Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Slovenia

Implementation of International Human Rights Decisions in Slovenia

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Judging International Human Rights

  • 846 Accesses

Abstract

Pursuant to Article 8(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, laws and regulations must comply with generally accepted principles of international law and with treaties that are binding on Slovenia. Paragraph 2 of the same article states that ratified and published treaties shall be applied directly. This entails that the Republic of Slovenia recognises the primacy of international law over laws and other regulations of internal law, which, in the hierarchy of legal norms, places international law below the Constitution and above the laws. Through ratification and publication, the international treaties become an integral part of the domestic legal system, and only if their provisions cannot be directly applied in determining the rights and obligations of individuals is it necessary to adopt appropriate rules for their implementation. However, if their provisions are directly applicable (self-executing), they are to be used directly regardless of whether their content is reproduced in the internal regulations or not.

The European Convention on Human Rights is a ‘living instrument’ that develops continuously through its protocols and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, it is primarily the duty of the Member States to ensure the protection of human rights. It is evident from a number of Constitutional Court decisions that this Court is well aware of its role. In many cases in which violations of Convention rights that are also enshrined in the Constitution were specifically alleged by the parties to the constitutional complaint, the Constitutional Court considered the complaints in the light of relevant constitutional rights, taking into account the standards set by the ECtHR. In some cases, the Constitutional Court, referring to the case law of the ECtHR, gave wider content to an individual right protected by the Constitution. Furthermore, it is evident from a number of the Constitutional Court decisions that this Court is familiar with the case law of the ECtHR and considers it in its decision-making, although it may not refer to it expressly.

On the other hand, it should be noted that the Convention provides only minimum standards of human rights protection. Furthermore, the ECtHR grants the Member States a certain scope of margin of appreciation. Thereby, the Court acknowledges the specific characteristics of the legal systems of the Member States, as well as the political, economic, social and cultural situation in these states. This means that in cases where the ECtHR follows a restrictive approach, its case law should not be construed as an argument for a restrictive interpretation of human rights, which are afforded broader protection under the Slovene Constitution.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Škrk (2010), p. 46, who refers to two decisions of the Constitutional Court: Decision U-I-6/93, dated 1 Apr 1994, in which the Constitutional Court adopted the standpoint that Art 8 of the Constitution gives precedence to the norms of international law over all sub-constitutional norms of domestic law, and Opinion Rm-1/97, dated 5 June 1997, by which in paragraph 12 of the reasoning the Constitutional Court underlined that the Slovene legal system does not recognise the primacy of international law over constitutional provisions. Commentators on the Constitution deem that the Constitutional Court treats international and national law as two separate systems. See Graseli (2002), p. 140, and Umek (2011), p. 135 and the therein cited case law of the Constitutional Court.

  2. 2.

    This view may be found in numerous decisions of the Constitutional Court; see Sovdat (2002), pp. 144–148.

  3. 3.

    The Republic of Slovenia is a party to, among other instruments, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees; the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women; the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

  4. 4.

    Recommendation No R (2000) 2, 19 Jan 2000.

  5. 5.

    Art 416 of the Criminal Procedure Act (Official Gazette RS, No 63/94 et sub) determines: “The provisions of this chapter on the reopening of criminal proceedings (Articles 406 through 415) shall apply mutatis mutandis to the request for modification of a final judicial decision pursuant to the decision of the Constitutional Court by which the latter reversed or abolished the regulation on the basis of which the final judgment of conviction was passed, or pursuant to a decision of the European Court of Human Rights relating to grounds for reopening criminal proceedings.”

  6. 6.

    Frowein (2007), pp. 261–263.

  7. 7.

    See Wildhaber (2006), pp. 17, 57, 93, 174, as well as Zupančič (2004), p. 26.

  8. 8.

    ECtHR, Kudla v Poland, Reports 2000-XI.

  9. 9.

    Ribičič (2010), p. 118.

  10. 10.

    The ECtHR used this phrase already in Tyrer v The United Kingdom, Series A 26 (1978), in which it underlined: “The Court must also recall that the Convention is a living instrument which, as the Commission rightly stressed, must be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions.” See Bernhardt (2007), p. 92; see also Ribičič (2007), p. 201.

  11. 11.

    Constitutional Court, Up-39/95, judgment of 16 Jan 1997.

  12. 12.

