Following a razor-thin 306-304 vote in the European Parliament to strip Matej Tonin of his immunity, the parliamentary leadership holds the authority to decide whether to authorize a revote. While parliamentary rules dictate votes are final, historical precedent shows repeat votes can be granted during voting confusion.
The margin could hardly have been tighter. In a session that drew intense scrutiny, 306 members of the European Parliament voted to strip parliamentary immunity from Slovenian MEP Matej Tonin, while 304 members voted against the measure, according to reporting by Rtvslo. Electronic voting was utilized by the presiding officer strictly to double-check an initial hand-count of the ballots. Even though parliamentary procedure treats announced voting results as final, the outcome has triggered an intense debate over procedural accuracy and the potential impact of submitted voting corrections.
Matej Tonin and the Precedent for Parliamentary Revotes
Speaking on the television program Odmeve, Matej Tonin pointed out that two European lawmakers reportedly changed their minds regarding their votes. Although the formal process concluded with the announcement of the results, Tonin emphasized that subsequent corrections submitted by members are concrete facts now resting in the hands of the parliamentary leadership.
Matej Tonin, Slovenian Member of the European Parliament, stated that while the vote that was held was final, the two corrections were a fact, and it was now up to the parliamentary leadership to decide whether a revote would take place or not. He noted that there were examples from the past, such as the one from 2005 when Mr. Borrel approved a revote in the event of voting confusion, and added that they would see what the President of the European Parliament would decide on the matter. He also stated that he had already made it clear that whatever happened, he would accept it, and even if his immunity were revoked, he would attend all proceedings in Slovenia and defend himself alongside his colleagues in that politically staged proceeding.
According to RTVSLO journalist Žiga Bonča, parliamentary officials maintain that a completed electronic verification leaves the decision entirely up to leadership on whether to stage a fresh vote. Tonin noted that Borrel approved a repeat vote during a similar situation involving voting confusion back in 2005. Tonin added that whatever decision the European Parliament president reaches, he will accept it and return to Slovenia to contest the proceedings.
The Dars Scandal Investigation and Alleged Surveillance Checks
The European legal battle stems from a domestic case in Slovenia involving the parliamentary commission tasked with overseeing intelligence and security services—a body possessing high-level security clearances and access to sensitive state secrets. According to a proposal filed by the Specialized State Prosecutor’s Office, the high degree of trust vested in these roles means that any illegal activity by the commission risks inflicting severe harm on Slovenia’s state security and intelligence operations.
Prosecutors allege that a group of four lawmakers utilized their oversight authorities to query police files regarding whether wiretaps had been deployed against specific figures linked to the Dars affair. Prosecutor filings indicate that the day before conducting an official inspection, Tonin established a messaging group named “DARS,” adding Jernej Vrtovec, Valentina Hajdinjaka and the general secretary of Robert Ilc’s party to the communication stream. Tonin denied the existence of any such communication group when speaking to media outlets in July 2025, stating that no such group and communication existed. However, prosecutors assert that the communication logs are fully documented in the case files.
Legal Proceedings and the Defense of NSi Figures
The investigative dossier highlights a message sent the day after the police inspection, which stated that surveillance checks across fifteen specific phone numbers—including members of NSi—revealed no active wiretaps over the preceding two years. When questioned previously, Janez Žakelj, who was then president of Knovs, maintained that the actions complied fully with the law, stating in 2024 that he was convinced their oversight work violated no statutes. Conversely, prosecutors argue that obtaining confirmation regarding the absence of covert surveillance allows subjects to modify their behavior and realize they are not currently under formal preliminary investigation, constituting a direct abuse of official authority.
The Ljubljana District Court previously evaluated an indictment targeting Janez Žakelj, Jernej Vrtovec, and Jožef Horvat, with a pre-trial hearing expected before the end of the year. Legal experts note that judicial proceedings could potentially merge with Tonin’s case now that his parliamentary immunity has been lifted, and court timelines indicate the broader legal fight could stretch on for up to a year.
Unresolved Parliamentary Deadlines
With the electronic tally finalized at 306 to 304, the immediate trajectory of the case depends entirely on whether the European Parliament President decides to heed the submitted voting corrections and authorize a repeat ballot. Neither parliamentary officials nor legal analysts have specified a definitive timeline for leadership to rule on the disputed tally.
