By: dr. Anton Olaj
On April 18th, 2025, the allegedly controversial real estate deal involving the president of the Slovenian Democratic Party (SDS), Janez Janša, reached a decisive verdict at the Celje District Court. The court delivered an acquittal.
The Specialised State Prosecutor’s Office had accused the primary defendant, a former director of the company Imos, of abuse of position, and alleged that the second and third defendants aided in this purported misconduct.
Critical review of the legal basis of the indictment
The indictment claimed that in 2005, Imos purchased Janša’s land in Trenta at a price exceeding its actual value, allegedly to facilitate his favourable acquisition of an apartment in Ljubljana – causing financial harm to the company. Interestingly, the company itself did not consider itself damaged. The prosecution assumed damages based solely on a contested valuation report, which is unusual. Criminal law expert Dr Blaž Kovačič Mlinar publicly criticised Article 240 of the Criminal Code (KZ-1), which defines the offense of abuse of position or trust in economic activity, calling it “the most abuse-prone article in the KZ-1.” He questioned: “How is it possible for someone to gain an unlawful benefit through a criminal act, but no damage occurs?”
Questioning the impartiality of the prosecution
The Code of Prosecutorial Ethics stipulates that a prosecutor must appear impartial in criminal matters, even from the perspective of a reasonable, average, and informed observer. Did the public perceive this mandated and expected objectivity? Apparently not. Was this “most abuse-prone article,” as dubbed by Kovačič Mlinar, misused in the Trenta case? We may never know for sure, but there are strong indications.
Grounds for acquittal
The panel of judges at the Celje District Court rejected the prosecution’s arguments. In its explanation, the court stated that the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office failed to meet the burden of proof (onus probandi) required to establish the criminal offense of abuse of position. The prosecution did not present convincing evidence that Imos suffered actual financial harm due to the land purchase. Nor was there proof that the company’s director was aware of the allegedly inflated value at the time of the deal, or that he acted with intent to harm the company. Since the primary defendant was not found guilty, there was no legal basis for convicting the second and third defendants for alleged aiding in the offense.
Doubts about the initiation of proceedings and judicial ethics
An open question remains: why did the court initially agree with the prosecution that there was sufficient suspicion to justify starting the trial? Professor Dr Miha Pogačnik publicly argued that, based on a serious legal assessment and careful consideration of standards and case law, the process should never have begun. This implies criticism of the evaluation of probable cause. The Code of Judicial Ethics – closely tied to judicial independence – requires judges to act with the highest standards of responsibility, diligence, conscientiousness, effort, and professional attention in fulfilling their role. Did the court meet these standards? Many believe it did not.
Prosecutor as “guardian of legality” or merely a party?
During the trial, the defence consistently highlighted the lack of evidence supporting the abuse of position allegations and expected that charges would either not be filed or would be withdrawn. Article 17 of the Criminal Procedure Act and established case law, such as the Supreme Court ruling I Ips 444/2008, require prosecutors to evaluate both incriminating and exculpatory evidence with equal diligence. The Code of Prosecutorial Ethics echoes this, emphasising respect for human dignity and the rights of all participants. The prosecutor must act as a “guardian of legality,” not just a party pursuing conviction. Prosecutors are not obliged to secure a conviction at all costs; their primary duty is to establish the material truth. The principle of objectivity should protect the defendant’s rights and ensure the trial does not become a tool for wrongful prosecution. This helps prevent violations of fundamental rights, including the right to defence, the presumption of innocence, and the right to a fair trial.
Appeal and statute of limitations risk
After the acquittal was announced, the prosecutor declared an intention to appeal to the Higher Court, citing incorrect assessment of evidence by the trial court. However, the appeal faces a serious time constraint, as the absolute statute of limitations for prosecution will occur in March 2027. If this deadline is reached, the case would end without a final judgment, leaving the legal question unresolved – evoking parallels with the outcome of the Patria case. This has raised public concerns about the true motives behind the appeal and whether the intent is to let the case expire due to prosecutorial failure. Such an outcome would not quell the narrative of an unfair trial and a problematic judiciary in politically sensitive cases.
“Je suis Janez,” freedom for Slovenia
Even in its current stage, the Trenta case is politically divisive. Supporters – chanting slogans like “Je suis Janez” and “Freedom for Slovenia” outside the courthouse – celebrate the verdict as a victory over the “red mafia.” Opponents view the acquittal as proof of political untouchability, revealing deep polarisation and mistrust in the judiciary. The Trenta trial is thus likely to impact the upcoming parliamentary elections. Reforming the judiciary to ensure faster and fairer trials could become a key political issue resonating with voters.
Denial of alleged prearranged conviction
The acquittal in this politically charged Trenta case could be seen as proof of judicial independence, resisting pressure from the prosecution and public opinion. Still, the lengthy process has reinforced perceptions of inefficiency. Moreover, doubts linger about whether the verdict would have been the same without the leaked anonymous claim of a prearranged conviction and the resulting mass protests. Although the court denied the substance of the anonymous letter, the prosecutor appeared unprepared for the acquittal – raising questions. Why the surprise? There was no compelling evidence, yet the prosecutor expected a conviction. Does this suggest there really was a prearranged verdict?
The need for reform to strengthen the rule of law
Comprehensive reforms are needed to reinforce the rule of law – reforms that ensure faster and more transparent court proceedings, enhance judicial independence, and restore public trust in the justice system. Minor legislative tweaks will not suffice. As the old legal adage goes: “Radicalia remedia malis radicalibus” – deep-rooted problems require radical solutions. As a starting point, Slovenia could implement the Council of Europe’s CEPEJ guidelines, which recommend a duration of one to two years for first-instance criminal proceedings.
