at the same time warning that the procedures for appointing SDH supervisors are “time‑unpredictable.” As the association stated, recommended practice obliges the supervisory board to carry out procedures in a timely and responsible manner in order to ensure continuity of management. “We are aware of the political context, which always exists in appointments to the management and supervisory bodies of the state asset manager, and is therefore often the subject of public debate,” they wrote.
The SDH supervisory board published the call for president of the management board on October 3, almost 11 months before the expiry of Debeljak’s current mandate. On November 27 it appointed him for a new four‑year term, which will begin on September 1, 2026. Critical reactions came from parts of politics – the Social Democrats argued the supervisory board should first have been completed, SDS president Janez Janša announced that Debeljak “will not” begin the new mandate, while Karl Erjavec’s extra‑parliamentary party Zaupanje said that “the timeframe and manner of procedure” deviate from the fundamental principles of good corporate governance, independence of supervisory bodies, and integrity in managing state assets.
In today’s response, the association cited its 2012 recommendations, according to which it is usual for the supervisory board to decide on re‑election or search for new candidates one year or at the latest half a year before the expiry of a mandate. The recommendations state that in order to ensure succession in the company in time, it makes sense to begin the evaluation of the work of a board member whose mandate is expiring early enough so that, in case of a negative assessment, appropriate procedures for finding a new member can be carried out.
The law stipulates that members of the management board cannot be reappointed earlier than one year before the end of their term. “If there are justified reasons for reappointment even a year before the expiry of the mandate, re‑election procedures must be carried out before that; otherwise, the last year of the mandate is the appropriate time to begin re‑election or selection procedures. In any case, it makes sense for these procedures to begin no later than six months before the end of the mandate,” the recommendations state.
In their response, the Association of Supervisors also pointed out the state’s duty to initiate procedures for appointing members of the SDH supervisory board whose mandates are expiring. This would allow the supervisory board to be timely completed with five members.
“Since the Ministry of Finance recently published a call for applications for two missing members, it would have been sensible for the supervisory board to decide on the reappointment of the president in full composition. However, we warn that the procedures for appointing supervisory board members, which are decided by the National Assembly on the government’s proposal, are time‑unpredictable. Past experience also shows the possibility that appointments may not take place and the procedure must be repeated,” they stated.
According to POP TV, the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption has launched a preliminary review in the matter, as it has received three reports – the first in October, the second last week, and the third today.