Learn more

composite
62
62

Slovenia

In law
80
In practice
66

In Slovenia, both parties and candidates are entitled to receive reimbursements after the conclusion of campaigns. In practice, they do so. Indirect public funding in the form of free access to public media is also provided, though in the 2011 and 2014 parliamentary elections, some parties received more advertising slots than they should have according to the allocation mechanism prescribed in law. Non-financial state resources are often abused in Slovenian campaigns. Contributions are highly regulated, and there is also a cap on spending during campaigns. The spending cap is applicable to both candidates and parties. Few, if any, violations of these limits have occurred during recent campaigns, making Slovenia a relatively rare case among the countries researched for this project. During campaigns, both parties and candidates are required to submit financial reports; outside of the campaign season, only parties have to file annual reports on their financial dealings. Filed reports are somewhat detailed, though many lack a full list of contributors. Some third party actors, notably party academies, conduct campaign activities, but they are not subject to any regulation. The Court of Auditors, a highly respected institution, oversees political finance. In practice, its members are appointed in public, merit-based processes, though their independence is not fully guaranteed. The Court of Auditors has a relatively large staff and budget, and it conducted numerous audits during the 2011 and 2012 elections. The results of its investigations are transparent. Regarding sanctions, the Court of Auditors has not imposed many in recent years, but some penalties have been complied with.

  • expand button!

    Direct and Indirect Public Funding

    More about category
    composite
    68
    • expand button!
      Direct Public Funding
      More about category
      • expand button!
        1
        Score
        YES
        In law, there is direct public funding for electoral campaigns.More about indicator

        There is a special form of direct funding after election campaigns; after parliamentary and presidential elections parties and candidates can claim a (partial) reimbursement for their expenses during electoral campaigns (Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns). Election campaign organizers (on Parliamentary or Presidential elections) can get a (partial) single reimbursement of the costs of electoral campaigns after elections. This was introduced in 1989. There are no differences between regulations governing individual candidates and parties in this regard and the regulation applies to both parliamentary and presidential elections.

        According to the Law on Political Parties, an individual party which received at least 1% of votes (in the case of an electoral coalition of two parties the criterion is 1.2%, and in the case of three or more parties the criteria is 1.5% of votes) cast in the most recent parliamentary elections is entitled to get monthly public subsidies from the state budget. At the beginning of the each year it is determined how much funding from the national budget will be earmarked for party funding, but the amount must not exceed 0.017% of GDP. Parties entitled to public subsidies have received 25 % (10 % till 2013 amendments of the law) of the set amount of finances for public subsidies in equal shares, with the remaining 75 % (90 % till 2103 amendments of the law) being distributed among them according to their electoral success. The party can spend public subsidies according at its discretion – it can also transfer this money to its special electoral campaign account.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where there is direct public funding for both political parties and individual candidates to campaign. A 100 also applies where only one of the two actors can be elected and, therefore, only one is entitled to direct public funding.

        A MODERATE score is earned where per law only one of the two actors (either political parties or individual candidates) is allocated direct public funding to campaign, even though both can be elected.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns, 2013; article 23, 24, 26; http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO4749

        Law on Political Parties, 2014; article 23; http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO359

      • expand button!
        2
        Score
        YES
        In law, there is a transparent and equitable mechanism to determine direct public funding for electoral campaigns.More about indicator

        State funding is allocated to parties and candidates proportional to the amount of votes they receive in elections. Election campaign organizers (on Parliamentary or Presidential elections) can claim a (partial) single reimbursement of costs of electoral campaigns after elections. The law clearly defines who can claim, on what basis and how much can be claimed in this regard.

        According to The Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns, parties or candidates that have entered parliament (they are entitled to EUR 0.33 (USD 0.43) per vote received), or received at least 2% of all votes at the national level, or 6% within one constituency (they are entitled to a reimbursement of EUR 0.17 (USD 0.21) per vote received), are entitled to the reimbursement of their expenditure for electoral campaigns. The actual amount of reimbursement depends on the number of votes received, but the level of reimbursement must not exceed a party’s/candidates expenditure in an electoral campaign.

        In case of Presidental elections, campaign organizers whose candidates received at least 10 % of the votes cast in the elections are entitled to claim a (partial) single reimbursement of costs of electoral campaigns. They are entitled to get 0.12 (USD 0.15) EUR per vote received, while the level of reimbursement must not exceed a party’s/candidate's expenditure in an electoral campaign. In the case the second round is organized, election campaign organizers are entitled to get (partial) reimbursement on the base of number of votes received in the second round only. There are no differences between regulations governing individual candidates and parties.

        According to the Law on Political Parties, an individual party which received at least 1 % of votes (in the case of an electoral coalition of two parties the criterion is 1.2%, and in the case of three or more parties the criteria is 1.5% of votes) cast in the most recent parliamentary elections is entitled to get monthly public subsidies from the state budget. At the beginning of the each year it is determined how much funding from the national budget will be earmarked for party funding, but the amount must not exceed 0.017% of GDP. Parties entitled to public subsidies have received 25 % (10 % till 2013 amendments of the law) of the set amount of finances for public subsidies in equal shares, with the remaining 75 % (90 % till 2103 amendments of the law) being distributed among them according to their electoral success.


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree - The law also makes state funding is also available from the municipalities based on the results of local elections.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where: 1) direct public funding for political parties and individual candidates' electoral campaigns is allocated through a clearly defined calculation mechanism that is transparent and equitable, and 2) there are clearly defined eligibility criteria.

        A MODERATE score is earned where direct public funding for political party and individual candidates' electoral campaigns is allocated through a clearly defined calculation mechanism that is transparent and equitable, but eligibility criteria are not clearly defined.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns, 2013; article 24, 26; http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO4749

        Law on Political Parties, 2014; article 23; http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO359

      • expand button!
        3
        Score
        100
        In practice, to what extent is the mechanism to determine direct public funding for electoral campaigns transparent, equitable and consistently applied?More about indicator

        Campaign allocations always follow clearly defined mechanism described by The Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns and the interviewees cannot recall any deviation from the Law, either on the presidential or parliamentary elections.

        According to The Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns (partial) reimbursement of parties’ and candidates’ expenditure for electoral campaigns depends on the number of votes received in elections. Therefore electorally more successful parties and candidates (in the parliamentary and presidential elections) are ‘awarded’ higher reimbursement.

        Allocations are always transparent since the Court of Auditors determines, following the formula defined by The Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns and not by any discretionary powers, the amount of (partial) reimbursement of parties’ and candidates’ expenditures in the reports on revision of electoral campaigns on parliamentary and presidential elections. Electoral results determine also monthy public subsidies for parties and candidates in the legislative period. At the beginning of each year it is determined by the National Assembly how much funding from the national budget will be earmarked for party funding, but the amount must not exceed 0.017% of GDP. Parties legally entitled to public subsidies have received 25 % (10 % till 2013 amendments of the Law on Political Parties) of the set amount of finances for public subsidies in equal shares, with the remaining 75 % (90 % till 2013 amendments of the law) being distributed among them according to their electoral success; that means electorally more successful parties are ‘awarded’ by higher public subsidies. These allocations are always transparent and applied consistently by the National Assembly in accordance to the Law on Political Parties, and are not subject to any discretionary powers.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where: 1) electoral campaigns allocations are always defined through a clearly defined transparent and equitable calculation mechanism, and 2) the defined eligibility criteria are applied consistently.

        A 50 score is earned where: 1) electoral campaign allocations are usually defined through a clearly defined transparent and equitable calculation mechanism but exceptions exist, or 2) the eligibility criteria are usually applied but exceptions exist.

        A 0 score is earned where: 1) political campaign allocations are rarely or never defined through a clearly defined transparent and equitable calculation mechanism, or 2) the defined eligibility criteria are rarely applied.

        Sources

        Interview with Jorg K. Petrovi?, representative of the Court of Auditors, in person, September 3, 2014 Interview with anonymous professor, University of Maribor, via phone on September 9, 2014 Interview with Peter Jan?i?, journalist of Delo daily newspaper, in person, September 9, 2014

        Revision report election campaign of one candidate on presidential elections 2012 (winner of the elections); http://www.rsrs.si/rsrs/rsrs.nsf/I/K4585E46D529DBBA2C1257BDD003C874F?openDocument&appSource=91F2455D38551D7CC1257155004755A7

        Revision report on election campaign of one party on parliamentary elections 2011 (winner of the elections); http://www.rsrs.si/rsrs/rsrs.nsf/I/K5847B6FD8E54AA1EC1257A8B0019BA2A?openDocument&appSource=91F2455D38551D7CC1257155004755A7

        The names of anonymous sources are known to Global Integrity and Global Integrity has agreed not to disclose them.

      • expand button!
        4
        Score
        100
        In practice, to what extent does the entity in charge of public funding make disbursement information publicly available?More about indicator

        Complete information on the (partial) reimbursement of campaign expenditures is published right after Reports on revision of electoral campaigns (for parliamentary or presidential elections) are prepared and approved; the Reports are the basis for (partial) reimbursement of electoral campaigns' expenditures.

        A day after the final decison on the Reports by the Court of Auditors is made, they are available on the Court's homepage for free anyone interested in such data.

        The same is true regarding monthly public subsidies for parties – the decison of the National Assembly is published right after the decision in the Assembly is passed, and data are available on its homepage for free as well as in the Official Gazette, both in print and electronically.


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree. Reports are prepared by political parties, submited to AJPES and Court of Audit (and local electoral comitee in local elections), reports are examined by the Court of Audit. Parties must submit their claim for disbursment with the report to AJPES or local electoral comitee. The disbursement is made within 30 days after the report has been submitted, the formula is know upfront and the disbursment is based on official election results. All information is available online. We attach an example for municipal refund.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where: 1) complete information on the disbursements is published less than a month after disbursement, and 2) the information is available on the Internet for free or in hard copy at photocopying cost.

        A 50 score is earned where: 1) the information published is incomplete or published more than two months after disbursement, or 2) obtaining the information costs more than photocopying.

        A 0 score is earned where: 1) disbursement information is published more than four months after disbursement, or 2) no disbursement information is published or released upon request.

        Sources

        Interview with Jorg K. Petrovi?, representative of the Court of Auditors, September 3, 2014 Interview with anonymous professor, University of Maribor, via phone, September 9, 2014 Interview with anonymous professor, University of Ljubjana, via phone, August 15, 2014 Interview with Peter Jan?i?, journalist of Delo daily newspaper, in person, September 9, 2014

        Audit report: Social Democrats, Election to the National Assembly, 2011. http://www.rs-rs.si/rsrs/rsrs.nsf/I/KEC80EEE7C1EE4F00C1257A79003DF34E?openDocument&appSource=91F2455D38551D7CC1257155004755A7 Audit report: Democratic Party of Pensioners, Election to the National Assembly, 2011. http://www.rs-rs.si/rsrs/rsrs.nsf/I/KD64531DB59DA2CD3C1257A3F00175CE3?openDocument&appSource=91F2455D38551D7CC1257155004755A7 Audit report: Citizens' List of Gregor Virant, Election to the National Assembly, 2011. http://www.rs-rs.si/rsrs/rsrs.nsf/I/K8DD94AE2AB11812EC1257A8B00194B3A?openDocument&appSource=91F2455D38551D7CC1257155004755A7 Audit report: Danilo Turk, Presidential candidate, Presidential Elections, 2013. http://www.rs-rs.si/rsrs/rsrs.nsf/I/K44CC816E24970286C1257BDD004AE94A?openDocument&appSource=91F2455D38551D7CC1257155004755A7

        The names of anonymous sources are known to Global Integrity and Global Integrity has agreed not to disclose them.

        Reviewer's sources: Municipality of Postojna Ordinance for Refundation of Election Cost, July 2014: http://www.postojna.si/dokument.aspx?id=8221 (each municipality issues its own Ordinance and publishes it online right away)

    • expand button!
      Indirect Public Funding
      More about category
      • expand button!
        5
        Score
        NO
        In law, use of state resources in favor of or against political parties and individual candidates is prohibited.More about indicator

        No such law exists. The Decree on the Organization and Work of Departments outlaws the use of some state resources in campaigns, but it does not carry the force of law. No further ban on the use of nonfinancial state resources such as buildings, vehicles, etc. is set forth in Slovenian legislation.

        Parliamentary parties, since the passing of the original Political Parties Law in 1997 (since amended in 2014), receive monthly financial assistance for professional help. Since the 2004 amendments to the law, each parliamentary party group is entitled to financial assistance that permit them to hire two experts and administrative staff, in addition to an extra administrative staff member, for every additional eight MPs they have. Parliamentary party groups which have more than 8 MPs can hire another expert for every sixth MP. Each parliamentary party group receives, for each MP, an amount of money equal to the monthly salary of an undersecretary position.

        The Law also gives a party the right to transfer up to 50% of the amount received from the state budget reserved for additional expert help in parliament to its 'ordinary' account (for funding electoral campaigns parties normally makes transfers from their 'ordinary' accounts to special electoral campaigns accounts).


        Peer reviewer comment: Disagree. Suggests a MODERATE score. The first paragraph of Article 4 of the Elections and Referenda Campaign Act states that pre-election rallies are not allowed on the premises of state authorities, local communities, public institutions and other public entities, as well as on the premises of religious communities, unless the religious community is organizer of the referendum campaign. Article 14, in its fifth paragraph, stipulates that state bodies and local authorities are not permitted to fund election campaigns.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where there is an explicit ban on the use of state resources in favor of or against political parties and individual candidates. A YES is also earned where there are clearly defined exceptions, which are accessible to all actors equally.

        A MODERATE score is earned where an explicit ban exists but it only applies to one of the two actors, even though both can be elected. A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        A NO score is also earned where the law exists, but allows discretionary exceptions.

        Sources

        Decree on the Organisation and Work of Departments of the National Assembly, 1997; article 16, 17; http://www.dz-rs.si/wps/portal/Home/deloDZ/zakonodaja/izbranZakonAkt?uid=C12563A4003380DAC12564800045D857&db=spr_akt&mandat=VII

        Decree on the Organisation, Work Positions and Titles in Support Structures in the National Assembly, 2002; articles 11, 12;
        https://www.dropbox.com/s/39lp87m4rv9cabz/Slovenia-5-Decree%202002.docx?dl=0

        Law on Political Parties, 2014; article 21; http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO359

        Reviewer's sources: Elections and Referendum Campaign Act; Article 4 (Paragraph 1), Article 14 (Paragraph 5): http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO4749

      • expand button!
        6
        Score
        0
        In practice, to what extent are no state resources used in favor of or against political parties and individual candidates' electoral campaigns?More about indicator

        There is no explicit ban on the use of nonfinancial state resources (staff, vehicles, buildings, etc) in election campaigns.

        It has been a regular practice on all elections that some public employees are engaged in electoral campaigning during their worktime. In this regard, parties which can assure a certain level of patronage, that is, parties which are (or used to be) members of governmental coalitions in particular, but also other parliamentary parties, have clearly some 'advantage' (interview with a university professor).

        The other two interviewees agree, such examples are possible to find in practice, while they cannot recall any of such practice has been punished. As one interviewee exposed, sanctions for such 'behaviour' could only be implemented on the basis of the Labour Law and not on the basis of The Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns nor the Law on Political Parties. Occasionally there have been some questions raised in the public as to whether it is allowed that a PM and/or a certain minister to travel to election (public) party meeting while using an official state car and driver, but such questions have stayed without answers.

