Court acquits Slovenia's ex-PM Jansa of corruption charges
Jansa, the president of the largest opposition Slovenian Democratic Party (SDS), had dismissed the indictment as an attempt to remove him from politics ahead of a general election due in 2026.
"Despite the fact that it was a clear and visible farce from the very beginning, the prosecutor requested two years in prison," Jansa told his cheering supporters after leaving the court. "This victory today is in quotation marks, our fight here is not over."
Hundreds of his supporters gathered outside the court in the eastern town of Celje, waving Slovenian flags and carrying banners accusing the judiciary of being corrupt and biased.
Jansa, a 66-year-old right-wing populist, was indicted on charges of abuse of office in a property sale in 2005, when he was serving his first term as prime minister.
The case also involved the directors of two companies who were involved in a series of transactions related to the sale of a plot of land owned by Jansa in an alleged exchange for the purchase of an apartment for him in the capital Ljubljana.
Jansa, who championed Slovenia's bid for independence from the then Yugoslavia in 1991 and served three times as Slovenia's prime minister, was sentenced to two years in jail in 2013 for bribery in a 2006 deal with Finnish defence group Patria while serving his second term as premier.
He had denied all charges.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Ukraine bets big on interceptor drones as low-cost air shield
By Max Hunder DNIPROPETROVSK REGION, Ukraine (Reuters) -When President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said at the end of last month that Ukraine needs $6 billion to fund the production of interceptor drones, setting a target of 1,000 a day, he had his reasons. Having already reshaped the battlefield by doing work once reserved for long-range missiles, field artillery and human intelligence, drones are now fighting Russian drones - a boon for Ukraine's dwindling stock of air defence missile systems. In the last two months, just one Ukrainian charity supplying aerial interceptor drones says its devices have downed around 1,500 of the drones that Russia has been sending to reconnoitre the battlefield or to bomb Ukraine's towns and cities. INTERCEPTORS HELP TO SAVE VALUABLE MISSILE STOCK Most importantly, such interceptors have the potential to be a cheap, plentiful alternative to using Western or Soviet-made air defence missiles, depleted by allies' inability, or reluctance, to replenish them. Colonel Serhiy Nonka's 1,129th air defence regiment, which started using them a year ago to ram and blow up enemy drones, estimated that they could down a Russian spotter drone at about a fifth of the cost of doing so with a missile. As a result, the depth to which these enemy reconnaissance drones can fly behind Ukrainian lines has decreased sharply, Nonka said. Some estimates put the interceptors' speed at over 300 kph (190 mph), although the precise figures are closely guarded. Other units are using interceptors to hit the long-range Shahed "kamikaze" drones that Russia launches at Kyiv and other cities, sometimes downing dozens a night, according to Zelenskiy. In the three and a half years since Russia invaded Ukraine at scale, drones have gone from an auxiliary tool to one of the primary means of waging war for both sides. To chase them down, interceptor drones need to be faster and more powerful than those that have already revolutionised long-range precision strikes and aerial reconnaissance. INTERCEPTOR DRONES TO BECOME UBIQUITOUS Like the First-Person View drones that now dominate the battlefield, interceptor drones are flown by a pilot on the ground through the video feed from an onboard camera. 'When we started to work (with these drones), the enemy would fly at 800 or a thousand metres," the officer who spearheaded their adoption by the 1,129th regiment, Oleksiy Barsuk. "Now it's three, four or five thousand – but their (camera) zoom is not infinite.' Most of the regiment's interceptor drones are provided by military charities that crowdfund weapons and equipment through donations from civilians. Taras Tymochko, from the largest of these, Come Back Alive, said it now supplies interceptors to 90 units. Since the project began a year ago, the organisation says over 3,000 drones have been downed by equipment it provided, nearly half of them in the last two months. However, such interceptors are still no match for incoming missiles or the fast jet-powered attack drones that Moscow has recently started deploying. The organisation reports the value of the downed Russian craft at $195 million, over a dozen times the cost of the drones and equipment handed over under the project. Sam Bendett, adjunct senior fellow at the Centre for a New American Security, said Russian forces were complaining about the effectiveness of large Ukrainian interceptors, but were also developing their own. 