    Constitutional Court, Up-108/00, judgment of 20 Feb 2003, referring to ECtHR, Nideröst-Huber v Switzerland, judgment of 18 Feb 1997, no 18990/91.

  13. 13.

    Constitutional Court, Up-103/97, judgment of 26 Feb 1998; cf ECtHR, Airey v Ireland, Series A 32 (1979).

  14. 14.

    Official Gazette RS, No 29/06.

  15. 15.

    Constitutional Court, Up-1857/07, U-I-161/07, judgment of 3 Dec 2009; see ECtHR, Kutić v Croatia, judgment of 1 Mar 2002, no 48778/99; Aćimović v Croatia, judgment of 9 Oct 2003, no 61237/00.

  16. 16.

    Constitutional Court, U-I-195/99, judgment of 12 Dec 2002 and Up-76/03, U-I-288/04, judgment of 17 Mar 2005.

  17. 17.

    Constitutional Court, Up-13/99, judgment of 8 Mar 2001.

  18. 18.

    ECtHR, Waite and Kennedy v Germany, Reports 1999-I.

  19. 19.

    ECtHR, McElhinney v Ireland, Reports 2001-IX; Al-Adsani v The United Kingdom, Reports 2001-XI; Fogarty v The United Kingdom, Reports 2001-IX.

  20. 20.

    In the first case, the applicant filed an action before an Irish court against the United Kingdom concerning an incident allegedly involving being assaulted by a British soldier on Irish territory; the second case concerned an action before a court in England against the State of Kuwait for compensation in respect of injury caused by torture; in the third case the applicant sued the USA before a court in England concerning her employment at the United States Embassy.

  21. 21.

    ECtHR, Kalogeropoulou and Others v Greece and Germany, Reports 2002-X. In that case, Greek civil law courts granted the claims for compensation of Greek citizens against Germany for acts that German soldiers committed in the village of Distomo during World War II, however the Greek Ministry of Justice did not grant consent to the enforcement of the judgment. For more on this, see Škrk (2007), p. 291.

  22. 22.

    Constitutional Court, Up-181/99, judgment of 18 Dec 2002.

  23. 23.

    Constitutional Court, Up-1004/11, judgment of 8 Nov 2012; see ECtHR, Immobiliare Saffi v Italy, Reports 1999-V.

  24. 24.

    Constitutional Court, Up-365/05, judgment of 6 July 2006.

  25. 25.

    ECtHR, Saraiva de Carvalho v Portugal, Series A 286-B (1994).

  26. 26.

    ECtHR, Alenka Pečnik v Slovenia, judgment of 27 Sept 2012, no 44901/05.

  27. 27.

    Based on the date of the issuance of the decision and on the information that the decision was adopted by five votes to four, I conclude that the decision concerned is Up-332/03, judgment of 27 Oct 2005.

  28. 28.

    Constitutional Court, U-I-145/03, judgment of 23 June 2005.

  29. 29.

    ECtHR, Putz v Austria, Reports 1996-I, and Ravnsborg v Sweden, Series A 283-B (1994).

  30. 30.

    ECtHR, Peruš v Slovenia, judgment of 27 Sept 2012, no 35016/05.

  31. 31.

    Based on the date of the issuance of the decision, I conclude that the decision concerned is Up-48/04, judgment of 11 Mar 2005.

  32. 32.

    ECtHR, Švarc and Kavnik v Slovenia, judgment of 8 Feb 2007, no 75617/01.

  33. 33.

    ECtHR, Hit d. d. Nova Gorica v Slovenia, judgment of 5 June 2014, no 50996/08.

  34. 34.

    Constitutional Court, Up-207/99, judgment of 4 July 2002.

  35. 35.

    ECtHR, Lüdi v Switzerland, Series A 238 (1992).

  36. 36.

    Constitutional Court, Up-719/03, judgment of 9 Mar 2006.

  37. 37.

    See Up-1544/10 and Up-1293/10, judgments of 21 June 2012.

  38. 38.

    Official Gazette RS, No 63/94.

  39. 39.

    Constitutional Court, U-I-18/93, judgment of 11 Apr 1996.

  40. 40.

    Official Gazette SRS, No 30/86 and Official Gazette RS, No 87/02.

  41. 41.

    Constitutional Court, U-I-60/03, judgment of 4 Dec 2003.

  42. 42.