        Additionally, parliamentary parties have a certain advantage in this case. These parties receive certain amounts of monthly funding to pay their administrative and advisory staff. Such staff, though formally employed by the National Assembly and certainly considered public employees, regularly engage in campaigns.

        One interviewee remarked that it was possible to observe how political parties used their offices in the National Assembly for party meetings in the last campaign for parliamentary elections (2011), in contravention of the Law on Elections and Referendum Campaigns.


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree. The parliamentary elections in 2014 showed that candidates (for instance a mayor and a minister for Education) use their staff and resources (e-mails, post ets.) for their campaign related activities. Moreover, the last local elections (October 2014) show cases of blatant abuse of state resources, where several mayors (Ljubljana, Koper) used their municipalities' newspapers to promote their campaign. (The official resoults of the monitoring are not yet available). The practice is widespread when it comes to smaller violations, the larger violations are sporadic.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where there is no evidence of authorities using state resources in favor of or against political parties and individual candidates. A 100 is also earned where there are clearly defined exceptions and are equally accessible to all actors.

        A 50 score is earned where: 1) documented evidence indicates occasional use of state resources in favor of or against political parties and individual candidates, or 2) clearly defined exceptions are not equally accessible to all actors.

        A 0 score is earned where documented evidence indicates regular use of state resources in favor of or against certain political parties and individual candidates.

        Sources

        Interview with Vita Barboric, Chief Project Manager for Corruption Prevention, Anti Corruption Commission of Slovenia, in person, September 15, 2014 Interview with anonymous professor, University of Maribor, via phone, September 9, 2014 Interview with anonymous professor, University of Ljubjana, via phone, August 15, 2014

        The names of anonymous sources are known to Global Integrity and Global Integrity has agreed not to disclose them.

        Reviewer's sources: TI-Slovenia Elections Monitoring Report, Forthcoming.

      • expand button!
        7
        Score
        YES
        In law, political parties and individual candidates have free or subsidized access to equitable air time for electoral campaigns?More about indicator

        The Law on the Radio and Television of Slovenia (RTV SLO) of 2005 states that candidates and parties have the right to free air time in public media during an election campaign to present their candidates and election manifestos for parliamentary elections. Free access to public TV is provided to all candidates and parties running for seats in the parliament (in the form of (self) presentations of candidates, or debates among candidates or party representatives). According to the law, nonparliamentary parties and candidates have the right to one third of the total time for the free election programme, but debates are organized for parliamentary and nonparliamentary parties/candidates separately. RTV SLO must assure equal distribution of free air time within both groups of parties and candidates. The law does not specify how much total airtime must be devoted to electoral advertising; RTV SLO determines the total amount internally, and makes its provisions accordingly.

        According to Regulation of the RTV SLO for parliamentary elections in 2014, only representatives of candidate lists/parties which have candidates in all constituencies can participate in debates.

        RTV SLO has to assure equal time and conditions for free air time on the public TV and radio to all candidates on Presidential elections.

        Private TV stations have free hand to choose who is going to be invited to participate in debates and it is up to the stations themselves to decide how this access to TV will be distributed among candidates and parties (on presidential and parliamentary elections).


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree. Advertising is clearly defined in the last paragraph of the Article 6 of Elections and Referendum Campaign Act, which declares that (for all media) in the campaign time all parties/candidates have equall access, if they can afford the costs.

        Elections and Referendum Campaign Act; Article 6; http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO4749

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where: 1) free or subsidized access to air time for electoral campaigns is granted in a transparent, equitable way, and 2) there are clearly defined eligibility criteria.

        A MODERATE score is earned where free or subsidized access to air time for electoral campaigns is granted in a transparent, equitable way, but eligibility criteria are not clearly defined.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law on Radio and Televison of Slovenia, 2005; article 12; http://www.dz-rs.si/wps/portal/Home/deloDZ/zakonodaja/izbranZakonAkt?uid=C12563A400338836C12570290028B3D4&db=spr_zak&mandat=VII

        Rules of the RTV SLO for election campaign in 2014;chapters II-III https://www.rtvslo.si/files/novicezavoda/pravila-drzavnizbor-2014.pdf

        Rules of the RTV SLO for Presidential elections in 2012; https://www.rtvslo.si/files/novicezavoda/pravila-volitvepredsednikars2012.pdf

      • expand button!
        8
        Score
        50
        In practice, to what extent is free or subsidized access to air time provided in a transparent, equitable way to political parties and individual candidates for electoral campaigns?More about indicator

        Radio and Television of Slovenia (RTV SLO) in practice assures all candidates and parties the free air time accorded to them in law during election campaigns for parliamentary and presidential elections. Before elections RTV SLO, on its homepage, regularly publishes a special Regulation of RTV SLO for election campaign, defining the amount of airtime to which specific parties and candidates are entitled. Therefore it is possible to say the rules are transparent, and free access to public TV and radio is allocated in accordance with those rules. Parliamentary parties receive more airtime than nonparliamentary parties, and all presidential candidates receive equal time, as seen by the allocation amounts granted in the 2012 presidential elections.

        Before the early parliamentary elections in 2011 and 2014, RTV SLO attempted to shoehorn more time for nonparliamentary parties and new parties into the free airtime defined in the law. It did so in response to public opinion polls that showed a good amount of support for such parties, as demonstrated in the cited newspaper reports.

        Both interviewees remark that, in these cases, RTV SLO violated the law, disregarding the allocation access requirements therein defined. However, one interviewee believes that, in doing so, RTV SLO actually was acting in the public interest, making it possible that the public could become familiar with the ideas and statements of parties that were to receive significant electoral support. Indeed, in the 2011 elections the List of Zoran Jankovi? Positive Slovenia won, and in the 2014 elections the Party of Miro Cerar won. These parties were given more free airtime than that to which they were legally entitled.

        On the other hand, the biggest commercial TV stations are not obliged to assure equal, free access to TV to all parties and candidates in parliamentary and presidential elections. While private TV stations in practice assured equal amount of time in debates to all three presidential candidates in 2012, in the case of the 2011 and 2014 parliamentary elections, private stations gave more time to parties with high public opinion support, regardless of their (non)parliamentary status.

        In 2011, several nonparliamentary parties called on Slovenian and European institutions to guarantee their right to free access to media advertising.


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree. Due to the specific socio-political circumstances where two non-parliamentary political parties won the elections they consequently received more publicity in the media in the pre-election period. This is only because public opinion pools indicated the winning of the parties. In our research we found one case where a non-parliamentary party received an invitation to a debate a day before the campaign officially started on the national television that is legaly bound to give free regulated airtime during the campaign. Private media mostly decides upon public opinion and therefore mostly do not give access to smaller parties. In practice, we can not say how much more free airtime mentioned parties received.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where: 1) free or subsidized access to media advertising is always provided in a transparent and equitable way, and 2) the defined eligibility criteria are applied consistently.

        A 50 score is earned where: 1) free or subsidized access to media advertising is usually provided in a transparent and equitable way, but exceptions exist, or 2) the eligibility criteria are not always applied.

        A 0 score is earned where: 1) there's rarely free or subsidized access to air time for political campaign, and 2) access exists but is not provided in a transparent, equitable way.

        Sources

        Interview with anonymous professor, University of Maribor, via phone, September 9, 2014 Interview with anonymous professor, University of Ljubjana, via phone, August 15, 2014 Interview with Peter Jan?i?, journalist of Delo daily newspaper, in person, September 9, 2014

        No author, "Nezadovoljni z volilno zakonodajo" ("Dissatisfaction with Electoral Law"), Delo Newspaper, November 11, 2011, (unavailable without subscription) Klara Škrinjar, "Si bo RTV premislila?" ("Will RTV change its mind?"), Delo Newspaper, November 17, 2013 (unavailable without subscription) No author, "Zunajparlamentarne stranke: Bili smo zapostavljeni" ("Extra-Parliamentary Parties: We Have Been Neglecte."), Delo Newspaper, December 5, 2013 (unavailable online).

        Rules of the RTV SLO for election campaign in 2014; chapters II-III https://www.rtvslo.si/files/novicezavoda/pravila-drzavnizbor-2014.pdf

        Rules of the RTV SLO for Presidential elections in 2012 https://www.rtvslo.si/files/novicezavoda/pravila-volitvepredsednikars2012.pdf

        The names of anonymous sources are known to Global Integrity and Global Integrity has agreed not to disclose them.

        Reviewer's sources: Danes je nov dan (an NGO) published an open letter to the national television regarding an unequal representation of parties, June 2014: http://danesjenovdan.si/zgresena-tarca/

  • expand button!

    Contribution and Expenditure Restrictions

    More about category
    composite
    88
    • expand button!
      General Rules on Electoral Campaign Contributions
      More about category
      • expand button!
        9
        Score
        MODERATE
        In law, cash contributions are banned.More about indicator

        Contributions in cash to candidates are allowed from individuals up to a maximum amount of EUR 50 (65,3 USD). Higher cash contributions must be paid through banks, saving banks or other legal entities which provide payment services in accordance with the regulations (The Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns).

        Just before the parliamentary elections of 2014, the Law on Political Parties was changed and contributions in cash to parties are now allowed up to a maximum amount of EUR 420 (549 USD). Article 22 states: Individuals can contribute funds in cash for the year, for which the annual financial report is prepared, up to the amount stated in the law regulating the tax procedure with respect to the obligation to transfer payments and receipts through bank accounts.

        Transfers of finances from parties to their electoral campaings have been legally allowed since 1989.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where cash contributions are banned and all financial contributions must be made via the banking system.

        A MODERATE score is earned where cash contributions are allowed up to a maximum limit, regardless of the limit.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns; 2013; article 14; http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO4749

        Law on Political Parties, 2014; article 22; http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO359

      • expand button!
        10
        Score
        YES
        In law, there is a ban on anonymous contributions.More about indicator

        According to article 14 of the Law on Elections and Referendum Campaigns (2013), when individual makes a contribution, including cash contributions, she must provide the organizer of the electoral campaign with her name, surname, personal identification number and address.

        By the Law on Political Parties (2013), if contributions of individuals exceeds the amount of the average gross monthly salary (1.500,00 EUR, or USD 1,930), the party must provide information including the name and address of the person as well as the total annual amount of the contribution in the annual financial report. In the previous iteration of the law, dating to 1994, only contributions that were higher than three average gross monthly salaries needed such information reported.

        The same laws regulate Presidential and Parliamentary elections as well as individual candidates and political parties.Therefore there are no differences between regulations governing Presidential and Parliamentary elections as well as no differences between regulations governing individual candidates vs political parties in this regard. No contribution can be anonymous--the election campaign organizer has to keep name and address etc. of someone who makes a contribution. This informatiom must be revealed if requested during an audit process. However, only the names of individuals who make a contribution larger than a gross monthly salary must be proactively reported.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where the law stipulates that anonymous contributions are banned.

        A MODERATE score is earned where the ban exists, but it applies only to one actor (whether political parties or individual candidates). A MODERATE score is also earned where small anonymous donations are allowed up to a maximum threshold equal to or less than the equivalent to US$300.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns; 2013; article 14; http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO4749

        Law on Political Parties; 2013; article 22; http://www.dz-rs.si/wps/portal/Home/deloDZ/zakonodaja/izbranZakonAkt?uid=C12563A400338836C1257C310049C030&db=spr_zak&mandat=VII

        Law on Political Parties; 1994; article 21; http://www.dz-rs.si/wps/portal/Home/deloDZ/zakonodaja/izbranZakonAkt?uid=A99A22203EECC016C1256628002FB2B0&db=spr_zak&mandat=VII

      • expand button!
        11
        Score
        YES
        In law, in-kind donations to political parties and individual candidates must be reported.More about indicator

        The Law on Elections and Referenda, in article 14, clearly states that, alongside financial contributions, in kind donations (defined as all nonfinancial contributions provided free of charge, including the sale of items or services to a campaign which at a better rate than that available to other customers/service users) are allowed, and the election campaign organizer must include all such contributions in the overall list of revenues and expenditures, though he is not obliged to list them individually. The campaign organizer and the donor of in-kind services/products must make a written contract.

        There are no differences between regulations governing Presidential and Parliamentary elections in this regard, nor between regulations governing individual candidates vs parties.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where all in-kind donations must be reported to the oversight authority.

        A MODERATE score is also earned if the requirement to report such information exists, but applies only to one actor (whether political parties or individual candidates).

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns, 2013; article 14; http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO4749

        Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns, 2007; article 15; http://www.dzrs.si/wps/portal/Home/deloDZ/zakonodaja/izbranZakonAkt?uid=C12563A400338836C12572C900354298&db=spr_zak&mandat=VII

      • expand button!
        12
        Score
        YES
        In law, loans to political parties and individual candidates must be reported.More about indicator

        Until 2013 all loans to campaigns that exceeded three times the average gross monthly wage per employee needed to be reported. Since 2013, more data are required. The amended Law on Elections and Referenda (2013), in article 18, mandates that campaign organizers must report all loans given to the campaign by banks, and must include the business address and registration number of the bank, the loan's interest rate, the total amount of the loan, and the repayment period of the loan. Parties can also obtain loans from individuals as long as the amount of the loan does not exceed ten times the average gross monthly salary, and parties must, report the identification information (name + identification number and address) of the individuals who made the loan, in addition to information on the amount, interest rate and repayment period of each loan. All loans mentioned in this paragraph must be reported in the annual financial reports submitted to the electoral oversight body. This regulation applies to both candidates and parties.

        If loans are made to a parties regular account, and the party then transfers that money into its election campaign account, that must be reported. Indeed, as expressed, all loans to parties that are used for campaign purposes must be reported.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where all loans must be reported to the oversight authority.

        A MODERATE score is earned where loans must be reported, but the requirement applies only to one actor (whether political parties or individual candidates).

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns, 2013; article 18; http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO4749

        Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns, 2007; article 18; http://www.dz-rs.si/wps/portal/Home/deloDZ/zakonodaja/izbranZakonAkt?uid=C12563A400338836C12572C900354298&db=spr_zak&mandat=VII

        Law on Political Parties; 2014; article 22; http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO359

    • expand button!
      Limits on Contributions and Expenditures during Electoral Campaign Periods
      More about category
      • expand button!
        13
        Score
        YES
        In law, contributions from individuals are limited to a maximum amount.More about indicator

        Total contributions from an individual for an election campaign or to a party must not exceed ten average gross monthly salaries per employee in Slovenia (as reported by the Statistical Office for the previous year). The regulation applies to parties and individual candidates.

        Since 1994 that limit has been set by the Law on Political Parties and The Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where: 1) individuals may not contribute more than a maximum amount established by the law.

        A MODERATE score is earned where a maximum amount exists, but it applies only to contributions for one actor (whether political parties or individual candidates). A MODERATE score is also earned where individuals are forbidden from making any contribution.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns; 2013; article 14; http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO4749

        Law on Poltiical Parties; 1994; article 22; http://www.dz-rs.si/wps/portal/Home/deloDZ/zakonodaja/izbranZakonAkt?uid=A99A22203EECC016C1256628002FB2B0&db=spr_zak&mandat=VII

      • expand button!
        14
        Score
        MODERATE
        In law, contributions from corporations are limited to a maximum amount.More about indicator

        Contributions from corporations/legal entities are not allowed by the 2013 law. According to The Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns organizers may obtain contributions from individuals. Parties can also transfer funds from their regular bank account to the special/an electoral campaign bank account. The highest amount of such a transfer is limited to the highest amount allowed to spend in the campaign.

