{"id":144032,"date":"2026-07-10T11:10:33","date_gmt":"2026-07-10T11:10:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/?post_type=comparative_guide&#038;p=144032"},"modified":"2026-07-10T11:10:33","modified_gmt":"2026-07-10T11:10:33","slug":"slovenia-litigation","status":"publish","type":"comparative_guide","link":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/chapter\/slovenia-litigation\/","title":{"rendered":"Slovenia: Litigation"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"template":"","class_list":["post-144032","comparative_guide","type-comparative_guide","status-publish","hentry","guides-litigation","jurisdictions-slovenia"],"acf":[],"appp":{"post_list":{"below_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">Urankar &amp; Zupan\u010di\u010d<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2026\/06\/Logo-UZP-2000x2000-1.jpg\"\/><\/span><\/div>"},"post_detail":{"above_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">Urankar &amp; Zupan\u010di\u010d<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2026\/06\/Logo-UZP-2000x2000-1.jpg\"\/><\/span><\/div>","below_title":"<span class=\"guide-intro\">This country specific Q&amp;A provides an overview of Litigation laws and regulations applicable in Slovenia<\/span><div class=\"guide-content\"><div class=\"filter\">\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t<input type=\"text\" placeholder=\"Search questions and answers...\" class=\"filter-container__search-field\">\r\n\t\t\t<\/div>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t<ol class=\"custom-counter\">\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What are the main methods of resolving disputes in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Disputes in Slovenia are resolved through two principal channels: litigation before state courts and alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Court proceedings remain the dominant route: judicial statistics continue to record an above-average volume of cases, reflecting that ADR has not yet become fully embedded in legal practice.<\/p>\n<p>Among ADR mechanisms, court-annexed mediation is the most widely used. Courts actively encourage parties to attempt mediation during proceedings, and a referral to mediation may be made at any stage. Private mediation centres are also growing in prominence.<\/p>\n<p>For larger commercial disputes, arbitration before the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Slovenia is the established forum of choice.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What are the main procedural rules governing litigation in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The principal Act governing civil litigation in Slovenia is the Civil Procedure Act (Zakon o pravdnem postopku, ZPP). It regulates court proceedings in disputes arising out of personal, family, property and other civil-law relationships, unless jurisdiction is vested in a specialised court or another authority under a specific statute, such as the administrative court or the labour and social courts.<\/p>\n<p>The key procedural principles include orality, meaning that evidence is generally presented and examined at hearings; concentration of proceedings and procedural economy, which require the parties and the court to bring forward the relevant material as efficiently and as early as possible; truthfulness and fair conduct, which oblige the parties to act honestly and in good faith; party disposition, under which the parties define the subject matter and scope of the dispute; the adversarial principle, which requires that each party be given the opportunity to address the other side\u2019s allegations and evidence; the court\u2019s duty of substantive case management, under which the court actively guides the proceedings and ensures that the relevant issues are properly clarified; immediacy, meaning that the court deciding the case should, as far as possible, hear the evidence directly; and the parties\u2019 right to be heard, which guarantees each party a fair opportunity to present its case.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What is the structure and organisation of local courts dealing with claims in your jurisdiction? What is the final court of appeal?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Slovenia operates a four-tier court system for civil and commercial disputes. District courts (44 in total) handle smaller civil claims at first instance, while regional courts (11 in total) deal with higher-value disputes, commercial matters, insolvency, and intellectual property. Higher courts (four, seated in Ljubljana, Maribor, Celje, and Koper) hear appeals against first-instance decisions of district and regional courts. Access to the Supreme Court is strictly limited: a party must obtain leave to appeal, which is granted only where the case raises an important legal question of broader significance.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How long does it typically take from commencing proceedings to get to trial in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>First-instance proceedings typically conclude within one to three years from the date of filing; in more complex matters, this period may be substantially longer.<\/p>\n<p>ZPP provides for a structured pre-trial sequence: the court must serve the claim on the defendant within 30 days of filing (Article 276 ZPP), the defendant has 30 days to file a defence (Article 277 ZPP), and the court thereafter schedules a preparatory hearing with at least 30 days&#8217; notice (Article 279\u010d ZPP). At the preparatory hearing, the court adopts a case management programme setting out, where possible, the dates of subsequent trial hearings. In practice, the first hearing can generally be expected within approximately one year of filing, though court-specific backlogs may push this further out.<\/p>\n<p>There is no fixed statutory deadline for concluding first-instance proceedings. The general obligation to proceed without undue delay (Article 11 ZPP) is frequently invoked but inconsistently enforced.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are hearings held in public and are documents filed at court available to the public in your jurisdiction? Are there any exceptions?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Under ZPP, court hearings are generally open to the public (a right also guaranteed by the Constitution and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)). As a general rule, only adults may attend. The court may exclude the public where necessary to protect official, business or personal secrets, public order, or morality, or where the orderly conduct of proceedings cannot otherwise be ensured. Exclusion does not apply to the parties, their statutory or legal representatives, or interveners; upon request, a party may also designate up to two additional people to attend. The exclusion order must be reasoned and publicly announced. In practice, public hearings are the rule and exclusion is interpreted very restrictively.<\/p>\n<p>Court documents are not publicly accessible. A third party able to demonstrate a substantiated legitimate interest may apply for access to, and copies of, specific court files. During pending proceedings, the request is decided by the judge handling the case; after the proceedings have concluded, by the president of the court.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What, if any, are the relevant limitation periods in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In Slovenia, the general limitation period is five years, unless a specific statute provides otherwise. A notable exception applies to damages claims, where two limitation periods run in parallel: a three-year subjective period, starting when the injured party became aware of both the damage and the liable person, and a five-year objective period, running from the occurrence of the harmful event.<\/p>\n<p>Limitation periods are matters of substantive rather than procedural law and are primarily governed by the Obligations Code and sector-specific legislation. Accordingly, a court does not dismiss a claim as time-barred of its own motion; limitation must be invoked by the defendant.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What, if any, are the pre-action conduct requirements in your jurisdiction and what, if any, are the consequences of non-compliance?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>As a general rule, Slovenian law does not impose formal pre-action conduct requirements before commencing civil proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>An important exception applies to claims brought against the Republic of Slovenia or a state authority. Under Article 27 of the State Attorney\u2019s Office Act (ZDOdv), the claimant must first attempt to resolve the dispute amicably before the State Attorney\u2019s Office. Before filing the claim, the claimant must submit a proposal for amicable settlement and, as a rule, attach evidence that such attempt was unsuccessful. Failure to comply results in dismissal of the action.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How are proceedings commenced in your jurisdiction? Is service necessary and, if so, is this done by the court (or its agent) or by the parties?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Legal proceedings (in the broader sense) begin with filing of a complaint and not ex officio. ZPP, however, adopts a narrower definition under which civil proceedings are deemed to commence only upon the service of the complaint on the defendant (Article 189 ZPP). From that moment, lis pendens arises, preventing the initiation of new proceedings between the same parties regarding the same claim.<\/p>\n<p>Service is an act of judicial authority and is therefore effected by the court.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How does the court determine whether it has jurisdiction over a claim in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The court determines jurisdiction largely ex officio. Under ZPP, it examines jurisdiction immediately upon receipt of the claim, based on the claimant\u2019s allegations and facts known to the court (Article 17 ZPP). Subject-matter jurisdiction depends on the value and nature of the dispute: district courts (okrajna sodi\u0161\u010da) hear claims up to EUR 20,000 and certain matters irrespective of value, while regional courts (okro\u017ena sodi\u0161\u010da) hear higher-value disputes and specialised cases, including intellectual property, competition and commercial matters (Articles 30 and 32 ZPP). Territorial jurisdiction generally lies with the court of the defendant\u2019s permanent residence, or, in the case of legal entities, their registered seat (Articles 46\u201348 ZPP), unless exclusive jurisdiction applies. The court may review territorial jurisdiction of its own motion only in cases of exclusive territorial jurisdiction; otherwise, the objection must be raised by the defendant (Article 22 ZPP).<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How does the court determine which law governs the claims in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Slovenian courts determine the law governing the merits through a layered conflict-of-laws system in which EU instruments play the central role. In cross-border contractual disputes, Regulation (EC) No 593\/2008 (Rome I) applies directly and takes precedence over national law. Its importance lies in providing uniform and predictable rules across EU Member States: party autonomy is the starting point, and absent a valid choice of law, the contract is generally governed by the law of the country of the habitual residence of the party performing the characteristic obligation (Articles 3 and 4). For non-contractual claims, Regulation (EC) No 864\/2007 (Rome II) applies for tort and other non-contractual obligations across the EU. As a general rule, it designates the law of the place where the damage occurs, subject to specific rules for matters such as product liability, unfair competition, environmental damage and intellectual property (Article 4 and following). Both Regulations apply universally, meaning that they may designate the law of a non-EU state. Where they do not apply, the Private International Law and Procedure Act (ZMZPP) is applicable. Foreign law may be excluded on Slovenian public policy grounds (Article 5 ZMZPP).<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In what circumstances, if any, can claims be disposed of without a full trial in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Claims may be disposed of without a full trial in the following scenarios.<\/p>\n<p>First, the court will dismiss the claim on procedural grounds, for example, where it lacks jurisdiction, the matter is already res judicata, a court settlement exists, or the claimant lacks legal interest. Where a claim is procedurally deficient or incomprehensible and the claimant fails to remedy the deficiency within the time limit set by the court, the claim is likewise dismissed. In all such cases, dismissal does not touch the merits and does not preclude the claimant from refiling once the deficiency is remedied.<\/p>\n<p>Second, a claim is treated as withdrawn where the claimant fails to pay the court fee upon filing, and proceedings terminate without any decision on the merits.<\/p>\n<p>Third, where a claim is legally deficient on its face value (meaning the facts as pleaded, even if taken as entirely true, do not as a matter of law support the relief sought) the court should reject it on the merits without conducting any evidentiary proceedings. In practice, however, courts very rarely exercise this power at an early stage, and the matter typically proceeds to a full hearing regardless.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What, if any, are the main types of interim remedies available in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Interim remedies are governed by the Enforcement and Security Act (ZIZ) and may be sought before, together with, or during the main proceedings. There are two principal types of interim order: one securing a monetary claim, typically by freezing assets or prohibiting their disposal, and one securing a non-monetary claim, which may take various forms tailored to the relief ultimately sought. Where a non-monetary interim order actively regulates the legal relationship between the parties rather than merely preserving the status quo (commonly referred to as a regulatory interim order) the conditions for obtaining it are particularly stringent.<\/p>\n<p>In all cases, the applicant must demonstrate the likely existence of the claim and the risk that enforcement of any final judgment would otherwise be impossible or significantly impeded. Beyond these general conditions, the applicant must also satisfy the specific requirements applicable to the particular type of interim order sought. In urgent cases, interim orders may be granted ex parte.<\/p>\n<p>The court may also order the preservation of evidence where there is a risk that it will no longer be available or its use will be significantly more difficult by the time of trial.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">After a claim has been commenced, what written documents must (or can) the parties submit in your jurisdiction? What is the usual timetable?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Once a claim has been filed and served, the defendant is invited to submit a statement of defence. The standard time limit is 30 days from service. If the defendant fails to respond within that period, the court may issue a default judgment, provided the statutory conditions are met.<\/p>\n<p>Following the statement of defence, each party may, without a specific court order, file up to two further written submissions before the preparatory hearing; the court may also invite additional briefs where necessary. By no later than the first main hearing, each party must set out all relevant facts, submit the evidence on which it relies, and respond to the opposing party\u2019s allegations and evidence. This also applies to objections of set-off and limitation.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What, if any, are the rules for disclosure of documents in your jurisdiction? Are there any exceptions (e.g. on grounds of privilege, confidentiality or public interest)?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Under ZPP, there is no general obligation for parties to disclose all relevant documents in their possession. A court may, however, order a party to procedure a specific document if the opposing party sufficiently identifies the document and alleges that it is in that party\u2019s possession. If that party refuses to produce the document or falsely denies possessing it, the court may presume that the document exists and may accept the other party\u2019s description of its contents (Article 227(4) and (5) ZPP).<\/p>\n<p>A party may exceptionally refuse to produce the document, particularly where doing so would result in criminal prosecution of the opposing party of their close relatives. However, the party may not refuse disclose on the grounds that it would subject them to severe humiliation or significant financial loss (Article 227(3) ZPP).<\/p>\n<p>The court may also order third parties to produce the document. The third party may refuse to produce the document if it would subject them or their close relatives to severe humiliation, significant financial loss or criminal prosecution (Article 228 ZPP).<\/p>\n<p>Moreover, although trade secrets exceptions are generally protected, the court may nevertheless, upon a party\u2019s request, order the opposing party to disclose that information if it determines that the right to judicial protection, the need for such disclosure objectively outweighs the interest in protecting that information as a trade secret (Article 219.a ZPP).<br \/>\nThe rules for disclosure are slightly modified for disputes involving competition law. which are additionally regulated under the Prevention of Restriction of Competition Act (ZPOmK-2).<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How is witness evidence dealt with in your jurisdiction (and in particular, do witnesses give oral and\/or written evidence and what, if any, are the rules on cross-examination)? Are depositions permitted?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In Slovenia, witness evidence is dealt with primarily through oral testimony at the hearing. Witnesses are summoned by the court, examined individually and, as a rule, must answer orally. The court leads the examination and first invites the witness to state everything they know about the relevant facts. Witnesses may refuse to testify or answer questions only in limited circumstances, including professional privilege and protection against self-incrimination.<\/p>\n<p>After the court&#8217;s initial questioning, the parties and their counsel may put questions directly to the witness. Slovenian procedure therefore permits party questioning comparable to cross-examination, but in a court-controlled form. Leading questions are not allowed. An important exception to the principle of oral testimony is Article 236a ZPP, which permits written, signed witness statements. Under before-mentioned Article, the court may invite a party, or the witness directly, to provide such a statement and may read it in evidence instead of hearing the witness in person. However, if either party requests oral examination, the court must hear the witness.<\/p>\n<p>Depositions, in the common law sense of pre-trial witness examinations conducted outside the hearing, are not a feature of Slovenian civil procedure. Evidence is generally taken by the court within the proceedings themselves. However, ZPP provides for the preservation of evidence where there are justified grounds to fear that a particular item of evidence may subsequently become unavailable or that its examination may become more difficult. In such circumstances, a party may request that the evidence be taken in advance, either before the commencement of proceedings or during their course.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is expert evidence permitted in your jurisdiction? If so, how is it dealt with (and in particular, are experts appointed by the court or the parties, and what duties do they owe)?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Expert evidence is expressly provided for under the ZPP and is routinely used. A party must first propose the taking of expert evidence; once the court grants the proposal, it takes over the conduct of the examination. Expert evidence is commissioned where the resolution of a factual issue requires specialist knowledge the court does not itself possess (Article 243 ZPP).<\/p>\n<p>Experts are appointed exclusively by the court \u2014 there is no mechanism for party-appointed experts. They are selected from the official register maintained by the Ministry of Justice and take a formal oath of impartiality and professional diligence. Any expert opinion commissioned privately by a party is treated as part of that party&#8217;s factual submissions rather than as expert evidence in the procedural sense.<\/p>\n<p>The court directs the examination: it defines the subject matter, puts questions, and may request clarifications. The expert must substantiate their opinion in all cases, and parties are entitled to submit observations and put questions. Where expert findings differ materially or are unclear, the examination is repeated with the same or different experts.<\/p>\n<p>A recognised structural weakness is the tendency of courts to delegate decision-making to experts rather than confining them to specific technical questions, with the result that the expert can effectively determine the outcome of the proceedings. In principle, the court should retain full control over the legal assessment and use the expert solely to resolve discrete points of fact.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Can final and interim decisions be appealed in your jurisdiction? If so, to which court(s) and within what timescale?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Both interim and final decisions may be appealed. Appeal is the standard ordinary remedy and is heard by the competent court of appeal.<\/p>\n<p>Interim measures (both preliminary and temporary injunctions) may be appealed within 8 days of service. Where an interim measure was issued ex parte, the respondent may first lodge an objection before the judge who issued the order; both parties may then appeal the decision on that objection to the court of appeal.<\/p>\n<p>Final decisions may be appealed within 30 days, save in cheque and bill-of-exchange disputes where the deadline is 15 days. A timely appeal prevents the judgment from becoming final in the part being challenged. Where a judgment is publicly announced (an exception that is rarely applied in practice) the appellant must give notice of appeal within 8 days of receiving the written summary of the judgment. Appeals against appealable procedural orders are generally subject to a 15-day deadline.<\/p>\n<p>Certain decisions may also be challenged before the Supreme Court by way of revision, the primary extraordinary remedy in civil\/commercial proceedings. Revision is not available as of right; a party must first apply for leave to appeal within 30 days of service of the appellate judgment. Leave is granted only where a decision of the Supreme Court may be expected to resolve a legal question of importance for legal certainty, the uniform application of law, or the development of law through case law. A filed revision does not stay enforcement of the judgment under challenge.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What are the rules governing enforcement of foreign judgments in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The enforcement of foreign judgments in Slovenia operates on a dual framework.<\/p>\n<p>Judgments from EU member states in civil and commercial matters are governed by the Brussels I bis Regulation, under which judgments are automatically recognised and directly enforceable without any prior exequatur procedure. The debtor may apply to refuse enforcement only on the limited grounds of Article 45, including manifest violation of public policy or failure of proper service.<\/p>\n<p>For judgments from third non-EU countries, the domestic procedure under the Private International Law and Procedure Act (ZMZPP) applies: a foreign judgment produces no legal effect in Slovenia until formally recognised by the competent court, which conducts a strictly limited review confined to whether the statutory conditions are met, not the substantive correctness of the judgment.<\/p>\n<p>Recognition of a third-country judgment will be refused where the opposing party was unable to participate due to defective service, where the matter falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of Slovenian courts, where the foreign court&#8217;s jurisdiction rested on improper grounds, where a conflicting domestic judgment exists, where recognition would violate Slovenian public policy construed narrowly as only those imperative norms whose breach would threaten the fundamental integrity of the legal order, or where reciprocity is absent, though reciprocity is presumed until proven otherwise. Once recognised, the foreign judgment is equated with a domestic judgment and enforced under the standard procedure of ZIZ.<\/p>\n<p>Bilateral legal assistance treaties, where applicable, take precedence over the ZMZPP.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Can the costs of litigation (e.g. court costs, as well as the parties\u2019 costs of instructing lawyers, experts and other professionals) be recovered from the other side in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Under Slovenian law, costs follow the event. The losing party must reimburse the successful party&#8217;s litigation costs, including court fees, attorneys&#8217; fees, and the costs of experts and other professionals engaged in the proceedings. Where a party only partially succeeds, the court may apportion costs in proportion to the outcome, or order each party to bear its own costs.<\/p>\n<p>Only costs that were necessary for the conduct of the proceedings are recoverable. The court assesses necessity on a case-by-case basis, considering all circumstances. Attorneys&#8217; fees are assessed by reference to the Bar&#8217;s official fee schedule, whereby the court fees are governed by a statutory scale. Costs of court-appointed experts are generally recoverable as a matter of course. Costs of privately retained experts (such as party-commissioned expert opinions) are also in principle recoverable, but only where the court considers their engagement to have been objectively necessary for the proceedings. In practice, courts apply this test restrictively, particularly where a court-appointed expert has already been engaged on the same issue.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What, if any, are the collective redress (e.g. class action) mechanisms in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Slovenia has a dedicated collective actions framework under the Collective Actions Act (ZKolT). The Act provides for compensatory collective actions, collective injunctive actions, and court-approved collective settlements. Collective actions may be brought in respect of consumer protection, competition law infringements, capital markets claims, employment disputes, environmental liability claims, and discrimination cases where only collective injunctive relief actions are permitted. Standing varies depending on the subject-matter of the dispute. It is generally limited to designated qualified representative entities, primarily non-profit legal persons with a direct link between their objectives and the rights alleged to have been infringed, and the State Attorney&#8217;s Office.<\/p>\n<p>Compensatory collective actions must first be certified by the Court before they can proceed to the merits. The requirements are strict and thus far no collective action suit has been certified.<\/p>\n<p>For compensatory collective actions the Act provides for both opt-in and opt-out models, with the court determining which applies in each case. The opt-in model is mandatory where any claim relates to non-pecuniary damage, where at least ten percent of group members seek compensation exceeding EUR 2,000, or where affected persons have no permanent residence or registered office in Slovenia. Outside these cases, the court may apply an opt-out mechanism. The same framework applies to collective settlements, where the court sets a deadline of between 30 and 90 days for affected persons to submit statements of inclusion or withdrawal.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What, if any, are the mechanisms for joining third parties to ongoing proceedings and\/or consolidating two sets of proceedings in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Slovenian civil procedure allows any person with a legal interest in the outcome of pending proceedings to join those proceedings on the side of either the claimant or the defendant. The intervener may enter at any point up to the final judgment becoming res judicata, including during extraordinary-remedy proceedings, and accepts the proceedings in the state in which they stand at that moment. The intervener is entitled to make submissions and perform all procedural acts within the same time limits as the party they have joined, though they cannot act contrary to that party\u2019s conduct of the case.<\/p>\n<p>Under Article 300 ZPP, where multiple proceedings between the same parties \u2014 or proceedings in which the same person is the opposing party to different claimants or defendants \u2014 are pending before the same court, the court may consolidate them for joint hearing where doing so would expedite the proceedings or reduce costs. A single judgment may then be issued in respect of all consolidated claims. The court may equally order that individual claims within a single action be heard and decided separately.<\/p>\n<p>ZPP also allows for joinder of parties (Article 191 ZPP) and representative proceedings (Article 279.b ZPP).<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are third parties allowed to fund litigation in your jurisdiction? If so, are there any restrictions on this and can third party funders be made liable for the costs incurred by the other side?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Third-party litigation funding (TPLF) is expressly permitted and regulated in the context of collective actions under the ZKolT. The claimant must disclose the source of funding to the court, a third-party funder may not exert decisive influence over procedural decisions (including decisions to settle) where this would be detrimental to the collective interests of the group members, and certain conditions must be met for funding arrangements to be permissible.<\/p>\n<p>TPLF is also expressly contemplated in the context of commercial arbitration: the Rules of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Slovenia include disclosure obligations requiring parties to inform the arbitral tribunal of the existence of any third-party funding arrangement, in order to enable the tribunal to assess potential conflicts of interest bearing on arbitrator impartiality.<\/p>\n<p>Outside these two contexts, there is no general statutory regime governing TPLF in civil or commercial proceedings. The permissibility of such arrangements would be assessed primarily through the lens of general contract law; in particular, the validity of the underlying funding agreement.<\/p>\n<p>There is no express provision under Slovenian law making a third-party funder directly liable for the opposing side&#8217;s costs, though this remains an evolving area.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What is the main advantage and the main disadvantage of litigating international commercial disputes in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The principal advantage is twofold. As the EU Member State, Slovenia benefits from the direct application of Brussels I bis: a judgment obtained before a Slovenian court is directly enforceable across all EU Member States without any exequatur procedure. Additionally, the cost of litigation in Slovenia is comparatively low, remaining well below the OECD average: a meaningful consideration for parties weighing the economic viability of pursuing a claim.<\/p>\n<p>The principal disadvantage is the length and unpredictability of proceedings: specifically, how long they take. First-instance commercial disputes frequently take between one and three years; the most complex cases (particularly those requiring expert opinions) can extend to five or six years. At the busiest first-instance court in Ljubljana, the first hearing alone may be scheduled up to three years after filing. The overall duration becomes even less predictable once appellate proceedings are factored in.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What is the most likely growth area for commercial disputes in your jurisdiction for the next 5 years?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Collective and consumer actions represent one clear growth area. Slovenia has seen a marked rise in collective litigation since the enactment of the Collective Actions Act. The 2024 amendment (aligning the Act with Directive (EU) 2020\/1828) broadened the scope of eligible claims, extended standing to foreign representative bodies, and facilitated cross-border actions, pointing to a sustained increase in multi-party disputes, particularly in banking, telecommunications, and technology.<\/p>\n<p>Technology, AI and data disputes represent a second significant growth area. With AI adoption accelerating rapidly across the economy, disputes over contractual liability for AI outputs, data ownership, IP in machine-generated works, and EU AI Act compliance are expected to become a regular feature of commercial litigation (in an area where Slovenian case law remains largely untested).<\/p>\n<p>Finally, post-M&amp;A and insolvency-related disputes are set to intensify as economic conditions tighten. Following a wave of cross-border transactions, post-acquisition claims (warranty, earn-out, and R&amp;W breaches) are expected to rise, while slowing GDP growth, contracting industrial output, and declining corporate margins are accelerating insolvency-related litigation and disputes arising from the unwinding of contractual partnerships.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What, if any, will be the impact of technology on commercial litigation in your jurisdiction in the next 5 years?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The most significant technological developments affecting commercial litigation in Slovenia over the next five years are expected to stem from the advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) and the ongoing digitalisation of the court system.<\/p>\n<p>On the court side, one would expect AI to facilitate the handling of high-volume and document-intensive cases, enabling more efficient case management and reducing the administrative burden on judges and court staff. On the side of practitioners, AI tools are anticipated to raise the overall quality of legal submissions by enabling faster, more comprehensive legal research (this has already materialized in everyday practice). Importantly, these capabilities (previously accessible only to well-resourced firms) are becoming available to smaller practices as well, levelling the playing field across the profession. Over time, this should be reflected in a general improvement in the quality of pleadings and the standard of advocacy in commercial proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>On the digitalisation front, a notable milestone for the Slovenian judiciary is the transition to electronic filing in civil and commercial matters, with the e-portal allowing legal representatives to submit pleadings and communicate with the court electronically. The system does not yet support full electronic access to case files, though further developments in this area can reasonably be expected as the technology and institutional framework continue to mature (and especially since full electronic access is already available in insolvency cases).<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\r\n<div class=\"word-count-hidden\" style=\"display:none;\">Estimated word count: <span class=\"word-count\">5017<\/span><\/div>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t<\/ol>\r\n\r\n<script type=\"text\/javascript\" src=\"\/wp-content\/themes\/twentyseventeen\/src\/jquery\/components\/filter-guides.js\" async><\/script><\/div>"}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comparative_guide\/144032","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comparative_guide"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/comparative_guide"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=144032"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}