'We're starting to see more and more videos of various types of interceptions by both sides ... I think this is going to accelerate and it's going to become more and more ubiquitous in the coming weeks." Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Ukraine bets big on interceptor drones as low-cost air shield
By Max Hunder DNIPROPETROVSK REGION, Ukraine (Reuters) -When President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said at the end of last month that Ukraine needs $6 billion to fund the production of interceptor drones, setting a target of 1,000 a day, he had his reasons. Having already reshaped the battlefield by doing work once reserved for long-range missiles, field artillery and human intelligence, drones are now fighting Russian drones - a boon for Ukraine's dwindling stock of air defence missile systems. In the last two months, just one Ukrainian charity supplying aerial interceptor drones says its devices have downed around 1,500 of the drones that Russia has been sending to reconnoitre the battlefield or to bomb Ukraine's towns and cities. INTERCEPTORS HELP TO SAVE VALUABLE MISSILE STOCK Most importantly, such interceptors have the potential to be a cheap, plentiful alternative to using Western or Soviet-made air defence missiles, depleted by allies' inability, or reluctance, to replenish them. Colonel Serhiy Nonka's 1,129th air defence regiment, which started using them a year ago to ram and blow up enemy drones, estimated that they could down a Russian spotter drone at about a fifth of the cost of doing so with a missile. As a result, the depth to which these enemy reconnaissance drones can fly behind Ukrainian lines has decreased sharply, Nonka said. Some estimates put the interceptors' speed at over 300 kph (190 mph), although the precise figures are closely guarded. Other units are using interceptors to hit the long-range Shahed "kamikaze" drones that Russia launches at Kyiv and other cities, sometimes downing dozens a night, according to Zelenskiy. In the three and a half years since Russia invaded Ukraine at scale, drones have gone from an auxiliary tool to one of the primary means of waging war for both sides. To chase them down, interceptor drones need to be faster and more powerful than those that have already revolutionised long-range precision strikes and aerial reconnaissance. INTERCEPTOR DRONES TO BECOME UBIQUITOUS Like the First-Person View drones that now dominate the battlefield, interceptor drones are flown by a pilot on the ground through the video feed from an onboard camera. 'When we started to work (with these drones), the enemy would fly at 800 or a thousand metres," the officer who spearheaded their adoption by the 1,129th regiment, Oleksiy Barsuk. "Now it's three, four or five thousand – but their (camera) zoom is not infinite.' Most of the regiment's interceptor drones are provided by military charities that crowdfund weapons and equipment through donations from civilians. Taras Tymochko, from the largest of these, Come Back Alive, said it now supplies interceptors to 90 units. Since the project began a year ago, the organisation says over 3,000 drones have been downed by equipment it provided, nearly half of them in the last two months. However, such interceptors are still no match for incoming missiles or the fast jet-powered attack drones that Moscow has recently started deploying. The organisation reports the value of the downed Russian craft at $195 million, over a dozen times the cost of the drones and equipment handed over under the project. Sam Bendett, adjunct senior fellow at the Centre for a New American Security, said Russian forces were complaining about the effectiveness of large Ukrainian interceptors, but were also developing their own. 'We're starting to see more and more videos of various types of interceptions by both sides ... I think this is going to accelerate and it's going to become more and more ubiquitous in the coming weeks."
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Explainer-What happens next in the US court battle over Trump's tariffs?