        In the period 1994-2013 corporations/legal entities could contribute up to maximum ten average gross monthly salaries per employee in Slovenia.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where: 1) corporations may not contribute more than a maximum amount established by the law.

        A MODERATE score is earned where a maximum amount or ban exists, but it applies only to contributions for one actor (whether political parties or individual candidates). A MODERATE score is also earned where corporations are forbidden from making any contribution.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns; 2013; articles 14 and 23; http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO4749

        Law on Political Parties; 1994; article 22; http://www.dz-rs.si/wps/portal/Home/deloDZ/zakonodaja/izbranZakonAkt?uid=A99A22203EECC016C1256628002FB2B0&db=spr_zak&mandat=VII

      • expand button!
        15
        Score
        YES
        In law, contributions from foreign sources are banned.More about indicator

        Campaign organizers of national parliamentary and presidential campaigns cannot receive contributions for electoral campaign from foreign natural and legal entities. Specifically, article 21 of the Law on Political Parties bans contributions from foreign sources to parties, while article 14 of the Law on Elections and Referenda prohibits such contributions to individual candidates.


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree. Article 21 of the Political Parties Act does not apply the ban on foreign contributions to subscriptions and contributions by party members. Conceivably, a foreign party member could thus contribute. The Law on Elections and Referenda also leaves room for a loophole--according to paragraph 6 of article 14, the organizer of elections campaigns for elections to the European Parliament may acquire funds from the citizens of the member states of the European Union under the same conditions which apply to domestic natural persons.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where it is forbidden for political parties and individual candidates to receive contributions (financial or in-kind) from foreign sources.

        A MODERATE score is earned where: 1) the ban exists but it applies only to one actor (whether political parties or individual candidates), or 2) contributions from foreign sources are allowed to a maximum amount.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns; 2013; article 14; http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO4749

        Law on Political Parties; 1994; article 21; http://www.dz-rs.si/wps/portal/Home/deloDZ/zakonodaja/izbranZakonAkt?uid=A99A22203EECC016C1256628002FB2B0&db=spr_zak&mandat=VII

        Reviewer's sources: Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns; 2013; article 14; http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO4749

        Law on Political Parties; 1994; article 21; http://www.dz-rs.si/wps/portal/Home/deloDZ/zakonodaja/izbranZakonAkt?uid=A99A22203EECC016C1256628002FB2B0&db=spr_zak&mandat=VII

      • expand button!
        16
        Score
        YES
        In law, contributions from third-party actors (unions, foundations, think tanks, political action committees, etc.) are limited to a maximum amount or banned.More about indicator

        The Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns explicitly lists who cannot contribute to the election campaign (either for Presidential or Parliamentary elections, and there are no differences between regulations governing individual candidates and parties): state authorities, local communities, legal persons of public and private law, individual private entrepreneurs, and individuals who independently perform business activities may not fund parties or candidates.

        Trade unions, foundations, think tanks etc. are not mentioned specifically, but in Slovenia these organizations are legal entities. Article 14 of The Law on Elections and Referenda from 2013 banned contributions to electoral campaigns from legal entities.

        Article 21(4-5) of the Political Parties Act includes similar provisions.

        Indeed, all donations of legal entities are banned by the 2013 Laws.


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree - Political parties may have internal organizational structures, like Youth and Women's organizations, which may have the status of organizations in the public interest. These organizations may acquire public funding for programs in the youth sector/ gender equality in accordance with the regulations governing the public interest.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where: 1) third-party actors may not contribute more than a maximum amount established by the law, or 2) are forbidden from making any contribution.

        A MODERATE score is earned where: 1) the maximum amount or ban exists only for the majority of third-party actors, but not all, or 2) the maximum amount or ban exists, but applies only to contributions for either political parties or individual candidates.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns, 2013; article 14; http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO4749

      • expand button!
        17
        Score
        YES
        In law, election campaign spending by political parties and individual candidates is limited to a maximum amount.More about indicator

        Campaign spending has been limited since 1994; since 2007 the highest amount allowed to be spent in individual electoral campaign for national parliamentary elections has been 0.40 EUR (0.51 USD) per registered voter, while for presidential elections this limit has been 0.25 EUR (0.32 USD) per voter in the country in the first round and this limit can be higher for additional 0.15 EUR (0.19 USD) per voter in the country if the second round is held. Restrictons apply to both parties and individual candidates.


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree. The cost of election campaigns to individually elected bodies of local communities must not exceed EUR 0.25 (0.32 USD) per eligible voter in the local community. If there is a second round of voting, the cost of the election campaign for a candidate may increase further for EUR 0.15 (0.19 USD) per eligible voter in the local community.

        The cost of the referendum campaign on the national level or in the local community must not exceed EUR 0.25 (0.32 USD) per eligible voter in the country or in the local community.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where it is forbidden for political parties and individual candidates to spend more than a certain amount in a political campaign.

        A MODERATE score is earned where the maximum amount exists, but it applies only to one actor (whether political parties or individual candidates).

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns, 2007; article 23; http://www.dzrs.si/wps/portal/Home/deloDZ/zakonodaja/izbranZakonAkt?uid=C12563A400338836C12572C900354298&db=spr_zak&mandat=VII

        Reviewer's sources: Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns, 2013; article 23, Paragraph 5 and 6; http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO4749

      • expand button!
        18
        Score
        --
        Open Question: Do the national laws regulating political finance also apply to sub-national units? If not, to what extent do sub-national units have laws regulating political finance?More about indicator

        Municipal council and mayoral elections are in general regulated by the Law on Local Elections, but questions on local party/election campaign finances are regulated by The Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns and Law on Political Parties – both laws are applicable to the elections campaigns for local elections. Indeed, there are some articles in The Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns that specifically deal with local elections.

        Campaign spending is limited - the highest amount allowed to be spent in individual electoral campaign for municipial council is 0.40 EUR (USD 0.52) per voter in the municipality, while for mayor's elections this limit is 0.25 EUR (USD .32) per voter in the municipality in the first round and this limit can be higher for an additional 0.15 EUR (USD 0.19) per voter in the municipality if the second round is held.

        The Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns states that a municipality, before local elections, must set the amount of (partial) reimbursement of parties’ and candidates’ expenditure for electoral campaigns. It is also allowed that the municipality can ensure (partial) reimbursement of elections expenditures only to those election campaign organizers for municipality council's elections whose candidates received a seat in a municipality council, and in the case of mayoral elections to those election campaign organizers whose candidates recieved at least a certain percentage of votes, but this threshold cannot be higher than 10%. That means, municipalities have, to a certain point, free hand in the determination of (partial) reimbursement of election campaign expenditures' rules. The Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns determines also that the highest amount of reimbursement for a vote received on municipality council elections cannont be higher than the reimbursement value set per vote received in the parliamentary elections. Similarly, the reimbursement for a vote received on mayoral elections cannot be higher than the reimbursement value set per vote received in the presidential elections.

        Local election campaign organizers are also obliged to prepare and send a report on financial information of individual campaigns after elections to the Court of Auditors and to the municipality council and since 2013 also to the AJPES.

        Due to the above-mentioned discretionary powers of municipal councils regarding party/campaign finances, it is harder to track local parties’ finances; simply because it is sometimes necessary to call/go to 212 municipalities to get some specific data.

        A university professor interviewed exposes a problem connected with limitation of campaign spending in small municipalities (there are many such municipalities in Slovenia). Namely, in municipalities with a few hundred or even a few thousand people it is indeed impossible to run election campaign since the limit on campaign spending is extremely low. Such limitation in practice stimulates the violation and avoidance of The Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns.


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree - Transparency International Slovenia is familliar with the issue highlighted by the researcher. Political financing in Slovenia, in regards to the legal framework, was till 2013 highly problematic. In addition, there was no election monitoring on financing of political parties conducted till recently. There is no true evidence for the researcher's statement so far, but this does not mean he/she is not correct. For example, an expert on political financing in the municipality where a mayoral candidate can spend 10.000 EUR can easily evaluate how much his election campaign is worth - highlighting bilboards where, for example, 10 bilboards for 14 days costs more than 15.000 EUR.

        This is an obvious violation and can be seen by anyone. However, due to the lack of transparency, supervision, sanctioning and monitoring in practice, these kinds of violations have not been confirmed. Since 2014 Slovenia has new regulations. The 2014 local elections (5 and 19 October) were monitored by TI Slovenia. In conclusion, the statement is realistic (a cap for the smallest municipality is 110,4€ per party/list + 69€ per mayoral candidate).

        Scoring Criteria

        Please describe the applicability of national political finance regulations at the sub-national level, being sure to answer: 1) whether national laws are applicable to sub-national campaigns; 2) if not, to what extent do sub-national units have similar laws regulating political finance; and 3) whether there are any reports of problems arising from gaps in this framework.

        Sources

        Interview with Jorg K. Petrovi?, representative of the Court of Auditors, September 3, 2014 Interview with anonymous professor, University of Maribor, via phone, September 9, 2014 Interview with anonymous professor, University of Ljubjana, via phone, August 15, 2014 Interview with Peter Jan?i?, journalist of Delo daily newspaper, in person, September 9, 2014

        Law on Local Elections (last amended 2012) https://www.dropbox.com/s/vyh2wpel5moz007/Slovenia-18-10658-330.doc?dl=0

        Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns 2013, articles 23, 28; http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO4749

        The names of anonymous sources are known to Global Integrity and Global Integrity has agreed not to disclose them.

      • expand button!
        19
        Score
        --
        Open Question: What are the predominant sources of funding for electoral campaigns?More about indicator

        Annual financial reports of parties reveal that their main financial sources are public subsidies (money from national and local budgets).

        Campaign reports of parties and candidates on parliamentary elections, on the other hand, reveal that their main sources are transfers from parties 'ordinary' accounts to special electoral campaign accounts. Due to this connection, it is (according to one interviewee) possible to say the main financial sources of election campaigns are indeed public subsidies.

        The situation is smiliar on presidential elections when a candidate is a party candidate – in this case parties make transfers from their 'ordinary' accounts to special election campaign accounts. But in Slovenia presidential candidates ran as independents (even though many had the clear support of parties) and in these cases such transfers were only allowed up to the amount of 10 monthly salaries (these transfers were treated as a contribution of a legal entity). In the case of independent presidential candidates, the main financial sources were therefore contributions of individuals and legal enitities. Since The Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns in 2013 ban contributions of legal entities it remains to be seen what will happen with funding of independent presidential candidates in the future.

        A university professor explains, the main sources/channels of information in election campaigns are indeed media reports on parties/candidates in the form of articles and reports (not paid advertisments). Mass media can, in such a way, form a kind of a campaign, and (dis)advantage some parties and candidates over others. Here, it is possible to observe a clear trend; in media where the main advertisers are more left-orientated, the media will publish/release positive information relating left-orientated parties/candidates and/or more negative information relating right-orientated parties/candidates, and vice versa. According to a university professor, state-owned companies which are usually close to centre-left parties, pay more advertisments in left-orientated media, and these media in a bigger extent further write/report more positively about centre-left parties/candidates and/or negatively about centre-right parties/candidates. As he warns, in all these cases, it is not possible to speak about direct financial contributions to election campaigns.

        On the other hand, one interviewee believes that, in practice, donations from private companiesin the 2011 elections were more important than revealed by the official financial reports submitted to the oversight authority. Such a conclusion is based on the analysis which clearly shows some private companies only had business relations with public or state sector in a period of a particular government, while other companies only had business relations with public or state sector in a period of the other government. She believes this cannot be accidental.

        Self-financing of election campaigns is something which has been happening regularly in Slovenia. In the past some leading persons, candidates or to-be ministers in particular parties made donations to the election campaign of their parties (they respected limits of such donations, that is 10 monthly average salaries). In practice a different form of self-finances has been more important. For example, a candidate bought food and drink for a public meeting by himself; another example is the case of a candidate that, by himself, paid for the printing of leaflets and posters for a campaign (this practice was exposed by a university professor).

        The main problem in the past, including the most recent legislative elections in 2011 and the presidential elections in 2012, was that The Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns was not very precise in regulating such activities. However, the Law from 2013 more precisely regulates the topic. Frequently, a kind of self-financing of campaigns in the past was, according to a university professor, also a fact that several candidates gave a loan to a party, and such loans (given by an individual to a party) were almost completely unregulated.

        Other methods of generating campaign funds, such as parties owning their own bussiness or trusts, are not developed in Slovenia.


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree - The infographic below clearly shows the sources of financing (see Jan?i?). It is impossible to comment the case on the leaflets, since the monitoring of election campaigns in practice has not been conducted due to the deficiencies, to date, in existing legislation. We cannot conclusively confirm the researcher's account, but the reseach of TI Slovenia shows similar results. The practice of financing of political parties is often taken over by candidate, and violations such as those described by the researcher are common. The financing of parties has often been (and still is) provided by the private sector "under the table" and the winning party afterwards expresses their gratitude through public procurement and public contracts. The application supervisor (website included below) shows clear connections between multiple companies and individual governments (see Petovar and Supervizor) as they have had business with the state only when a certain party was in power. The list is long for each government period.

        Scoring Criteria

        Please describe the important sources of funding for electoral campaigns, being sure to answer: 1) where does the preponderance of funding come from - public, individual, corporate, or other; 2) to what extent do individual candidates self-finance; and 3) do political parties have other methods of generating campaign funds, such as owning their own businesses or trusts.

        Sources

        Interview with anonymous professor, University of Maribor, via phone, September 9, 2014 Interview with Peter Jan?i?, journalist of Delo daily newspaper, in person, September 9, 2014

        Annual report on the financial operations of the New Christian Democratic Party, 2013 https://www.dropbox.com/s/t60bn9djtsf4e7p/Slovenia-19-10659-332.pdf?dl=0

        Audit report: The Accuracy of Gregor Virant's Financing Report, 2011; http://www.rs-rs.si/rsrs/rsrs.nsf/I/K8DD94AE2AB11812EC1257A8B00194B3A?openDocument&appSource=91F2455D38551D7CC1257155004755A7

        "How do Parties Finance Campaigns," Delo newspaper, November 11, 2013. https://www.dropbox.com/s/8hdf2um0la0kb62/Slovenia-19-10659-333.pdf?dl=0

        The names of anonymous sources are known to Global Integrity and Global Integrity has agreed not to disclose them.

        Reviewer's sources: Jan?i?, Peter (2013) Ve? denarja strankam, a konec velikodušnosti do TRS, LDS in SNS. Delo. Available at: http://www.delo.si/novice/politika/vec-denarja-strankam-a-konec-velikodusnosti-do-trs-lds-in-sns.html (25.10.2014).

        Habi?, et al (2011). National Integrity System assessment in Slovenia. Transparency International Slovenia - Društvo Integriteta. Available at: nis.integriteta.si

        Petovar, Gašper (2011) Državni denar partnerjem, prijateljem in znancem. RTV SLO. Available at: http://www.rtvslo.si/slovenija/drzavni-denar-partnerjem-prijateljem-in-znancem/264650 (25.10.2014).

        Supervizor: supervizor.kpk-rs.si

      • expand button!
        20
        Score
        --
        Open Question: Have there been documented instances of violations of contribution or expenditure limits or any of the laws mentioned above (Section 2)?More about indicator

        The audit reports of all three presidential candidates from the 2012 campaign reveal only small discrepancies (mainly mistakes when reporting/non-compliance with the rules of political accounting). The conclusion of the Court of Auditors in all three cases was that election campaign organizers in all important aspects conformed to The Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns and the Law on Political Parties. No violations regarding expenditure limits, violations of financial contribution limits, or contributions that circumvented the regulatory framework were recorded.

        The case is similar for the parliamentary election campaign of 2011. In almost all cases, the Court of Auditors found only some small mistakes (non-compliance with the rules of political accounting). Election campaign organizers in all important aspects conformed The Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns and the Law on Political Parties. No violations regarding expenditure limits, violation of financial contribution limits, or contributions that circumvented the regulatory framework were identified.

        None of interviewees remember any violations of the expenditure limits and violations regarding contributions in the most recent elections. Nevertheless, all interviewees mentioned a case happened at the turn of the 21st century when one such a violation was documented; one parliamentary party spent more money that it was allowed, but only a warning was issued. Years ago there were also some recorded examples of (potential) violations of the Law on the Election Campaign – the Law on the Election Campaign at the time stated that state-owned companies could not make contributions to parties and candidates, but it was not clear whether this provision applied only to companies which were directly state-owned or also to indirectly state-owned companies.

        Two interviewees remarked that Slovenia is one of the rare European countries where sanctions were not implemented. This is due to the dearth of recorded violations of expenditure limits as well as violations. But until the passage of new legislation in 2013 it was not possible to speak about transparency and real control in party finances/election campaign finances.

        One interviewee avers that prior to 2013, the Court of Auditors had only limited powers regarding control of election campaign finances (the Court of Auditor could audit reports on election campaigns but had limited powers) and indeed no control over 'normal' funding of parties (the legislation demands only that in annual financial reports were in the right form and the Court of Auditors till 2013 only checked whether the form was duly completed and contained all the necessary information). On the other hand, the Ministry of Finance and Inspectorate for Internal Affairs did have some powers but especially the latter did not exercise such powers for a long time. For many year, neither the MoF or the IIA exercised even their limited powers in respect to political financing. In such circumstances in practice violations hardly be documented.

        Later, the Inspectorate for Internal Affairs recorded several cases of violations of The Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns in the period 2009-2014 (see statistics) when it also passed sentences in a form of warnings and fines. But it has to be stressed, the Inspectorate only has statistics according to the year of violations and information on which article of the Law was violeted while it does not have statistics organized according to the events (for example, elections in a particular year). The Inpectorate in the same period did not pass sentences in a form of warning or fine due to violation of the the Law on Political Parties.


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree - Media reports have highlighted possible violations of the laws. For example, the Court of Auditors, during the 2007 local elections, highlighted the illegality of the financial reports from the mayor of Ljubljana, Zoran Jankovi?, but the the president of the Court did not specify the illegalities. It was pointed out, however, that since the law at the time (it has since been amended) did not stipulate an offence, no penalties could be imposed. As we have highlighted in the previous 2 answers above, there was practically no sanctioning in Slovenia for the breaches of political finance legislation. Even more, the breaches were not identified and highlighted, as stipulated in the Political Parties and Election Campaign Financing CRINIS report, prepared by Transparency International Slovenia.

        Scoring Criteria

        Please list and describe all documented instances of: 1) violation of contribution limits, 2) violation of expenditure limits, and 3) financial contributions that circumvent the regulatory framework. The objective of this question is to learn more about the local context, so please explain the cases in as much detail as relevant.

        Sources

        Interview with Vita Barboric, Chief Project Manager for Corruption Prevention, Anti Corruption Commission of Slovenia, in person, September 15, 2014 Interview with anonymous professor, University of Maribor, via phone, September 9, 2014 Interview with Peter Jan?i?, journalist of Delo daily newspaper, in person, September 9, 2014

        Audit report: The Accuracy of the Slovenian People's Party Financing report, 2011 Parliamentary Elections; http://www.rs-rs.si/rsrs/rsrs.nsf/I/K7945B1CCB75ECD8FC1257A8B001A0350?openDocument&appSource=91F2455D38551D7CC1257155004755A7

        Audit report: The Accuracy of Dr Milan Zver's Financing Report, 2012 Presidential Elections; http://www.rs-rs.si/rsrs/rsrs.nsf/I/K62158C21D27211C7C1257BDD003A47CB?openDocument&appSource=91F2455D38551D7CC1257155004755A7

        Statistics of the Inspectorate for internal Affairs, Imposed Major Penalties, 2009-2013. https://www.dropbox.com/s/i8pkydqx44av4g4/Slovenia-20-10660-334.doc?dl=0

        The names of anonymous sources are known to Global Integrity and Global Integrity has agreed not to disclose them.

        Reviewer's sources: RTVSLO (2007) Za kampanjo najve? porabil SD. Avalable at: http://www.rtvslo.si/slovenija/za-kampanjo-najvec-porabil-sd/65486

        Habi? and Doria (2014); Political parties and election campaign financing - CRINIS, Transparency International Slovenia - Društvo Integriteta; crinis.integriteta.si

  • expand button!

    Reporting and Public Disclosure

    More about category
    composite
    71
    • expand button!
      Reporting Requirements to the Oversight Entity
      More about category
      • expand button!
        21
        Score
        MODERATE
        In law, political parties and individual candidates report itemized contributions and expenditures both during and outside electoral campaign periods.More about indicator

        Both parties and candidates must submit post election financial reports, and parties must also submit annual financial reports.

        The Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns mandates the submission of one post election financial report for all campaigns. Within four months of the election's conclusion, the special election campaign account must be closed, and within 15 days of the election, the designated election organizer must submit the financial report to the Agency for Public Legal records and Related Services (AJPES). These requirements apply to both individual candidates and parties (all of whom are required to have a designated election organizer).

        The Law on Political Parties only demands annual financial reports of individual parties--these reports must be submitted to the AJPES.

        All the aforementioned reports must, in law, contain a certain level of itemization dealing with contributions and expenditures. The level of detail required has been increased due to the 2013 and 2014 amendments to the Law on Political Parties and the Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns. The election campaign organizer must now report on 7 items dealing with expenditures and contributions (up from 4 prior to the new amendments), and political parties, in their annual reports, must cover 9 items dealing with contributions and expenditures (up from 5 prior to the amendments). Additionally, the Ministry of Internal Affairs has, in 2014, issued a special regulation detailing the itemization of expenditures and contributions in election campaign as well as annual financial reports.

        The regulations give specific instructions what precisely has to be reported. For example, annual reports of parties must include the following: all revenues specifically according to a form and value of individual revenue streams; the same is true for expenditures; all contributions higher than gross average monthly salary; all changes in a property of a party; all loans received; all expenditures for election and referenda campaigns as well as all donations received together with data on donors. In the case of a report on election campaigns the organizer has to report on several topics, including: all revenues and expenditures; on transfers from 'ordinary' accounts of a party to special election campaign account; on contributors who donated more than gross average monthly salary; on all donations given against the law; and on loans.


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree. Indeed, financial reports on election campaigns (for which election organizers or political parties need to have a separate bank account) are legally required to be submitted after the campaign ends. Political parties, as legal entities, are required to report annualy financial reports as well. Slovenia has two separate laws, one for election campaigns and one for political parties. Consequently, there are two different reporting obligations. Parties can and usually are designated as campaign organizers during election campaigns.

        Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns, 2013; http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO4749

        Law on Political Parties, 2014; http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO359

        Rules for Annual Financial Reporting for Political Parties; http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=PRAV12015

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where political parties and individual candidates are required to report itemized contributions and expenditures to the oversight authority, both during and outside electoral campaign periods.

        A MODERATE score is earned where: 1) the requirement applies for itemized contributions, but not for itemized expenditures, or 2) it applies only during the electoral campaign but not outside it. A MODERATE score is also earned where the requirement exists, but it only applies to one actor (whether political parties and individual candidates).

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns, 2013; article 18; http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO4749

        Law on Political Parties, 2014; article 24; http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO359

        Regulation of Ministry of Internal Affairs, "The Content of Annual Financial Reports and Election Campaign Reports," 2014; https://www.dropbox.com/s/r29hyrr0nb0sd0y/Slovenia-21-10661-335.docx?dl=0

      • expand button!
        22
        Score
        YES
        In law, political parties and individual candidates are required to report their financial information on a monthly basis during the electoral campaign.More about indicator

        The official campaign period in Slovenia is 30 days long. The Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns mandates that both political parties and individual candidates, via their election campaign organizer, submit one financial report on campaign contributions and expenditures within 15 days of the campaign's conclusion. Further, within 4 months of the elections, the special bank account opened for the purposes of the election must be closed. As one report is necessary for a 30 day period, this can be considered a monthly report.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where political parties and individual candidates must report monthly their financial information to the oversight authority during the electoral campaign.

        A MODERATE score is earned where the requirement exists on a quarterly basis. A MODERATE score is also earned where the requirement only applies to one actor (whether political parties or individual candidates).

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns, 2013; article 18; http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO4749

        Law on Political Parties, 2014; article 24; http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO359

      • expand button!
        23
        Score
        MODERATE
        In law, political parties and individual candidates are required to report their financial information on a quarterly basis outside of electoral campaign periods.More about indicator

        In law, only parties are required to submit financial reports outside of official election periods. By article 24 of the Law on Political Parties, political parties must submit an annual financial report on contributions and expenditures to the oversight authority. No such requirement exists for candidates.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where political parties and individual candidates must report quarterly their financial information to the oversight authority outside of electoral campaign periods.

        A MODERATE score is earned where the requirement exists on a yearly basis. A MODERATE score is also earned where the requirement only applies to one actor (whether political parties or individual candidates).

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns, 2013; article 18; http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO4749

        Law on Political Parties, 2014; article 24; http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO359

      • expand button!
        24
        Score
        50
        In practice, to what extent do political parties and individual candidates report itemized financial information monthly?More about indicator

        The Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns demands that parties and candidates submit post election reports. As election periods are officially 30 days long, this is equivalent to monthly reporting.

        In practice, as confirmed by the interviewee, parties and candidates submitted their required reports after the elections of 2011 and 2012, but the itemization of contributions and expenditures was rather low, and reports were not submitted until 4 months after the conclusion of the election. It is possible to see from the submitted reports that some level of itemization was available, but room for improvement remains, as parties and candidates mostly stuck to aggregate contributions and expenditures. According to the interviewee, the new changes to the Law on Elections and Referenda Campaign, and the special regulations issued in 2014 by the Ministry of Internal Affairs on the content of financial reports, will improve the itemization of submitted financial information.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where: 1) political parties and individual candidates report on their financial information monthly, and 2) the reports include both itemized contributions and itemized expenditures.

        A 50 score is earned where: 1) the reports are occasionally general rather than itemized or don't contain all accounts, or 2) the reporting frequency is quarterly.

        A 0 score is earned where: 1) political parties and individual candidates rarely or never file reports, 2) the reports are filed but are rarely or never itemized or refer only to either contributions or expenditures, or 3) the reporting frequency is less than quarterly.

        Sources

        Interview with anonymous professor, University of Ljubjana, via phone, August 15, 2014

        Audit reports of the two biggest parties in the parliamentary elections of 2011: Audit Report: The Accuracy of Positive Slovenia Financing Report, 2011 Parliamentary Elections. http://www.rs-rs.si/rsrs/rsrs.nsf/I/K5847B6FD8E54AA1EC1257A8B0019BA2A?openDocument&appSource=91F2455D38551D7CC1257155004755A7 Audit Report: The Accuracy of Slovenian Democratic Party Financing Report, 2011 Parliamentary Elections. http://www.rs-rs.si/rsrs/rsrs.nsf/I/K73BB2BB5F3E1CF22C1257A8D0037AAF5?openDocument&appSource=91F2455D38551D7CC1257155004755A7

        Reports of all three candidates in the presidential elections of 2012: Audit Report: The Accuracy of Borut Pahor's Financing Report, 2012 Presidential Elections. http://www.rs-rs.si/rsrs/rsrs.nsf/I/K4585E46D529DBBA2C1257BDD003C874F?openDocument&appSource=91F2455D38551D7CC1257155004755A7 Audit Report: The Accuracy of Dr Danilo Turk's Financing Report, 2012 Presidential Elections. http://www.rs-rs.si/rsrs/rsrs.nsf/I/K44CC816E24970286C1257BDD004AE94A?openDocument&appSource=91F2455D38551D7CC1257155004755A7 Audit Report: The Accuracy of Dr Milan Zver's Financing report, 2012 Presidential Elections. http://www.rs-rs.si/rsrs/rsrs.nsf/I/K62158C21D27211C7C1257BDD003A47CB?openDocument&appSource=91F2455D38551D7CC1257155004755A7

        Regulation of Ministry of Internal Affairs, "The Content of Annual Financial Reports and Election Campaign Reports," 2014; https://www.dropbox.com/s/r29hyrr0nb0sd0y/Slovenia-21-10661-335.docx?dl=0

        The names of anonymous sources are known to Global Integrity and Global Integrity has agreed not to disclose them.

      • expand button!
        25
        Score
        50
        In practice, to what extent do financial reports by political parties and individual candidates include all types of contributions?More about indicator

        All interviewees estimate the amendments to The Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns and Law on Political Parties passed at the end of 2013 assure higher level of itemization of all contributions (cash, in-kind, etc.), than both Laws in force before 2013. In part such an estimation is also connected with a fact that in 2014 Ministry of Internal Affairs issued special Regulation on what and how has to be disclosed/reported (types and amount of contributions).

        Before 2013 a certain level of itemization of contributions was demanded as claimed by two interviewees, while another two interviewees expressed much more critical views about this, claiming that especially many in-kind contributions were in the past not included in the reports. According to them, elections campaign reports were not to be trusted as a credible source of information on expenditures and contributions in campaigns simply because everyone who walked around and observed the amount of electoral advertising, and compared that to claimed contributions and expenditures in parties' and candidates' campaign reports could discover a huge gap between reality and reports--advertising costs likely surpassed all of the reported income of parties and candidates.

        Additionally, prior to the recent reforms, there was no requirement in any financial report to present names and addresses of persons and companies which donated less than 3 monthly average salaries, while majority of contributions were under 3 monthly average salaries (by Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns 2013 this threshold is lower and names and addresses of all individuals who contribute more than 1 monthly average salary has to be revealed). Following The Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns prior to 2013 only information on the total sum of collected donations were available to the public and hardly any information on was disclosed regarding contributors.

        The representative of the Court of Auditors explained that it is necessary to differentiate between reporting and controlling requirements regarding political/party/election finances. Parties and election organizers must collect the names and personal identifiers of contributors, for example, but must only report the names of contributors who give more than one monthly salary. Such information must only be disclosed if requested by the Court of Auditors during the audit process.

        One interviewee also remarked that some problems regarding information on types of contribution before 2013 were connected with a fact that the most important financial source of election campaigns were transfers from the 'ordinary' party accounts to special election campaign accounts. In the case of annual financial reports, prior to 2013, the Court of Auditors could not conduct detailed audits and demand additional information. Therefore it was not clear what indeed had been transfered from the 'ordinary' accounts of parties to their special election campaign accounts. Submitted financial reports in the 2011 parliamentary and 2012 presidential elections only revealed the names of contributors that gave more than 3 gross average monthly salaries and transfers from 'ordinary' party accounts to specific election campaign accounts.


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree. Not all donors names and addresses are reported, only those that exceed the legal threshold. We agree with the researcher, and we are highly critical of the current financial reports. They are not to be trusted, as highlighted in the Financing of Political Parties and Election Campaigns Report - CRINIS.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where: 1) reports include an itemized list of all contributions indicating their type (in-kind, cash where allowed, etc.) and amount (estimated value for in-kind contributions), and 2) contain donors' names and addresses (or other personal identifier).

        A 50 score is earned where only one of the two conditions listed in the 100 criteria is met.

        A 0 score is earned where neither condition is met.

        Sources

        Interview with Vita Barboric, Chief Project Manager for Corruption Prevention, Anti Corruption Commission of Slovenia, in person, September 15, 2014 Interview with Jorg K. Petrovi?, representative of the Court of Auditors, September 3, 2014 Interview with anonymous professor, University of Ljubjana, via phone, August 15, 2014 Interview with Peter Jan?i?, journalist of Delo daily newspaper, in person, September 9, 2014

        Audit Report: The Accuracy of the Social Democratic Party's Financing report, 2011 Parliamentary Elections. http://www.rs-rs.si/rsrs/rsrs.nsf/I/KEC80EEE7C1EE4F00C1257A79003DF34E?openDocument&appSource=91F2455D38551D7CC1257155004755A7

        Regulation of Ministry of Internal Affairs, "The Content of Annual Financial Reports and Election Campaign Reports," 2014; https://www.dropbox.com/s/r29hyrr0nb0sd0y/Slovenia-21-10661-335.docx?dl=0

        The names of anonymous sources are known to Global Integrity and Global Integrity has agreed not to disclose them.

        Reviewer's sources: Habi? and Doria (2014), Financing of political parties and election campaigns, Transparency International Slovenia - Društvo Integriteta, crinis.integriteta.si

    • expand button!
      Availability of Electoral Campaigns' Financial Information to the Public
      More about category
      • expand button!
        26
        Score
        YES
        In law, financial information from political parties and individual candidates must be available to the public.More about indicator

        Post election financial reports must, in law, be made publicly available. By articles 18 and 21 of the Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns, each election campaign organizer has to send a financial infomation in the form of a report to the Agency of the Republic of Slovenia for Public Legal Records and Related Services. The Agency is obliged to publish reports on its homepage. By the Law on Political Parties, the annual reports of parties must also be published on the website of the AJPES.

        Prior to 2013 amendments, election campaign organizer had to send a financial infomation in the form of a report to the Court of Auditors and the National Assembly (parliament). All financial reports at the time became public when were delivered to the abovementioned institutions and citizens could access to them on the basis of the Law on the Access to Public Information.


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree. Annual reports of political parties must be made publicy available on AJPES website as stipulated by the researcher. Since the amended legislation only came into force with 2014, the preparation of annual reports and new reporting requirements will be possible no later than on 1st March 2015, for the reporting year 2014. For the financial year 2014 political parties will have to submit annual reports according to the instructions on the sumbission of annual reports for non-profit organizations. AJPES will then publish full reports online. For the financial year 2013 annual reports should be prepared in accordance with the previous, amended Political Parties Act.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where in law financial information of political parties and individual candidates must be made available to the public, whether online or digitally within two days of request.

        A MODERATE score is earned where financial information must be made available to the public, but no requirement exists regarding cost, format or number of days within which it must be made available.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns, 2013; article 18, 21 http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO4749

        Law on Political Parties, 2014; http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO359

        Reviewer's sources: Habi? and Doria (2014), Financing of political parties and election campaigns, Transparency International Slovenia - Društvo Integriteta, crinis.integriteta.si

      • expand button!
        27
        Score
        50
        In practice, to what extent can citizens easily access the financial information of all political parties and individual candidates?More about indicator

        Citizens do not have big problems if they wish to obtain financial information of parties and candidates. All financial reports (annual financial reports as well as election campaign reports for parliamentary and presidential elections) can, in practice, be obtained by citizens in accordance with the Law on the Access to Public Information at the latest within 20 days after a request. Reports are also available online at the websites of the AJPES and Court of Auditors.

        According to the amendments on the Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns (2013) and the Law on Political Parties (2014), access to financial reports will be even easier since all of them will be published online via AJPES homepage in .pfd or word format indeed at the same day when they will arrive to the Agency. The annual reports of 110 parties are available on the AJPES website in .pdf format. The reports are not available in machine readable format.

        The audited reports of election campaigns of parties and candidates have been without problems found on the homepage of the Court of Auditors (in .pdf format). At the moment it is not possible to obtain these reports in a machine readable format.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where: 1) all relevant financial information is freely available online, 2) it can be obtained digitally within two days of requesting it, and 3) it is in a machine readable format (for example in csv or xml format).

        A 50 score is earned where: 1) information is available but in some cases is incomplete or lacking detail, 2) obtaining complete information takes up to a month, or 3) it's not necessarily digital or in machine readable format.

        A 0 score is earned where: 1) the information is not publicly available, or 2) obtaining it takes more than three months, or 3) the cost of obtaining it is prohibitive for the regular citizen.

        Sources

        Interview with Jorg K. Petrovi?, representative of the Court of Auditors, September 3, 2014 Interview with anonymous professor, University of Maribor, via phone, September 9, 2014 Interview with Peter Jan?i?, journalist of Delo daily newspaper, in person, September 9, 2014

        AJPES website, Public Release of Annual Reports, 2013. www.ajpes.si/jolp/prikaz.asp?id_prikaza=2&keyword=PPPOJzp, accessed on September 14, 2014.

        The names of anonymous sources are known to Global Integrity and Global Integrity has agreed not to disclose them.

      • expand button!
        28
        Score
        100
        In practice, to what extent is financial information published in a standardized format?More about indicator

        Since general instructions on format of reports have been always in force for all parties and candidates, it is possible to say all parties and candidates have been using the same, standardized format for financial reports (interview by author on 15 August 2014). The Ministry of Internal Affairs issued guidelines for submitting financial reports, and those guidelines are followed in practice.

        As it can be seen from reports on electoral campaigns in 2011 and 2012, we can indeed speak about the standardized form of them; each of the reports published online contains aggregate contributions, expenditures, and audit results. This can help someone interested in them to make direct comparisons between Reports.

        Reports of parties and candidates are available to the public via homepage of the Court of Auditors and AJPES (for 2014 elections).

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where financial information for all political parties and individual candidates is available to the public in a standardized format.

        A 50 score is earned where only part of the information is published in a standardized format. A 50 score is also earned where the information is standardized, but it doesn't cover all political parties and individual candidates.

        A 0 score is earned where financial information is not available in a standardized format.

        Sources

        Audit Report: The Accuracy of Positive Slovenia Financing Report, 2011 Parliamentary Elections. http://www.rs-rs.si/rsrs/rsrs.nsf/I/K5847B6FD8E54AA1EC1257A8B0019BA2A?openDocument&appSource=91F2455D38551D7CC1257155004755A7 Audit Report: The Accuracy of Slovenian Democratic Party Financing Report, 2011 Parliamentary Elections. http://www.rs-rs.si/rsrs/rsrs.nsf/I/K73BB2BB5F3E1CF22C1257A8D0037AAF5?openDocument&appSource=91F2455D38551D7CC1257155004755A7 Audit Report: The Accuracy of Borut Pahor's Financing Report, 2012 Presidential Elections. http://www.rs-rs.si/rsrs/rsrs.nsf/I/K4585E46D529DBBA2C1257BDD003C874F?openDocument&appSource=91F2455D38551D7CC1257155004755A7

        Regulation of Ministry of Internal Affairs, "The Content of Annual Financial Reports and Election Campaign Reports," 2014; https://www.dropbox.com/s/r29hyrr0nb0sd0y/Slovenia-21-10661-335.docx?dl=0

        Interview with anonymous professor, University of Ljubjana, via phone, August 15, 2014

        The names of anonymous sources are known to Global Integrity and Global Integrity has agreed not to disclose them.

      • expand button!
        29
        Score
        100
        In practice, to what extent do mainstream journalism media outlets use political finance data in their reporting?More about indicator

        Two interviewees agree that mainstream media in general use officially published financial reports of parties (both annual and within campaigns) and candidates (within campaigns only) as part of their reporting (Delo, Ve?er and Mladina were mentioned). One of them expressed also some critical observations in this regard, namely that several media simply copy information prepared by the Slovenian Press Agency (STA) on financial aspects of parties and candidates.

        A journalist estimates that occasionally several media outlets use official party/political reports on their finances and publish (parts of) these reports. These official reports are used only occasionally since questions and issues on political/party/campaign finances are as a rule not main topics in Slovenia. He also explains, the main variable in explaining level of coverage of these topics by individual media is simply a question for which media a journalist who specializes in party/political/campaign finances works. He personally, when writing about political/party/campaign finances in the biggest part makes references to official reports parties and candidates have delivered to the Court of Auditors.


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree. All articles below focus on debt of parties. The source of this information is the annual reports that are publicly available. The media most often only review the reports rather then critically assessing them and preparing a proper investigation of the story. The report of TI Slovenia highlights the lack of investigative journalism on the topic of political financing.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where at least three independent mainstream journalism media outlets have used officially published political party or individual candidate financial information as part of their reporting.

        A 50 score is earned where one independent mainstream journalism media outlet has used officially published financial information as part of its reporting.

        A 0 score is earned where no mainstream journalism media outlet has used officially published financial information as part of its reporting.

        Sources

        Interview with anonymous professor, University of Maribor, via phone, September 12, 2014 Interview with anonymous professor, University of Ljubljana, via phone, August 15, 2014 Interview with Peter Jan?i?, journalist of Delo daily newspaper, in person, September 9, 2014

        Peter Jan?i?, "Stranka SDS najbolj premožna in najbolj zadolžena" ("SDS Party is the wealthies and most indebted"), Delo Newspaper, March 2, 2013, http://www.delo.si/novice/politika/strankasdsnajboljpremoznainnajboljzadolzena.html

        The names of anonymous sources are known to Global Integrity and Global Integrity has agreed not to disclose them.

        Reviewer's sources: Vršnak, A. V. In Andrenšek A. (2012) V obupu tudi (pre)zadolžene politi?ne stranke. Available at: http://www.dnevnik.si/slovenija/1042521650 (25.10.2014).

        Jan?i?, Peter (2013) Ve? denarja strankam, a konec velikodušnosti do TRS, LDS in SNS. Delo. Available at: http://www.delo.si/novice/politika/vec-denarja-strankam-a-konec-velikodusnosti-do-trs-lds-in-sns.html (25.10.2014).

        Kastelic, Andraž (2011) Dolg SDS presega milijon evrov. Avalable at: http://www.zurnal24.si/dolg-sds-presega-milijon-evrov-clanek-77131 (25.10.2014).

        Habi? and Doria (2014), Financing of political parties and election campaigns, Transparency International Slovenia - Društvo Integriteta, crinis.integriteta.si

      • expand button!
        30
        Score
        75
        In practice, to what extent were there no news reports or other documented incidents of violation or abuse of political finance laws?More about indicator

        There were no news reports or substantiated, conclusive cases regarding violations or abuses of political finance laws during the most recent parliamentary and presidential election campaigns. Nonetheless, as three interviewees remember, there were several news reports on accusations of violations of political finance laws (it was reported that a service of printing posters and advertisement in the media were paid in advance and not during the campaign therefore was no need to report about the service as a campaign expenditure; it was also reported quite extensively that one party in practice used 50x times more than The Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns allowed).

        As one of an interviewee explained, there have not been many substantiated violations or abuses revealed so there hasn't been much news about them.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where there were no news reports or other documented incidents of violation or abuse of political finance laws during the most recent national election.

        A 50 score is earned where there were news reports or other documented incidents of no more than two cases of violation or abuse of political finance laws during the most recent national election.

        A 0 score is earned where there were frequent news reports or other documented incidents of violation or abuse of political finance laws during the most recent national election.

        Sources

        Interview with anonymous professor, University of Maribor, via phone, September 12, 2014 Interview with anonymous professor, University of Ljubljana, via phone, August 15, 2014 Interview with Peter Jan?i?, journalist of Delo daily newspaper, in person, September 9, 2014

        The names of anonymous sources are known to Global Integrity and Global Integrity has agreed not to disclose them.

      • expand button!
        31
        Score
        100
        In practice, to what extent were there no news reports or other documented incidents of vote-buying?More about indicator

        None of three interviewees is familiar with any example of votebuying or news reports about it during the most recent parliamentary and presidential election campaigns. One of them added that several years ago (not during the most recent parliamentary and presidential election campaigns) he heard the AntiCorruption Commission received some reports of such events. He believes that these were only very rare examples and not indicative of a widespread practice.


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree. There were no vote-buying incidents in the most recent Parliamentary elections, but there have been some cases highlighted in the media in the last local elections. The media reports in one instance show that authorities are investigating vote buying in the municipality of Prevalje, while there was an instance where an individual wanted to sell his vote on the popular web-site Bolha.com. From 2006 to 2012 only one person has been found guilty in court of vote-buying.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where there were no news reports or other documented incidents of vote-buying during the most recent national election.

        A 50 score is earned where there were news reports or other documented incidents of no more than two cases of vote-buying during the most recent national election.

        A 0 score is earned where there were frequent news reports or other documented incidents of vote-buying during the most recent national election.

        Sources

        Interview with anonymous professor, University of Maribor, via phone, September 12, 2014 Interview with anonymous professor, University of Ljubljana, via phone, August 15, 2014 Interview with Peter Jan?i?, journalist of Delo daily newspaper, in person, September 9, 2014

        The names of anonymous sources are known to Global Integrity and Global Integrity has agreed not to disclose them.

        Reviewer's sources: Hacler, Tina (2014) Od brezpla?nih ?evap?i?ev do groženj s smrtjo - vse za županski stol?ek. Available at: http://www.rtvslo.si/slovenija/lokalne-volitve-2014/od-brezplacnih-cevapcicev-do-grozenj-s-smrtjo-vse-za-zupanski-stolcek/348979 (25.10.2014).

        Kolednik (2014) Kriminalisti preiskujejo ali so na Prevaljah volilne glasove kupovali z brezpla?nim pivom. Available at: http://www.siol.net/novice/slovenija/2014/10/prevalje.aspx

        24ur.com (2014) Želel prodati svoj glas na volitvah, a so njegov oglas umaknili. Available at: http://www.24ur.com/novice/volitve/prodam-glas-na-drzavnozborskih-volitvah.html

        Statistical Office of Republic of Slovenia: http://pxweb.stat.si/pxweb/Database/Demsoc/Demsoc.asp#13

      • expand button!
        32
        Score
        50
        In practice, to what extent do civil society organizations use political finance data?More about indicator

        Only Društvo Integriteta – Transparency International Slovenia was mentioned as civil society organization which has used officially published political/party/election campaign reports for advocacy or awarness work. But, as it was evaluated by one interviewee, also this civil society organization has been using these reports for its advocacy or awarness work only in the last several years. Students have been using these reports occasionally for their papers.


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree. TI Slovenia has been working on political financing for 5 years. We have used the official data for analysis of the CRINIS report published in June 2014, the preparation of a policy paper entitled "Financing of Political Parties and Election Campaigns," and the preparation of the National Integrity System analysis in Slovenia. In addition, we will use official data for analysis and cross-referencing with our local level monitoring. A number of times we have called for proactive publishing of donors to the political parties and individual candidates.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where at least three civil society organizations have used officially published political party or individual candidate financial information as part of their advocacy or awareness work.

        A 50 score is earned where one civil society organization has used officially published financial information as part of its advocacy or awareness work.

