By: Anamarija Novak
The Legislative and Legal Service of the National Assembly has prepared an extensive opinion on the proposed amendment to the Media Act (ZMed-1), containing as many as 49 pages of comments and legal warnings – highlighting unconstitutionality, inconsistencies, confusion, and a lack of explanations for the proposed changes.
In the mentioned document, the Legislative and Legal Service of the National Assembly (ZPS DZ) highlighted several key concerns regarding the proposed law, which the Ministry of Culture, under Minister Asta Vrečko, submitted for parliamentary procedure at the end of 2024. The government approved it in a correspondence session on New Year’s Eve, December 31st, 2024 (!). Despite opposition, particularly from the SDS party, the National Assembly supported the bill with 46 votes after its first reading on February 20th, 2025.
Dr Verčič: The government blindly follows the worst policies
As previously reported, the proposed amendment to the Media Act has sparked mixed reactions. On one hand, Minister of Culture Asta Vrečko claims that the law is one of the most modern in Europe and necessary for adapting to technological changes. On the other hand, critics like Dr Dejan Verčič, a professor at the Faculty of Social Sciences, have expressed concerns that the law is based on an outdated understanding of media operations and could harm freedom of expression. “The government blindly follows the worst policies adopted by the European Commission and the European Parliament in the fields of digitalisation, media, and artificial intelligence – policies that stifle freedom of expression and free enterprise on the old continent. (…) One of the fundamental shortcomings of the law is defining media as a service. The proposed law regulates channels, technological means, and actors – from journalists to influencers – rather than the services themselves,” Verčič recently warned in the newspaper Delo. Regarding media financing, Dr Verčič concluded that “it seems the bill was written to distribute funds favourably to ‘our’ media while disadvantaging ‘theirs.’”
SŠK on restrictions to free information
Catholic media and the Slovenian Bishops’ Conference (SŠK) have also expressed their opinion on the proposed amendment to the Media Act, voicing concerns that the proposal restricts freedoms – highlighting the broad spectrum of perspectives on the issue.
“The Catholic Church (…) calls for the amendment of problematic provisions to ensure that the ban on publishing advertisements and other paid notices by religious communities, as well as the restriction on short news reporting about religious ceremonies via radio programmes, are removed from the ZMed-1 proposal. We in the Catholic Church wish for the Slovenian media landscape to be open, pluralistic, and encouraging of respectful public discourse and expression. Any prior and general restriction on a particular group of citizens from participating in the public space is constitutionally questionable and unacceptable. At the same time, we support and advocate for clearer provisions in ZMed-1 that would further sanction hate speech. However, restricting free information about events and the activities of religious communities in Slovenia constitutes unacceptable discrimination against citizens based on their religious affiliation. We therefore propose that the proposed regulation be amended in a manner consistent with constitutional and international human rights law,” SŠK concluded in its response.
Government inspectors to prosecute so-called hate speech?
Before the second and third readings of the Media Act amendment (ZMed-1), during which lawmakers can modify the bill, parliamentary legal experts produced a comprehensive opinion expressing concerns over numerous provisions. Their review spans 49 pages of comments and legal warnings, raising issues of unconstitutionality, inconsistency, ambiguity, and a lack of explanations for the proposed changes. The Legislative and Legal Service of the National Assembly (ZPS DZ) particularly highlights Article 53, which regulates so-called hate speech, warning that hate speech is not explicitly defined in Slovenian law. Furthermore, there is no common European definition – various legal and non-legal acts address the concept differently. ZPS DZ is particularly concerned that under the proposed amendment, the oversight of so-called hate speech would fall under the jurisdiction of the Agency for Communication Networks and Services of the Republic of Slovenia (AKOS) or an inspectorate within the Ministry of Culture, which, according to the service, further deepens the problematic nature of the proposed solution. “The decision on whether a violation has occurred requires balancing conflicting constitutional rights and those under the European Convention on Human Rights – specifically, weighing freedom of expression against the protection of others’ rights. However, the proposed regulation does not provide adequate nuances or consideration of all relevant factors established by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The primary authority for such balancing acts should be the courts, not administrative or executive bodies. In particular, the inspectorate, as a body within the ministry, despite a higher degree of professional autonomy, carries out tasks in accordance with the work programme adopted by the minister based on a proposal from the head of the subordinate body (and not solely in accordance with the law). As with any subordinate body, the minister can issue work directives and mandatory instructions, assign specific tasks or measures within its jurisdiction, and require reports on their implementation. The ministry supervises the work of the subordinate body. The minister can request reports, data, and other documents related to the work of the subordinate body. The head of the subordinate body must regularly report to the minister and, upon special request, provide updates on its activities and all significant matters within its scope of work. All of this does not prevent political influence by the ministry on the work of the inspectorate,” stated the Legislative and Legal Service of the National Assembly (ZPS DZ).
The media as public watchdogs
ZPS DZ further emphasised that “the prohibition of incitement, defined in the second clause of the first paragraph, is explained in a single sentence, which fails to justify why the ban in media applies only to crimes related to terrorism, described using terms directly matching those in the Criminal Code (KZ-1). This concerns the prohibition of incitement to criminal offenses that threaten human dignity. It is important to note that a criminal offense is committed by anyone who, in the manner described in the first paragraph of Article 297 of the Criminal Code (KZ-1), publicly disseminates ideas about the superiority of one race over another, provides any form of assistance to racist activities, or denies, downplays, approves, justifies, mocks, or advocates genocide, the Holocaust, crimes against humanity, war crimes, aggression, or other crimes against humanity as defined in the legal order of the Republic of Slovenia. Incitement or encouragement to commit these criminal offenses – such as acts of terrorism, traveling abroad for the purpose of terrorism, financing terrorism, incitement to and public glorification of terrorist acts, recruitment, and training for terrorism – could, under certain conditions, constitute a criminal offense under the second paragraph of Article 297 of KZ-1.” As the Legislative and Legal Service of the National Assembly (ZPS DZ) further warns, “The media serve as ‘public watchdogs’ – guardians of democratic institutions and responsible governance of the state and society. They inform and educate the public, which helps citizens make well-informed decisions based on facts.” “Freedom of expression also protects critical, even offensive opinions (especially in response to provocative, inappropriate, or offensive statements). As long as journalists act within their professional ‘mission’ and contribute in any way to open public debate on socially significant issues, their opinions and statements are protected under freedom of expression. The legislator must ensure that the right to the free exchange of information and ideas is not excessively restricted, even when such ideas are offensive, provocative, or shocking,” the ZPS DZ asserts.
Key comments from the Legislative and Legal Service of the National Assembly:
– Unconstitutionality: Some provisions of the law potentially infringe upon constitutionally guaranteed rights such as freedom of expression and media freedom. The concerns particularly focus on overly broad and vague definitions that could enable excessive control over the media or restrictions on free speech.
– Inconsistency with existing legislation: The amendments conflict with other current regulations in Slovenia and European legislation, including the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), which is set to take effect in August 2025. While the law is intended to align with EMFA, the service believes some aspects fall short.
– Ambiguity and lack of clarity: The proposed text is, in some places, unclear, with inconsistent formulations and insufficient explanations for the introduction of new provisions. This could lead to difficulties in implementation and increased legal uncertainty for media entities.
– Lack of justification: The service criticises the Ministry of Culture for failing to adequately justify key changes, such as the regulation of influencers, the labelling of AI-generated content, and new procedures for assessing media concentrations.