Latest developments in 2019

• Author: Kogovsek Salamon, Neza
• Pages: 94-97

94

12 LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN 2019

12.1 Legislative amendments

Rules of Procedure of the Advocate of the Principle of Equality (Poslovnik Zagovornika

načela enakosti), Of ficial Gazette of the Republic of Sl ovenia, No . 10/19, adopted on 7

February 2019, entry i nto force 16 February 20 19. The rules of procedure defin e the

Advocate’s office hours, the manner in which the Advocate deals with complaints, the

criteria for prioritising complaints, the manner in which the Advocate ai ms at reaching a

friendly settlement between the parties (i f appropriate and possible), criteria for selecting

cases for representation, and the manner in which the public and the parties may inspect

the file in the case they are involved with.

12.2 Case law

Name of the court: Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia

Date of decision: 4 July 2019

Name of the parties:

Reference number: I Ips 65803/2012

Link: http://www.sodisce.si/vsrs/odlocitve/2015081111431656/

Brief summary: Thi s was the first time the Supreme Court decided a hate speech case.

The case concerned an individual who used hate speech online as an incitement to

violence against Roma. He was convicted by the first instance court. On appeal, the

second instance court found in favour of the accused and reversed the judgment. It

stated that the use of hate speech in this case did not cause a concrete threat to public

order. Th e Supreme State Prosecutor lodged a ‘request for protection of legality’ to the

Supreme Court. This is an extraordinary legal remedy, defined in Article 420 of the

Criminal Procedure Act, which is available to the Supreme Court in cases wh ere the

application of the law is questionable. Th e prosecution claimed that, according to the law

(specifically, Article 298 of the Penal Code), there is no need to demonstrate a concrete

disruption of public order when hate speech is threatening, abusive or insulting. For such

hate speech to be punishable, the abstract possibility of disruption of public order is

already sufficient. The Supreme Court agreed with the prosecution and clarified that

concrete disruption of public order is not required in such cases; for a conviction, it is

sufficient to prove that such hate sp eech had the ability and the potential to cause a

disruption to public order, taking into account the content, nature, place and other

circumstances of the u se of hate speech. The Supreme Court found a violation of the law

in the second instance judgment and confirmed the first instance judgment, with which a

suspended sentence of one month of imprisonment was issued.

Name of the court: County Court of Trebnje

Date of decision: 6 August 2019

Name of the parties:

Reference number: II K 28050/2019-7

Link: /

Brief summary: The defendant was found guilty of two counts of public approval of the

Holocaust, which he had published on Facebook. He was issued a suspended s entence of

seven months’ imprisonment, which will not be carried out if he d oes not commit another

crime over the next tw o years. This is one of the two convictions for hate speech issued

by courts in Slovenia in 2019.

Name of the court: Ljubljana High Court

Date of decision: 28 August 2019

Name of the parties:

Reference number: II Cp 902/2019

Link: http://sodisce.si/vislj/odlocitve/2015081111432818/