        A 0 score is earned where no civil society organization has used officially published financial information as part of its work.

        Sources

        Interview with Jorg K. Petrovi?, representative of the Court of Auditors, in person September 3, 2014. Interview with anonymous professor, University of Maribor, via phone, September 12, 2014 Interview with Peter Jan?i?, journalist of Delo daily newspaper, in person, September 9, 2014

        The names of anonymous sources are known to Global Integrity and Global Integrity has agreed not to disclose them.

        Reviewer's sources: Habi? and Doria (2014), Transparency in the Funding of Political Parties, Transparency International Slovenia - Društvo Integriteta, 2014, crinis.integriteta.si

        Habi? and Doria (2013), Financing of Political Parties and Election Campaigns, Transparency International Slovenia - Društvo Integriteta, 2014, http://nis.integriteta.si/policy-paper/financiranje-politicnih-strank/political-party-financing

        Habi? et all (2012) National Integrity system assessment in Slovenia. Available at: nis.integriteta.si

      • expand button!
        33
        Score
        --
        Open Question: Have there been political finance legal reforms or reform bills presented to the legislature in the last 10 years?More about indicator

        As found out by Fink-Hafner and Krašovec (2013: 2,3) the regulation of political parties was most dynamic in the process of the transition and in the early stage of the consolidation of Slovenia’s party system. The regulation was a reaction to three major challenges: 1) competition among political parties for political space in the evolving party system; 2) possible external (international) interference in the dynamics of the domestic party system; and 3) non-democratic trends in the existing political parties (e.g. a lack of internal democracy and the emergence of party-related militia). Subsequently, the less frequent changes to party regulation in Slovenia have mostly been related to: 1) the fight against the corrupt behaviour of political parties related to their funding; and 2) the reactions of parliamentary parties to the struggle of non-parliamentary parties’ for access to state funding comparable to parliamentary parties’ access to such funding.

        In the last ten years there had been several changes of the laws (Law in Political Parties; Law on the Election and Referendum Campaign) regulating party/political finances. But until 2013, no reforms specifically addressed the political finance sections of these laws. Even the 2013 reforms failed to comprehensively address all aspects of the system.

        In spite of countless public warnings that the Court of Auditors of the Republic of Slovenia does not have enough power to either actually learn about the details of party funding or to sanction illegal party practices in this field, the law governing this court has not been amended appropriately (Fink-Hafner and Krašovec, 2013: 16). Further, despite several draft amendments prepared in the working group within the Ministry of Internal Affairs in the last few years to alter the regulation of party funding so as to ensure greater transparency, none of them have actually been submitted to parliament or passed by the government (Fink-Hafner and Krašovec, 2013). Despite the 2009 public discussions in Slovenia over state subsidies to political parties and their potential elimination, later even the idea of only allowing public funding and abolishing all others sources has been developed. Both proposals and discussions were driven by the idea that either solution could prevent corruption. But even though GRECO has called for several changes to be made to the regulation of party funding with the aim to ensure greater transparency, nothing has been changed (see Fink-Hafner and Krašovec, 2013: 16-17).

        In 2013 the Ministry of Internal Affairs prepared a formal proposal of changes of the both laws dealing with party/political finances and sent them to parliament. As the main argument for changes, Recommendations and Evaluations of the GRECO since 2010 were exposed (see the governmental proposal). But, also the public (see newspaper articles) detected the main reason for changes should be ensuring greater transparency and control over party/political finances. The same was found out by intervew (interview by author on 15 August 2014) who confirmed, the most important reason for changes in 2013 were GRECO warnings on inadequate legal framework as well as practice in assuring transparency and control over party/political finances.

        Amendments to both Laws were passed in 2013 (the most important changes were: bans on contributions of corporations; limitation of cash contributions; need to reveal all contributiions of individuals over one gross monthly salary; better definition of control over party finances; legal regulation of the possibility of parties to transfer money from the regular accounts to a special/election accounts; regulations of possibility to transfer money from public funds for help in PPG to parties), while in 2014 the Law on Political Parties was changed again (the most important part being changes on the level of contributions in cash).

        Scoring Criteria

        Please list and describe all documented instances of: 1) political finance reforms, including bills passed, executive orders signed, court rulings and any other legal act that had a direct effect on existent political finance regulation, and 2) all legal reform attempts presented to the legislature even if they were not approved. Please describe the political context that produced the reforms or reform attempts.

        Sources

        Alenka Krasovec and Danica Fink-Hafner, "Party Regulation as an Instrument of Party System Consolidation and of Mending Party Legitimacy in Slovenia." Draft paper presented at the 20th International Conference of Europeanists, June 25-27, 2013. https://www.dropbox.com/s/ajf2lycv8vzpvhr/Slovenia-33-10673-339.docx?dl=0

        Proposal for Changes to the Law on Political Parties in 2013; https://www.dropbox.com/s/7ft8maws9zjrzld/Slovenia-33-10673-341.doc?dl=0

        Proposal for Changes to the Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns in 2013.
        https://www.dropbox.com/s/bifp7cfc59glat8/Slovenia-33-10673-340.doc?dl=0

        Peter Jan?i?, "O ciljih nove zakonodaje" ("Objectives of the New Legislation"), Delo Newspaper, July 24, 2013, (unavailable online).

        Interview with anonymous professor, University of Ljubljana, via phone, August 15, 2014

        The names of anonymous sources are known to Global Integrity and Global Integrity has agreed not to disclose them.

  • expand button!

    Third Party Actors

    More about category
    composite
    0
    • expand button!
      Applicability of the Law to Third-Party Actors
      More about category
      • expand button!
        34
        Score
        NO
        In law, third-party actors (foundations, think tanks, unions, political action committees, etc.) report itemized contributions received and expenditures to an oversight authority and the information is made publicly available.More about indicator

        No such law exists. Neither the Law on the Election and Referendum Campaigns nor the Political Parties Law allow direct political activity by third party actors. As such, no reporting requirements are necessary. Theoretically it is possible for a third party actor to make independent expenditures with political content, as the laws themselves do not cover that territory in any detail. Therefore, reporting is not prescribed by the law. One exception is referendum campaigns, in which third parties may participate in advocacy, but they must by law register as an interested party at the State Election Commission and report all expenditures, just like all parties.


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree. As stipulated before, the third-party actors are not allowed to finance political parties nor election campaigns. As such, they do not report on their electoral expenditures. They are not allowed to make payments instead of the designated organizor of election campaigns.

        It goes even beyond that, if the third party provides a discount for its services and this discount is not common for every user, this is considered illegal financing of political parties, since the law stipulates that discounts are also treated as contributions.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where: 1) third-party actors are required to report to the oversight authority itemized contributions received and expenditures related to their support of electoral campaigns, and 2) the information must be publicly available.

        A MODERATE score is earned where third-party actors are required to report itemized contributions received and expenditures related to their support of electoral campaigns, but the information is not required to be publicly available. A MODERATE score is also earned where regulations exist, but only apply to electoral campaigns of one actor (whether political party or individual candidate).

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        No such law exists.

      • expand button!
        35
        Score
        0
        In practice, to what extent do third-party actors (foundations, think tanks, unions, political action committees, etc.) report itemized contributions received and expenditures to an oversight authority?More about indicator

        Foundations, think thanks and especially political action commttees are not known organizations in Slovenia. However, some interviewees argue that different political/party academies are sometimes treated as foundations; while they are de facto parts of parties, in legal terms they are societies, and therefore they do not report contributions or expenditures for election campaigns to the Court of Auditors. As a journalist added, they are also not well developed in financial terms.

        On the other hand, the representative of the Court is convinced that in case of academies which work within political parties, effective regulations are in place since parties have to report also about their financial activities.

        According to the Laws on Election and Referendum Campaign passed in 2013 any kind of contribution from foundations, think thanks, societies, etc. are not allowed since they are all legal entities. As explained in the comment to #34, no regulation of independent expenditures exists.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where all third-party actors report to an oversight authority both itemized contributions received and itemized expenditures.

        A 50 score is earned where third-party actors report to an oversight authority either itemized contributions received or expenditures, but not both. A 50 score is also earned where the reports refer only to one type of third-party actor, but do not cover others.

        A 0 score is earned where third-party actors rarely or never report itemized contributions received or expenditures.

        Sources

        Interview with Jorg K. Petrovi?, representative of the Court of Auditors, in person, September 3, 2014 Interview with anonymous professor, University of Maribor, via phone, September 12, 2014
        Interview with Peter Jan?i?, journalist of Delo daily newspaper,in person, September 9, 2014

        The names of anonymous sources are known to Global Integrity and Global Integrity has agreed not to disclose them.

      • expand button!
        36
        Score
        0
        In practice, to what extent can journalists and citizens easily access the financial information of third party actors, including the political spending of those actors in support of political parties and individual candidates?More about indicator

        Since there are not political foundations like in Germany or Austria, nor thinktanks or political action committees, third party actors are not obliged to report their political /party/election financial activities to the Court of Auditors. Consequently citizens cannot access such information.

        In practice, a general control of financial activities of societies can be hardly done due to huge number of such societies in Slovenia. Searching among hundreds of thousand of societies is hard for journalists and citizens, therefore they hardly access information on the general financial activities of third party actors.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where: 1) all relevant financial information is freely available online or in hard copy at the cost of photocopying, 2) it can be obtained within two days of requesting it, and 3) it is in a machine readable format (for example in csv or xml format).

        A 50 score is earned where: 1) information is available but in some cases is incomplete or lacking detail, 2) obtaining complete information takes up to a month, or 3) it's not necessarily in machine readable format.

        A 0 score is earned where: 1) the information is not publicly available, or 2) obtaining it takes more than three months, or 3) the cost of obtaining it is prohibitive for the regular citizen.

        Sources

        Interview with Jorg K. Petrovi?, representative of the Court of Auditors, in person, September 3, 2014 Interview with anonymous professor, University of Ljubljana, via phone, August 15, 2014 Interview with Peter Jan?i?, journalist of Delo daily newspaper, in person, September 9, 2014

        The names of anonymous sources are known to Global Integrity and Global Integrity has agreed not to disclose them.

      • expand button!
        37
        Score
        --
        Open Question: Please describe how third party-actors (even if they are not regulated by your country's laws) obtain contributions and spend in support of political parties and/or individual candidates.More about indicator

        In Slovenia it is not possible to speak about political foundations as they are known in many other countries, since they're not present. Nor is it relevant to discuss political action committees or think thanks. Several parties have established their own political academies but legally they work as societies. Some of them, as evaluated by interviewees, are also active in election campaigns but in a way of organizing round tables, discussions, or they are engaged in promotion of different policies (similar or the same as a particular party has).

        As interviewees evaluated, in the most recent parliamentary (2011) and presidential elections (2012) third-party actors were not important in terms of their financial contributions to campaigns.

        Nevertheless, as a university professor exposed, different societies have been frequently involved in some campaign activities (organizing round tables or discussions or promotion of different policies) and they have used own finances for these activities. The problem is that events they have organized, their activities are not part of an election campaign and are not treated as contribution to a campaign, therefore election campaign organizers do not report their costs. Even more, usually election campaign organizers claim that societies are free to be active and that they did not hire such society or its service. Therefore such campaign activities and especially their expenditures are not reported to the Court of Auditors. This is indeed a grey area when someone speaks about political/party/election finances, although the Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns in 2013 bans all contributions (also in-kind) of legal entities. No one has tried to control or supervise such activities although some examples of a connection between party/candidate and society have been obvious (according to the representative of the Anti-Corruption Commission).


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree - In the recent year or so there have been quite a few associations that have been founded more or less only to support one party or more specifically, one candidate - the imprisoned ex-prime minister. Previously we could observe also two strong organizations that were associated each with its own political wing (Forum 21 - left wing, now dissolved, and Zbor za republiko - right wing, still active) that organized round tables and issued press releses in support of a certain party, programmme orientation or giving awards to some political figures. Even before that Liberalna akademija was a constantly present association, a sort of association of intellectuals gathered around the Liberal Democratic party.

        Scoring Criteria

        To answer this question please: 1) list the types of third-party actors that exist in your country and describe how they work to influence campaigns, 2) explain how important such actors are or not in the context of campaigns, including whether their expenditures are substantial in relation to that of political parties and individual candidates, and 3) if documented evidence indicates they circumvent laws intended to regulate political finance, please explain how and include references to the evidence.

        Sources

        Interview with Vita Barbori?, Chief Project Manager for Corruption Prevention, Anti Corruption Commission of Slovenia, in person, September 15, 2014 Interview with anonymous professor, University of Maribor, via phone, September 12, 2014 Interview with Peter Jan?i?, journalist of Delo daily newspaper, in person, September 9, 2014

        The names of anonymous sources are known to Global Integrity and Global Integrity has agreed not to disclose them.

  • expand button!

    Monitoring and Enforcement

    More about category
    composite
    85
    • expand button!
      Monitoring Capabilities
      More about category
      • expand button!
        38
        Score
        YES
        In law, political finance information is monitored by an independent oversight authority.More about indicator

        The Court of Auditors is the oversight body in charge of monitoring political finance in Slovenia. According to the 2013 Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns, the CoA must conduct annual audits on the financial operations of a third of the parties that receive public subsidies. It may also conduct audits at the recommendation of the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption. Further, within six months of the closure of special election bank accounts, the CoA is authorized, in law, to conduct an audit of election campaign organizers entitled to a partial reimbursement of campaign costs. The results of that audit should be sent to the National Assembly and published on the CoA website and the National Assembly website.

        By the Law on Political Parties, the CoA is also required to audit annual financial reports submitted by parties.


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree. We would like to add that the auditing and investigative powers provided to the CoA are questionable as how they will work in practice. We believe that audits as such are not the best tool to shine a light on potential wrong doings, and that the granted investigative powers are not sufficient enough. Since the regulation is new, we cannot yet substantively comment on its effectiveness.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where: 1) an independent oversight authority is mandated to monitor political finance information, and 2) the authority has investigation and audit powers.

        A MODERATE score is earned where the independent oversight authority is mandated to monitor political finance information, but doesn't have investigation or audit powers.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law on Political Parties, 2014; article 24 a, b; http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO359

        Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns, 2013; articles 29, 30; http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO4749

      • expand button!
        39
        Score
        YES
        In law, high-level appointments to the oversight authority are based on merit.More about indicator

        By the law on Public Employees (2012), civil servants and public empoyees are selected by public tenders, and according to the merit system. Selection is based on the better expertise of candidates.

        Chapter 2 of the Law on the Court of Auditors stipulates that appointments to the Court of Auditors must be public and merit-based and prohibits conflicts of interest on the part of appointees. Article 8 of the law stipulates, "The President of the Republic shall without delay publish in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia a call for registration of possible candidates for the office of President or Deputy President of the Court of Audit, as the case may be."

        Any citizen of the Republic of Slovenia, with at least university qualifications, who is an expert in a discipline of relevance for the exercise of the powers of the Court of Auditor, has a command of at least one world language, and has not been a member of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia during the period of the last four years preceding the appointment, may be appointed Member of the Court of Audit.

        The Members of the Court of Audit shall be appointed by the National Assembly (parliament) upon the recommendation of the President, who submits nominations for approval/rejection to the Assembly.

