evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

IRSID Web Accessibility Inspection under ZDSMA — a Regulator Documenting Its Own Limits (Slovenia)

Slovenia · Ljubljana · See the Slovenia profile · See the Ljubljana profile

Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 31% 84/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Slovenia's accessibility inspectorate carried out 468 inspections in 2022–2024 but states in its own report that understaffing forced it to stop each simplified check after three error types. A rare regulator that publishes the limits of its own monitoring.

468 inspections
Total inspections (2022-2024) (2022-2024)
518 violations
Violations found in in-depth audits (2022-2024)
982 violations
Violations found in simplified audits (2022-2024)
163 bodies
Obliged bodies with no accessibility statement at all (2022-2024)
~95 %
Websites estimated as still inaccessible (2021-2023)

Details

Maturity
Established
Promoter
Inšpektorat Republike Slovenije za informacijsko družbo (IRSID), Ministrstvo za digitalno preobrazbo
Period
2018–present; second reporting period 2022–2024
Keywords
public administration, web accessibility, regulation, enforcement, disability

Context

Slovenia's Inspectorate for Information Society (IRSID) enforces the ZDSMA, the national transposition of the EU Web Accessibility Directive. Its statutory report for the second reporting period (1 January 2022 - 23 December 2024) covers inspections of public-sector websites and mobile applications nationwide.

Activities

IRSID ran 468 inspections: 394 websites under a simplified method, 50 websites and 24 mobile applications under an in-depth method checking all applicable SIST EN 301 549 V3.2.1 conditions, plus accessibility-statement checks at 465 obliged bodies.

Results

In-depth audits found 518 violations across 50 websites and 134 across 24 apps; simplified checks found 982 violations across 394 websites - but the inspectorate states it capped each simplified check at three error types because of understaffing, so these counts are floors, not full measurements. Of 465 obliged bodies checked, 110 had a compliant accessibility statement, 192 a partially compliant one, and 163 had none at all. Independent reporting (RTV Slovenija) put around 95% of websites as still inaccessible, with no fines yet evidenced despite a EUR 200-2,000 penalty range.

Conclusions

IRSID's own report is unusually candid about its limits - from a single Inspector III post occupied only until May 2024, to obliged bodies removing content rather than fixing it, and a rise in accessibility-overlay plugins marketed as compliance shortcuts. The legal architecture and inspection method are sound; the enforcement capacity behind them is not.

Implementation
Indicative cost
Low (< €50k) — No budget figures published; evidence points to a single-inspector unit for most of the period, later expanded to three.
Time to results
Long (> 3 years) — Statutory programme since around 2018; second reporting period covers 1 January 2022 - 23 December 2024.
Staffing & skills
Single Inspector III post, occupied only until 3 May 2024, described in the report as 'kadrovska podhranjenost' (staff undernourishment), Strengthened from one to three inspectors, per RTV Slovenija reporting

Conditions for success

  • Statutory mandate under the ZDSMA / EU Web Accessibility Directive
  • Structured dual methodology (simplified vs in-depth checks against SIST EN 301 549 V3.2.1)

Common failure modes

  • Understaffing forced simplified checks to stop after 3 error types, understating true violation counts
  • Obliged bodies removing or shrinking content rather than making it accessible
  • Contractors hired to build or update sites not knowing the accessibility requirements
  • Rise in accessibility overlay plugins marketed as compliance shortcuts
  • No fines evidenced despite a EUR 200-2,000 statutory penalty range

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Similar practices you may find useful