By Jan Wolfe and Dietrich Knauth WASHINGTON (Reuters) -A federal appeals panel on Thursday appeared skeptical of U.S. President Donald Trump's argument that a 1977 law historically used for sanctioning enemies or freezing their assets gave him the power to impose tariffs. Regardless of how the court rules, the litigation is almost certainly headed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Here is what you need to know about the dispute, which Trump has called "America's big case," and how it is likely to play out in the months ahead. WHAT IS THE CASE ABOUT? The litigation challenges the tariffs Trump imposed on a broad range of U.S. trading partners in April, as well as tariffs imposed in February against China, Canada and Mexico. It centers around Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which gives the president the power to address "unusual and extraordinary" threats during national emergencies. Trump has said that trade imbalances, declining manufacturing power and the cross-border flow of drugs justified the tariffs under IEEPA. A dozen Democratic-led states and five small U.S. businesses challenging the tariffs argue that IEEPA does not cover tariffs and that the U.S. Constitution grants Congress, not the president, authority over tariffs and other taxes. A loss for Trump would also undermine the latest round of sweeping tariffs on dozens of countries that he unveiled late Thursday. Trump has made tariffs a cornerstone of his economic plan, arguing they will promote domestic manufacturing and substitute for income taxes. WHAT'S THE STATUS OF THE LITIGATION? The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments on Thursday in the case. The panel of 11 judges sharply questioned the government about Trump's use of IEEPA, but did not rule from the bench. The Federal Circuit has not said when it will issue a decision, but its briefing schedule suggests it intends to move quickly. Meanwhile, the tariffs remain in effect after the Federal Circuit paused a lower court's ruling declaring them illegal. WILL TRUMP'S TARIFFS BE BLOCKED IF HE LOSES IN COURT? A Federal Circuit ruling would almost certainly not end the litigation, as the losing party is expected to appeal to the Supreme Court. If the Federal Circuit rules against Trump, the court could put its own ruling on hold while the government appeals to the Supreme Court. This approach would maintain the status quo and allow the nine justices to consider the matter more thoroughly. The justices themselves could also issue an "administrative stay" that would temporarily pause the Federal Circuit's decision while it considers a request from the Justice Department for more permanent relief. IS THE SUPREME COURT LIKELY TO STEP IN? The Supreme Court is not obligated to review every case appealed to it, but it is widely expected to weigh in on Trump's tariffs because of the weighty constitutional questions at the heart of the case. If the Federal Circuit rules in the coming weeks, there is still time for the Supreme Court to add the case to its regular docket for the 2025-2026 term, which begins on October 6. The Supreme Court could rule before the end of the year, but that would require it to move quickly. HOW MIGHT THE SUPREME COURT RULE? There is no consensus among court-watchers about what the Supreme Court will do. Critics of Trump's tariffs are optimistic their side will win. They point to the Supreme Court's decision from 2023 that blocked President Joe Biden from forgiving student loan debt. In that ruling, the justices limited the authority of the executive branch to take action on issues of "vast economic and political significance" except where Congress has explicitly authorized the action. The justices in other cases, however, have endorsed a broad view of presidential power, especially when it comes to foreign affairs. CAN IMPORTERS SEEK REFUNDS FOR TARIFFS PAID? If Trump loses at the Supreme Court, importers are likely to seek refunds of tariffs already paid. This would be a lengthy process given the large number of anticipated claims. Federal regulations dictate that such requests would be first heard by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. If that agency denies a refund request, the importer can appeal to the Court of International Trade. There is precedent for tariff refund requests being granted. Since May, CBP has been processing refunds to importers who inadvertently overpaid duties because of tariff "stacking" — where multiple overlapping tariffs are applied to the same imports. And in the 1990s, after the Court of International Trade struck down a tax on exporters that was being used to finance improvements to U.S. harbors, the court set up a process for issuing refunds. That decision was upheld by both the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court. WOULD A COURTROOM DEFEAT UNRAVEL TRUMP'S TRADE DEALS? Trump has used the threat of emergency tariffs as leverage to secure concessions from trading partners. A loss at the Supreme Court would hamstring Trump in future negotiations. The White House, however, has other ways of imposing tariffs, like a 1962 law that allows the president to investigate imports that threaten national security. Trump has already used that law to put tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, and those levies are not at issue in the case before the Federal Circuit. Some legal experts say a loss for Trump at the Supreme Court would not impact bilateral trade agreements the U.S. has already inked with other countries. Others say that the trade deals alone might not provide sufficient legal authority for taxes on imports and may need to be approved by Congress.