        Any citizen of the Republic of Slovenia who has appropriate professional qualifications and has a command of at least one world language may be appointed Supreme State Auditor. A person is deemed to have appropriate professional qualifications for Supreme State Auditor, if he/she holds an academic title and has appropriate experience, or has a university education and holds the title of certified state auditor under this Act or the title of certified auditor under the law that regulates auditing. The President of the Court of Audit shall appoint a Supreme State Auditor and shall relieve him/her of duty by issuing a decision. The appointment shall be for a period of nine years.

        The office of Member of the Court of Audit, the office of Supreme State Auditor shall not be compatible with: office in a state body, in local community bodies or in bodies of political parties or of trade unions; participation in the work of a state body, of a local community body or with a bearer of public authorities; membership in a management or supervisory body of a commercial company, public utility, trust, institution or in a cooperative; pursuance of any occupation or gainful activity which by law is not compatible with any public office.

        Holders of office at the Court of Audit shall not be related by blood in the direct line to all times removed and in the collateral line to four times removed. No holder of office at the Court of Audit shall be married to or living in an extramarital union with another holder of office at the Court of Audit, or be related by marriage to twice removed.

        No holder of office at the Court of Audit may participate in or decide on any Process of audit in cases where he/she is in business contacts with or in the direct or collateral line to inclusive four times removed related to, or married to, regardless of whether the marriage has been dissolved, or living in an extramarital union with or related by marriage to inclusive three times removed to the auditee, persons authorized by the auditee, its legal representatives, members of its governing or management bodies or persons responsible. No holder of office at the Court of Audit may participate in and decide on any Process of audit in cases where he/she had been employed with the auditee if a period of at least two years has not elapsed since the end of such employment.


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree. The Civil Servants Act is not trully valid in this case as high level appointees (the president and two deputees of the CoA) are functionaries proposed by the president and confirmed by the National Assembly in a secret vote. Anyhow, the CoA is an independed supervisory authority, as guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia. It is hard to determine the score while the procedure is partially political and the operationalization of the CoA is purely independent.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where: 1) high-level appointments must be based on merit in a public appointment process; and 2) appointees must be free of conflicts of interest due to personal loyalties, family connections, political party affiliations, business partners or other biases.

        A MODERATE score is earned where high-level appointments must be based on merit in a public appointment process, but the regulations don't forbid appointments involving conflicts of interest or other biases.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law on Public Employees, 2012; article 27; http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO3177

        Law on the Court of Auditors, 2012; articles 6, 7, 8, 14, 16, 17; http://www.rs-rs.si/rsrs/rsrseng.nsf/I/K18FDFD2BA4047034C12570660026EBC9

        Reviewer's sources: Law on the Court of Auditors, 2012; article 8(2-4); http://www.rs-rs.si/rsrs/rsrseng.nsf/I/K18FDFD2BA4047034C12570660026EBC9

      • expand button!
        40
        Score
        100
        In practice, to what extent are high-level appointments to the oversight authority based on merit?More about indicator

        High level appointments at the Court of Auditors are, in practice, made via public tenders with several rounds of selection based first on merit and in the latter stages also on other abilities and integrity of candidates. For example, several months ago two employees were selected out of 300 applicants only after several rounds of selection were conducted.

        People on the leadership positions in the Court of Auditors, according to the Law on the Court of Auditors, cannot be members of a political party, while such limitation is not in force in case of revisors but they are excluded or exclude themselves from revisions when there is a potential conflict of interest.

        Also according to public opinion polls the Court of Auditors and its president have been among the most trusted institutions in Slovenia. As described by one interviewee, the Court is one of the rare institution where conflict of interests have not been recorded, neither exposed in public, and has been able to retain an image of the institution where merit is indeed important criteria for employment.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where: 1) there is an advertised competition and public vetting process, 2) candidates with the most merit and without conflicts of interest or other biases are appointed.

        A 50 score is earned where the public competition is usually advertised and the vetting process public, but exceptions exist. A 50 score is also earned where candidates with the most merit and without conflicts of interest or other biases are appointed but exceptions exist.

        A 0 score is earned where there's rarely or never a public competition, or appointees are rarely selected on merit or without conflicts of interest or other biases.

        Sources

        Interview with Jorg K. Petrovi?, representative of the Court of Auditors, in person, September 3, 2014 Interview with anonymous professor, University of Ljubljana, via phone, August 15, 2014

        Politbarometer, "Public Opinion Surveys on Public Attitudes to the Current Situation and Developments in Slovenia," January 2013 report. https://www.dropbox.com/s/qcxsi48dzt634ts/Slovenia-40-Politbarometer_1-2013.pdf?dl=0

        The names of anonymous sources are known to Global Integrity and Global Integrity has agreed not to disclose them.

      • expand button!
        41
        Score
        MODERATE
        In law, the independence of high-level appointees is guaranteed.More about indicator

        In relation to other state authorities, the Court of Audit is an autonomous and independent state authority. Auditors are, in law, appointed to nine year terms. Due process, though largely protected, is not fully enshrined in the law. The acts under which the Court of Audit exercises its auditing powers may not be challenged before courts or other state authorities.

        According to the Law on the Court of Auditors, any Member of the Court of Audit may only be relieved or dismissed from office prior to the expiry of his/her term in the following cases: if the Member submits a statement of resignation to the National Assembly; if the Member is sentenced to imprisonment for a criminal offence; if the Member has become permanently incapable of performing his/her duties; if the Member ceases to meet the requirements for a Member of the Court of Audit; if the Member does not act in accordance with the Constitution and the law.

        A formal initiative for the dismissal of a member of the Court of Audit under Item 5 above may be submitted by not less than 15 deputies of the National Assembly. The initiative shall contain a description of the alleged violations of the Constitution or law, as the case may be, and shall include evidence of such violations. Article 10 of the Court of Audit Act states that after the 15 deputies submit the initiative, the appropriate National Assembly body (the one that overlooks finances and other fiscal matters) must consider the initiative and declare if the initiative contains all necessary elements, especially if it contains a clear description of the alleged violations. If the initiative is declared appropriate the member of CoA can address the allegations in person or in writing to the relevant body within the National Assembly. The members of that body then vote on the initiative - if the majority of body members agree with the initiative a dismissal procedure is initiated in the NA where all deputies vote on whether to impeach the member of the Court of Audit (a majority of votes is needed).

        Within the framework set by the law, the Court of Audit shall independently decide which audits they will carry out in any individual period of time.

        In determining the audits to be carried out in a certain calendar year, the Court of Audit shall consider proposals made by deputies and working bodies of the National Assembly, Government, ministries and local community bodies. They must consider at least five proposals from the National Assembly from which at least two must be given by opposition deputies and a further two by working bodies of the National Assembly.


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree. The only real legal dependence comes from financing, as the National Assembly approves the budget of the CoA. However, this has never, in practice, been used for retribution towards the CoA.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where: 1) appointees have the authority or mandate to review cases and issue decisions, 2) the law establishes security of tenure, and 3) removal or disciplinary actions are based on due process conducted by a peer panel or independent oversight body.

        A MODERATE score is earned where appointees have the authority or mandate to review cases and issue decisions, BUT one of the second two conditions mentioned in the YES criteria is not met.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law on the Court of Auditors, 2012; article, 1, 10, 25; http://www.rs-rs.si/rsrs/rsrseng.nsf/I/K18FDFD2BA4047034C12570660026EBC9

      • expand button!
        42
        Score
        75
        In practice, to what extent is the independence of high-level appointees guaranteed?More about indicator

        The Court of Auditors is defined in the Constitution, and also a special Law on the Court of Auditors was passed in 2001. It is explicitly defined that in the case the Court cannot find an agreement with the government over its budget, the Court can negotiate directly with the National Assembly on the question. The government has never changed or refused the Court’s proposal of its budget. These are legal and financial aspects of the court’s independance.

        The Court itself forms a work programme, and the only exceptions to this process are the audits which have to be done according to the law. If the scope of the necessary audits is very broad this can harm the Court’s independence, but according to the representative of the Court this has not happened so far. Members of the leadership of the Court can only be dismissed from office if he/she does not act in accordance with the Constitution and the law. All these, in fact guarantee an environment free of fear of ‘intervention’ from the other branches. It seems the Court has managed to assure its independence since only one interviewee exposed a case where probably some doubts over the Court's independence or politicization was possible to observed; this hapened soon after the court was established (in 2001), and no cases whatsoever have occurred in the past decade.

        High level employees (the leadership of the Court, Supreme State Auditors) are appointed for nine years, while other auditors are granted security of tenure (they are appointed for an indefinite time). Interviewees confirm that none of the high level appointees have been removed by the National Assembly.


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree - The CoA is one of the most stable and independent institutions in Slovenia, and scored 76 out of 100 in the National Integrity System assessment.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where all of the following conditions are met: 1) appointees review cases and issue decisions without fear or favor from other branches of government, and 2) appointees are granted security of tenure and 3) no appointees are removed, disciplined or transferred without due process by a peer panel or independent oversight body.

        A 50 score is earned where any of the following conditions apply: 1) appointees generally operate without fear or favor from other branches of government but exceptions exist, or 2) some but not all appointees are granted security of tenure, or 3) appointees are occasionally removed, disciplined or transferred without due process by a peer panel or independent oversight body.

        A 0 score is earned where at least one of the following conditions apply: 1) appointees operate with fear or favor from other branches of government, or 2) are not granted security of tenure, or 3) are usually removed, disciplined or transferred without observing due process by a peer panel or independent oversight body.

        Sources

        Interview with Jorg K. Petrovi?, representative of the Court of Auditors, in person, September 3, 2014 Interview with Peter Jan?i?, journalist of Delo daily newspaper, in person, September 9, 2014 Interview with anonymous professor, University of Maribor, via phone, September 12, 2014

        The names of anonymous sources are known to Global Integrity and Global Integrity has agreed not to disclose them.

        Reviewer's sources: Habi? et al (2012) National Integrity System assessment. Transparency International Slovenia - Društvo Integriteta. Nis.integriteta.si

      • expand button!
        43
        Score
        --
        Open Question: How does decision-making work in the oversight authority?More about indicator

        In every case a chief of a particular department and one of the deputy Presidenst of the Court of Auditors have to decide by consensus on the draft audit report prepared by revisors. If these two persons cannot reach a consensus, the president of the Court decides. In practice, such cases have happened, but of thse cases, none were related to political finance. There have been no political finance decisions taken by majority rule.

        In the process of a preparation of the draft report also a representative of an organization being audited is invited to co-operate in the audit process by submitting additional documents, explanations etc.

        If an organization under audit does not agree with a report, an appeal can be sent to the Senate of the Court of Auditors. The Senate is composed of the President and both his deputy Presidents (altogether three people). Decision is in this case reached by a majority and the President has no special (bigger) powers in relation to both his deputy Presidents. In some cases it has happened the majority rule was applied to reach a decision.


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree - Politicized decisions occur, mainly when politicians (members of government for instance) are given negative reports by the CoA. The most common 'defence mechanism' employed by politicians tends to be that the report is politically motivated or something similar.

        See the example below where, after a negative review by the CoA, politicians argued that the review was politically motivated and that the president of CoA was doing this out of his own political ambitions and questioned authority of CoA.

        Scoring Criteria

        Please describe: 1) the composition of the decision-making body within the oversight authority, 2) the type of decisions it's allowed to make and makes in practice, and 3) in which cases majority is required. If there have been well substantiated complaints about the decision-making process being ineffective or politicized please explain.

        Sources

        Interview with Jorg K. Petrovi?, representative of the Court of Auditors, in person, September 3, 2014 Interview with Peter Jan?i?, journalist of Delo daily newspaper, in person, September 9, 2014 Interview with anonymous professor, University of Ljubljana, via phone, August 15, 2014

        The names of anonymous sources are known to Global Integrity and Global Integrity has agreed not to disclose them.

        Reviewer's sources: A. ?., et al (2011) Politi?ne ambicije Šoltesa ali strokovna odlo?itev?. Avalable at: http://www.rtvslo.si/slovenija/politicne-ambicije-soltesa-ali-strokovna-odlocitev/248397 (25.10.2014).

        Verdev, Tomaž (2011) Ima Ra?unsko sodiš?e preširoka pooblastila? Available at: http://www.24ur.com/novice/slovenija/erjavec-soltes-ravna-politikantsko.html (25.10.2014).

      • expand button!
        44
        Score
        75
        In practice, to what extent does the authority have sufficient capacity to monitor political finance regulations?More about indicator

        The Court of Auditors has a sufficient budget as well as sufficient staff to monitor and carry out audits on the political/party/election finances. Years ago, this was not always the case, but at the time the Court also legally did not have many controlling, monitoring powers. With changes of the Law on Political Parties and the Law on Election Campaigns in 2013, the Court has been granted some important powers, but as the representative of the Court evaluated, the Court has also received some additional financial resources as well as possibility to carry out additional audits.

        It was estimated that the Court has the biggest resources available among all institutions which should implement some control activities. Sources confirm that the CoA has sufficient budget and staff to monitor and review political finance reports and information, but it lacks the staff and capacity to perform comprehensive audits in all cases.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where: 1) the authority has sufficient budget to monitor all incoming reports, and 2) it has sufficient staff to review all incoming reports.

        A 50 score is earned where: 1) the authority has insufficient budget to monitor all incoming reports, or 2) its staff can only review half of all incoming reports.

        A 0 score is earned where: 1) the authority can't fulfill most of its essential functions due to budget constraints, or 2) its staff only has the capacity to review 25% or less of all incoming reports.

        Sources

        Interview with Jorg K. Petrovi?, representative of the Court of Auditors, in person, September 3, 2014 Interview with Peter Jan?i?, journalist of Delo daily newspaper, in person, September 9, 2014 Interview with anonymous professor, University of Ljubljana, via phone, August 15, 2014

        Habi? and Doria (2014) Transparency of political parties financing. Available at: crinis.integriteta.si

        The names of anonymous sources are known to Global Integrity and Global Integrity has agreed not to disclose them.

      • expand button!
        45
        Score
        100
        In practice, to what extent does the authority conduct investigations or audits when necessary?More about indicator

        According to The Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns, the Court of Auditors does not conduct investigation during election campaigns; neither in the case of presidential nor parliamentary elections. Revision of reports on election campaign is conducted only after elections, while revision of annual financial reports are made once in year or less frequently (the Court must conduct a revision of a party's financial report once in four years unless there is some suggestion made by the AntiCorruption Commission to conduct a revision more frequently). The CoA carries out comprehensive audits (beyond an initial compliance review) regularly, and performed well more than three in the wake of the 2011 and 2012 elections, as demonstrated by the audit reports included as sources.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where the authority conducted at least three investigations or audits during the most recent electoral campaign.

        A 50 score is earned where the authority conducted at least one investigation or audit during the most recent electoral campaign.

        A 0 score is earned where the authority didn't conduct any investigation or audit during the most recent electoral campaign.

        Sources

        Interview with Vita Barbori?, Chief Project Manager for Corruption Prevention, Anti Corruption Commission of Slovenia, in person, September 15, 2014 Interview with Jorg K. Petrovi?, representative of the Court of Auditors, via phone September 3, 2014 Interview with anonymous professor, University of Maribor, via phone, September 12, 2014 Interview with Peter Jan?i?, journalist of Delo daily newspaper, in person, September 9, 2014

        Audit Report: The Accuracy of Positive Slovenia Financing Report, 2011 Parliamentary Elections. http://www.rs-rs.si/rsrs/rsrs.nsf/I/K5847B6FD8E54AA1EC1257A8B0019BA2A?openDocument&appSource=91F2455D38551D7CC1257155004755A7 Audit Report: The Accuracy of Slovenian Democratic Party Financing Report, 2011 Parliamentary Elections. http://www.rs-rs.si/rsrs/rsrs.nsf/I/K73BB2BB5F3E1CF22C1257A8D0037AAF5?openDocument&appSource=91F2455D38551D7CC1257155004755A7 Audit Report: The Accuracy of Borut Pahor's Financing Report, 2012 Presidential Elections. http://www.rs-rs.si/rsrs/rsrs.nsf/I/K4585E46D529DBBA2C1257BDD003C874F?openDocument&appSource=91F2455D38551D7CC1257155004755A7

        The names of anonymous sources are known to Global Integrity and Global Integrity has agreed not to disclose them.

