Latest developments in 2019

AuthorKogovsek Salamon, Neza
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
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

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT