Volume 8 Number 3

Summer 1999

Constitutional Watch
     A country-by-country update on constitutional politics in Eastern Europe and the ex-USSR

Slovenia - On February 16, Minister of Interior Mirko Bandelj (Liberal Democrats of Slovenia [LDS]) was removed from office by parliament for subverting Slovenian security. It was agreed that he had tried to leak information about a Slovenian political party that was funding the training of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA).The events leading to Bandelj's dismissal began on October 2, 1998, when parliament's Commission for the Supervision of Security Services announced that it would review all intelligence and security-agency reports sent to the prime minister and the minister of the interior between August 20 and October 2, 1998. According to the commission, an agency report of September concerned the involvement of the leadership of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) in training members of the KLA. The commission also discovered that Bandelj had circulated this report to unauthorized individuals. The commission requested a complete list of those who had read the report. The opposition SDP was apparently angry that Bandelj had attempted to make public the former government's relationship with the KLA. (For an account of the SDP's earlier attempt to impeach the LDS prime minister, Janez Drnovsek again involving security and intelligence issues (see Slovenia Update, EECR, Vol. 7, No. 3, Summer 1998.) Although the agency complied with the request, Bandelj refused, explaining that to expose those who had read the report would interfere with relations between the legislative and executive branches. The commission warned Bandelj that his refusal violated Art. 93 of the Constitution, but he persisted in his refusal.

As is standard practice in Slovenian politics, the parliamentary opposition challenged Bandelj by calling for an interpellation of his activities. According to Art. 118 of the Constitution, an interpellation with respect to the work of the government or of an individual minister of state may be required by no less than ten deputies of the National Assembly [Drzavni Zbor]. If, following such an interpellation, a majority of all elected deputies carries a vote of no-confidence in the government or in the individual minister concerned, the government or such minister, as the case may be, shall stand dismissed by the National Assembly. On November 2, 1998, 16 SDP MPs requested Bandelj's interpellation.

In its interpellation, SDP accused Bandelj of violating Art. 44 (participation in public affairs) and, in conjunction with this, Art. 1 (Slovenia is a democratic republic); Art. 3 (the supreme power is held by the people); Art. 43 (the right to vote); and Art. 110 (individual ministers are independent within their own portfolio and are accountable to the National Assembly) of the Constitution. He was also charged with violating Art. 138 of the law that spells out the competencies of the security agency and defines its relationship to the Ministry of the Interior. SDP further accused Bandelj of violating Art. 7.a of the Decree on the Establishment and Tasks of Commissions and Committees of the National Assembly, which regulates the competencies of the Commission for the Supervision of Security Services. Finally, SDP also accused him, as the head of the police, of abusing police powers (eavesdropping, surveillance, and the opening of letters) to monitor and spy on the parliamentary opposition, which violates the Law on the Police.

Bandelj responded to the interpellation, charging that it was itself an attempt to undermine the integrity of the police. He added that the commission had the right to supervise the ministry, but that, in this case, its decree was unconstitutional under the Constitution, various statutes, the parliamentary rules of procedure, and the Secretariat for Legislation and Legal Matters. He was also of the opinion that the police force never went unsupervised because it was constantly under the oversight of the Office of the Procurator, the courts, the public, and parliament. On February 16, following the interpellation, 49 opposition deputies (mainly from SDP, the Christian Democratic Party [CDP], and the Slovenian People's Party [SPP]) successfully passed a vote of no-confidence in the minister of the interior. His replacement was named on March 24.

***

Eight years after independence from the former Yugoslavia, Slovenia and Croatia continue to grapple with issues regarding their common border. One sticking point is the delineation of the border in Piran Bay on the Adriatic Sea and Slovenia's access to the sea through Croatian waters. Both countries have tried a number of times to reach an agreement but with no success. After repeated failures to negotiate a compromise, they asked William Perry, former US secretary of the interior, to mediate. On May 4, the delegations of the two countries met with Perry, in Washington, DC, for preliminary discussions on the disputed questions. Perry is slated to visit both countries before delivering his opinion, and both have declared they will respect his final decision.

Among other, more purely legislative actions, on April 14, parliament unanimously adopted the Decree on the Determination of the Number of Persons Who Will Be Provided Temporary Shelter in the Republic of Slovenia. According to the decree, Slovenia welcomed 1,600 Kosovo refugees (in addition to the 2,744 already present in Slovenia since August 1998, and some 3,500 Bosnians who cannot return home). The act provides a legal basis for the protection and care of refugees, consisting of basic health care, schooling for children, and a 10,000 tolar allowance ($54) to the families who host refugees. It was the government's expectation that the majority of refugees would find shelter with their relatives in Slovenia; the remaining numbers were to be placed in refugee centers. In accepting these refugees from Kosovo, Slovenia gave priority to those who had relatives in Slovenia, sick or pregnant women, and mothers with young children. Kosovars residing in Slovenia could host as many refugees as they wanted, provided they were close relatives.

On April 23, the Criminal Code was amended. In general, the amendments introduce tougher penalties for crimes. The amendment also introduced some new criminal offenses and some new definitions of existing criminal offenses. For example, a 30-year sentence was introduced as the maximum length of imprisonment (Art. 6). Such a penalty is called for in cases of first-degree murder (Art. 190) and some criminal offenses against the security of the state and the constitutional system (Art. 46), as well as for criminal offenses against humanity and international law (Art. 55). Business fraud, pyramid schemes, and illegal games of chance (Art. 32) were also codified as crimes. For a first offense, imprisonment of up to five years may be pronounced; if great property damage is inflicted, imprisonment may extend to ten years. The amendment also increased the legal age of sexual consent from 14 to 15 (Art. 24). An individual who induces a minor to become a prostitute may be imprisoned for ten years (Art. 25). In the previous code, the penalty was five years.

According to the amendments, members of criminal gangs will be rewarded for helping the authorities uncover such gangs (Art. 47). Where the previous code allowed the court to decide whether to give such rewards, the new code requires it. Furthermore, the amendment addressed disclosure of state or military secrets. A person who makes public such secrets will not be punished if their disclosure aids in exposing irregularities in the organization of the intelligence services or the military, and if the disclosure or publication does not have any detrimental consequences for the state (Arts. 43 and 45). Finally, the amendments punish with greater severity manufacturers and smugglers of arms and ammunition, guides of aliens illegally crossing the border, and the aliens themselves (Arts. 52 and 53).

***

On March 22, the president of the Supreme Court, Mitja Deisinger, held a press conference, announcing that delays and backlogs are a pressing problem for Slovenian courts. Probably due to heavy caseloads and a dearth of judges, the delays could create an obstacle for Slovenia's efforts to win EU membership. Article 6.1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms reads that everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time. . . .Similarly, Art. 23.1 of the Slovenian Constitution declares that every individual is entitled to have all issues relating to their rights and duties and any charges brought against them decided without undue delay [nepotrebnega odlasanja] by an independent, impartial court constituted according to statute. According to Deisinger, there were 590,000 unresolved cases at the end of 1998, 70,000 more than at the end of 1997. But he also pointed out that the delays are being reduced, and last year, for example, the courts efficiency increased by 10 percent. He added, however, that future increases cannot be expected. At the current rate, in four years there will be approximately 250,000 unresolved cases, a number typical of most courts in the EU. Deisinger also indicated that of the 590,000 delayed cases, 386,000 resided in the lowest (district) courts and pertained to nonadversarial proceedings. In these types of proceedings, the courts do not adjudicate but only establish facts and the relevant laws as well as dealing with abstracts from the land register and various orders pertaining to the enforcement of judgments, compromises, and settlements in court.To address the problem, Deisinger stated that all vacant judicial posts had to be filled. Currently there are 560 judges in Slovenia, but the law allows for 80 more. Legislation must also be amended to find new, alternative methods for dispute resolution and to rationalize the relevant proceedings. He also remarked that the position of court executor, to be performed by a licensed private individual, will be introduced soon, and that the complete land register will be computerized shortly. He implied that these two changes will increase the efficiency of the courts.

back