      • expand button!
        46
        Score
        100
        In practice, to what extent does the authority publish the results of investigations or audits?More about indicator

        The Court of Auditors publishes reports of its audits upon completion of the audit process without any delay. When a final decision of the Court on the audit report is reached, a decision sent by post to the audited organization, and the decision is published a day later on the homepage of the Court.


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree. The audits are made publicly available immediately when the CoA make a final decision.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where the authority publishes reports of all its investigations or audits a month or less after their conclusion.

        A 50 score is earned where reports are available to the public more than a month after the conclusion of the investigation or audit.

        A 0 score is earned where reports are not available to the public or they become available after six months or more after conclusion of the investigation or audit. A 0 score is also earned where only summaries of the reports are publicly available.

        Sources

        Interview with Jorg K. Petrovi?, representative of the Court of Auditors, in person, September 3, 2014 Interview with anonymous professor, University of Maribor, via phone, September 12, 2014 Interview with Peter Jan?i?, journalist of Delo daily newspaper, in person, September 9, 2014

        The names of anonymous sources are known to Global Integrity and Global Integrity has agreed not to disclose them.

        Reviewer's sources: Revizijsko poro?ilo: Pravilnost financiranja volilne kampanje liste Nova Slovenija - Krš?anska ljudska stranka za pred?asne volitve poslancev v državni zbor v letu 2011: http://www.rs-rs.si/rsrs/rsrs.nsf/I/K32EFF44A22AA5817C1257A79003DA23D?openDocument&appSource=91F2455D38551D7CC1257155004755A7

    • expand button!
      Enforcement Capabilities
      More about category
      • expand button!
        47
        Score
        YES
        In law, there are sanctions in response to political finance violations.More about indicator

        Sanctions for violations of the Law on Electoral and Referendum Campaign are envisaged for parties and individual candidates (there is no difference between type of elections in this regard). The law clearly defines violations of election campaign laws. For example, election campaign organizer can be punished for not submitting a report on election campaign properly – if it is not itemized according to the regulations or does not respect deadline for its submission; for accepting contributions from sources which are not allowed; if limitation of maximum amount which can be spend in the campaign is violated, but also donators who cannot contribute to the campaign can be punished etc. All sanctions are financial and the maximum fine is 20,000 EUR (26,085 USD).

        The law on Political Parties also envisaged sanctions for political parties, individuals and legal entities in case of noncompliance with the law. In majority of cases fines are financial; for example, individuals that violate the rules concerning contributions, loans and services for parties can be punished by 1,200 EUR (1,563 USD), while legal entities by a fine up to 30,000 EUR (39,087 USD), also not submission of the annual financial report to the oversight authority within the date set in the law is punished. The Court of Auditors is also empowered to submit recommendations for the temporary suspend suspension of subsidies for parties if they fail to submit or amend the required annual financial reports. The Court of Auditors makes its recommendations to the District Court of Ljubljana, which decides on the violation.

        Public subsidies for parties can be suspended for one year, or reduced for six months if a party violates the law in some way. The law mandates that parties that exceed campaign expenditure limits by more than 10% will receive only half of the subsidy to which they were entitled in a given year, and if they exceed the limits by 30% or more, they will lose the entire subsidty in that year. The Court of Auditors issues these decisions.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where: 1) the law clearly defines violations of political finance laws, and 2) there are clearly defined sanctions for specific violations.

        A MODERATE score is earned where violations are clearly defined but sanctions for specific violations are not.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns, 2013, article 38a,b,c; http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO4749

        Law on Political Parties, 2014; article 28a, b, c, 29; http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO359

      • expand button!
        48
        Score
        YES
        In law, the oversight authority has the power to impose sanctions.More about indicator

        According to the Law on Elections and Referenda Camapigns, the Court of Auditors is responsible for regulating the political finances of parties and candidates (donation/expenditure limits,reporting requirements, the transfer of money from ordinary to election accounts, etc.), and can impose sanctions via the revocation of public subsidies in cases of violations. The decision is final, but aggrieved parties can file administrative dispute appeals with the Administrative Court of Slovenia and petition for the repeal of such decisions. Other violations of the Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns are resolved by the Inspectorate for Internal Affairs, which can issue fines.

        The Law on Political Parties stipulates that the Court of Auditors may only submit proposals for some sanctions to the District Court of Ljubljana, which must decide on the violation and can issue sanctions in the form of fines as well as in the form of the temporary suspension of public subsidies. The Law further enumerates that the Court of Auditors shall regulate political finance, and the Inspectorate of Internal Affairs will govern other aspects of the law.


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree. Article 31b of the Political Parties Act clearly defines that the sanctions of the violations are imposed by Internal Affairs Inspectorate and AJPES. Article 40 of Elections and Referendum Campaign Act states that the sanctions are imposed by Internal Affairs Inspectorate, and additionally, for some articles, by the Culture and Media Inspectorate and Municipal Wardens.

        The same article also stipulates that the sanctions by the CoA are imposed according the the Court of Audit Act (reporting violations for instance - in these cases, no approval by the District Court is needed). When penal violations are detected the CoA, as any other authority or public office, has the obligation to send the case to the Prosecutors Office.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where: 1) the oversight authority has the power to impose sanctions, and 2) it can directly prosecute violators before the courts or is independent to send cases to public prosecution.

        A MODERATE score is earned where the oversight authority has the power to impose sanctions, but it can't directly prosecute violators before the courts or is not independent to send cases to public prosecution.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law on Election and Referendum Campaig, 2007, articles 31, 39; http://www.dz-rs.si/wps/portal/Home/deloDZ/zakonodaja/izbranZakonAkt?uid=C12563A400338836C12572C900354298&db=spr_zak&mandat=VII

        Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns, 2013, articles 31, 40; http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO4749

        Law on Political Parties; 2014; articles 24a, b, 27; http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO359

      • expand button!
        49
        Score
        50
        In practice, to what extent do offenders comply with sanctions imposed?More about indicator

        As three interviewees remarked, very few, if any, sanctions have been imposed in recent years. Therefore there has been no need for offenders to comply/not comply with sanctions.

        On the other hand statistical data of the Inspectorate of Internal Affairs reveals there have been some violations as well as sanctions (the majority of them being warnings) imposed in different years according to penal provisions in The Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns. It is also not possible to get information whether the same persons or parties have repeated violations as well as if they comply with sanctions or not.

        According to The Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns and the Law on Political Parties from 2013, the Court of Auditors has a power to send an initiative on the Circuit Court in Ljubljana to decide on misdemeanours committed with regard to the funding of parties. The Court of Auditors later cannnot follow what has happened with these initiatives.


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree - There have been cases sent to the State Prosecutors Office by the CoA (an example below), however not in cases of political parties or party financing. As stated by the researcher, there have been practically no sanctions imposed on political parties, so there is no data to realistically base the score on. The lack of supervision, transparency and sanctioning is the systemic weakness in Slovenia.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where: 1) offenders comply with the sanctions imposed without exception, and 2) they are not repeat offenders.

        A 50 score is earned where: 1) offenders usually comply with the sanctions imposed but exceptions exist, or 2) most are not repeat offenders but some exceptions exist.

        A 0 score is earned where: 1) offenders rarely comply with the sanctions imposed, or 2) most are repeat offenders.

        Sources

        Interview with Jorg K. Petrovi?, representative of the Court of Auditors, in person, September 3, 2014 Interview with anonymous professor, University of Maribor, via phone, September 12, 2014 Interview with anonymous professor, University of Ljubljana, via phone, August 15, 2014 Interview with Peter Jan?i?, journalist of Delo daily newspaper, in person, September 9, 2014

        Statistics of the Inspectorate for internal Affairs, Imposed Major Penalties, 2009-2013. https://www.dropbox.com/s/i8pkydqx44av4g4/Slovenia-20-10660-334.doc?dl=0

        The names of anonymous sources are known to Global Integrity and Global Integrity has agreed not to disclose them.

        Reviewer's sources: ?i?, Tina (2012) Ovadba za staro ali novo lipiško vodstvo? Available at: http://www.primorske.si/Primorska/Srednja-Primorska/Ovadba-za-staro-ali-novo-lipisko-vodstvo-.aspx (25.10.2014).

      • expand button!
        50
        Score
        --
        Open Question: How strong is enforcement, and what impedes more effective enforcement?More about indicator

        The Law on Political Parties and the Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns before 2013 did not grant enough powers to the Court of Auditors to enable it to conduct (serious) audits of the annual financial as well as election campaign reports by candidates and parties. Before 2013, particulary the Ministry of Finance and the Inspectorate for Internal Affairs had more powers to monitor political finance and impose sanctions, but as one interviewee said, both were not aware of their powers and did not do enough to meaningfully control or monitor party/election/political finances. She is convinced such a situation was simply the result of a lack of knowledge on the part of the civil servants involved. On the other hand this could also be connected with a fact that, in both institutions, the the superior to civil servants was always a minister (with a political affiliation); such distribution of powers regarding enforcement over political finance laws could bring civil servant in a strange position to control/monitor party finances of his/her superiors. In relation with these two observations, two suggestions were made; it is necessary to remove a potential fear of civil servants to act on one hand, and it is necessary to deal with some civil servants' laziness.

        As one interviewee exposed, the Court of Auditors is now authorized to deal with public finances- risks activities, but it is a question as to whether it is qualified enough to deal with corruption-risk activities effectively. Maybe the Anti-Corruption Commission should be involved in controlling/monitoring political/party/election finances to a bigger extent. The problems here is that the Commission has not such powers and on the other hand also not enough resources available to perfom such tasks. The other interviewee agreed, in general more resources should be availabe to institutions for more effective monitoring of political finances.

        One interviewee exposed some additional changes of the Law on Elections and Referenda Campaigns should be made; a) reporting on contributions and expenditures via internet during election campaigns should be enacted; b) the limit of election campaign expenditures should be higher; he evaluates that the limit as it is, stimulates violations and avoidance of the Law as well as hiding of expenditures since the limit is very low and it is simply not possible to win elections with such low amount of money.

        Two interviewees mentioned, the Court of Auditors should also work even more than in the past on prevention and information activities and not only repression activities. All interviewees agreed the Law on Political Parties and the Law on Election and Referednum Campaign in 2013 already made several good things with the legislation framework: the Court of Auditors has been given more powers, reporting of parties and candidates has to be more comprehensive (election campaign organizers have to disclose income and expenditure in greater detail); frequency of audits has been defined.


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree - The new legislation is still in its early phase of implementation but TI Slovenia issued its CRINIS research/ report with a number of recommendations for a holistic approach towards transparent political financing, supervision and sanctioning. In addition, the monitoring of election campaigns highlighted issues which needs to be addressed in the near future. The recommendations we present are interlinked and so form a holistic approach to the regulation of political party funding. The full list of recommendations can be accessed at the link below.

        Scoring Criteria

        Please provide a general explanation of the effectiveness of enforcement, describing: 1) any conditions that may prevent effective enforcement, and 2) explain what are the most urgent areas of reform in the country's political finance system.

        Sources

        Interview with Vita Barbori?, Chief Project Manager for Corruption Prevention, Anti Corruption Commission of Slovenia, in person, September 15, 2014 Interview with Jorg K. Petrovi?, representative of the Court of Auditors, in person, September 3, 2014 Interview with anonymous professor, University of Maribor, via phone, September 12, 2014 Interview with Peter Jan?i?, journalist of Delo daily newspaper, in person, September 9, 2014

        The names of anonymous sources are known to Global Integrity and Global Integrity has agreed not to disclose them.

        Reviewer's sources: Habi? and Doria (2014) Transparency of Political Parties Financing. Available at: http://crinis.integriteta.si/en/research-findings/recommendations

Slovenia is a parliamentary republic with a bicameral legislature. Formally, the head of state is the president. Presidents are directly elected in a majoritarian run off system to 5 year terms, of which they may serve no more than two consecutively. In presidential elections, campaign funds are managed both on the party level and at the individual level, depending on the characteristics of the candidate. If the candidate is formally independent, he manages his campaign, but if he runs under a party banner, the party will be largely responsible for his campaign activities and finances.

The National Assembly (Državni Zbor) is the lower house of Parliament. It has 90 members. 88 of those members are elected to 4 year terms in a closed list PR system with a 4% threshold for party representation. 2 seats are reserved for the Hungarian and Italian minorities in Slovenia, and they are directly elected by members of those minorities using the Borda system (in which voters rank the list of candidates in order of preference, and candidates receive points equal to their rankings and the number of candidates competing). Campaigns are managed at the party level. According to the Constitution, deputies of the National Assembly are representatives of all the people and shall not be bound by any instructions. The rights and duties of citizens and other persons may be determined by the National Assembly only by law. Laws may be proposed by the Government or by any deputy. Laws may also be proposed by at least five thousand voters. The National Assembly may order inquiries on matters of public importance, and it must do so when required by a third of the deputies of the National Assembly or when required by the National Council. For this purpose it shall appoint a commission which in matters of investigation and examination has powers comparable to those of judicial authorities.

The National Council (Državni Svet) is the upper chamber of Parliament. It has 40 members who are indirectly elected by civil society organisations and local bodies and composed by representatives of functional and local interests. The Council has little power, and no formal election campaigns occur.

The most recent Presidential elections were held in November and December of 2012, and the most recent parliamentary elections occurred in July 2014. Most of this assessment is based on data from the previous parliamentary elections in 2011.

The Seventh National Assembly elections took place on 4 December 2011. These were the first early elections in the history of independent Slovenia. With the 28,51% of the votes, the winner of the elections was Pozitivna Slovenija (Positive Slovenia) and its leader, Zoran Jankovi?. The party received 28 seats in the National Assembly (NA). Second place, with 26 seats was occupied by Slovenska demokratska stranka (Slovenian Democratic Party) and in third with 10 seats was Socialni demokrati (Social democrats). This was the first time in the history that the winning party did not form Government since Pozitivna Slovenija could not find coalition partners. The Government was then formed by the second political party Slovenska demokratska stranka.

The President of the Republic of Slovenia is formally the highest political official in Slovenia, while the PM in reality posses the biggest power. The President is charged with "representing the Republic of Slovenia at home and abroad, and is the supreme commander of its armed forces" (Article 102 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia). The President of the Republic calls elections to the National Assembly; promulgates laws; appoints state officials where provided by law; appoints and recalls ambassadors and envoys of the Republic, and accepts the letters of credence of foreign diplomatic representatives; issues instruments of ratification; decides on the granting of clemency; confers decorations and honorary titles; performs other duties determined by this Constitution.

Where required by the National Assembly the President of the Republic also calls for elections. In addition, the President also proposes and/or appoints the leadership of the independent supervisory institutions, like the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption, the Information Commissioner, the Court of Audit, Ombudsman, etc.