Slovenia’s officials use GDPR to threaten investigative journalism
Slovenia’s investigative newsroom Oštro faces a growing wave of legal and administrative complaints from public officials, raising serious concerns about press freedom and potential misuse of data-protection laws. The campaign began when the municipality of Ljutomer filed criminal and data-protection complaints against Oštro after the newsroom sent a right-of-reply letter to Mayor Olga Karba as part of its “Asset Detector” project. This project verifies the declared assets of public officials to promote transparency. The complaints allege unlawful processing of personal data and false information, despite the newsroom following standard journalistic practices.
The situation escalated when two ministers, Borut Sajovic and Vinko Logaj, filed similar complaints with Slovenia’s Information Commissioner, even though their asset profiles had already been published without issue. The Information Commissioner launched an inspection into Oštro’s journalistic methods and data processing under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Oštro contests the authority of the Commissioner to scrutinize journalistic data processing, arguing that investigative reporting on public officials’ assets is protected under constitutional and European press freedom standards.
Critics warn that using GDPR as a tool to pressure investigative journalism threatens democratic accountability and media freedom. The campaign is viewed as a coordinated effort by public officials to intimidate Oštro through legal and administrative means, including retaining a private law firm known for SLAPP cases. Press freedom organizations, including the Slovene Journalists’ Association and the International Press Institute, have expressed concern that such actions could set a dangerous precedent, allowing politicians to use data-protection laws to silence scrutiny.
At the core of the conflict is the question of whether public officials can use privacy laws to shield their financial information from journalistic inquiry. Transparency of assets is essential to detect corruption and conflicts of interest in democratic societies. The weaponization of GDPR against legitimate journalism undermines public oversight and risks fostering self-censorship among journalists. Slovenia’s handling of this case will be a critical test of its commitment to transparency, press freedom, and the rule of law.