    ECtHR, Winterwerp v The Netherlands, Series A 33 (1979).

  43. 43.

    Such as ECtHR, Nikula v Finland, Reports 2002-II; Prager and Oberschlick v Austria, Series A 313 (1995); Sunday Times v The United Kingdom (No. 1), Series A 30 (1979); Worm v Austria, Reports 1997-V; Putz v Austria, Reports 1996-I; Schöpfer v Switzerland, judgment of 20 May 1998, no 25405/94; Ravnsborg v Sweden, Series A 283-B (1994); Weber v Switzerland, Series A 177 (1990); T. v Austria, judgment of 14 Nov 2000, no 27783/95.

  44. 44.

    Official Gazette RS, No 26/99 et sub.

  45. 45.

    Constitutional Court, U-I-145/03, judgment of 23 June 2005.

  46. 46.

    Official Gazette RS, No 3/07 – official consolidated text, and no 93/07.

  47. 47.

    Constitutional Court, U-I-344/06, judgment of 20 Nov 2008.

  48. 48.

    Constitutional Court, U-I-12/12, judgment of 11 Dec 2014.

  49. 49.

    ECtHR, Tyrrell v United Kingdom, judgment of 4 Sept 1996, no 28188/95.

  50. 50.

    ECtHR, Gatt v Malta, judgment of 27 July 2010, no 28221/08.

  51. 51.

    Constitutional Court, U-I-312/11, judgment of 13 Dec 2014.

  52. 52.

    Official Gazette RS, No 66/09 – official consolidated text, and No 22/10.

  53. 53.

    ECtHR, S. and Marper v the United Kingdom, judgment of 4 Dec 2008, nos 30562/04 and 30566/04.

  54. 54.

    Official Gazette RS, No 63/94 et sub.

  55. 55.

    Constitutional Court, U-I-226/95, judgment of 8 July 1999.

  56. 56.

    The Constitutional Court cited ECtHR, Lehideux and Isorni v France, Reports 1998-VII.

  57. 57.

    Constitutional Court, Up-50/99, judgment of 14 Dex 2000), Up-422/02, judgment of 10 Mar 2005, and Up-406/05, judgment of 12 Apr 2007.

  58. 58.

    ECtHR, Éditions Plon v France, judgment of 18 May 2004, no 58148/00; Association Ekin v France, judgment of 17 July 2001, no 39288/98; Vereinigung Bildender Künstler v Austria, judgment of 25 Jan 2007, no 68354/01.

  59. 59.

    ECtHR, Jelševar and Others v. Slovenia, judgment of 11 Mar 2014, no 47318/07.

  60. 60.

    Constitutional Court, Up-1391/07, judgment of 10 Sept 2009.

  61. 61.

    ECtHR, De Haes and Gijsels v Belgium, Reports 1997-I; Kobenter and Standard Verlags GmbH v Austria, judgment of 2 Nov 2006, no 60899/00); Thorgeir Thorgeirson v Iceland, Series A 239 (1992).

  62. 62.

    In this respect, the Constitutional Court referred to ECtHR Nilsen and Johnsen v Norway, Reports 1999-VIII and Kobenter and Standard Verlags Gmbh v Austria, judgment of 2 Nov 2006, no 60899/00.

  63. 63.

    This standpoint proceeds from ECtHR, Sürek v Turkey (No. 1), Reports 1999-IV.

  64. 64.

    In this part of the reasoning, the Constitutional Court referred to the ECtHR judgments in De Haes and Gijsels v Belgium, Reports 1997-I; Kobenter and Standard Verlags Gmbh v Austria, judgment of 2 Nov 2006, no 60899/00; Lombardo and Others v Malta, judgment of 24 Apr 2007, no 7333/06; Lingens v Austria, Series A 103-B (1986); Karman v Russia, judgment of 14 Dec 2006, no 29372/02; Scharsach and News Verlagsgesellschaft mbH v Austria, Reports 2003-XI; Feldek v Slovakia, Reports 2001-VIII; Jerusalem v Austria, Reports 2001-II. In Karman v Russia, the ECtHR stressed the fundamental importance of this requirement and established that the term ‘local neofascist’ (a value judgment) had sufficient factual basis in the reports of independent experts who, having examined the publications issued by the plaintiff, unanimously concluded that they resembled the ideals of National Socialism.

  65. 65.

    ECtHR, Mladina v Slovenia, judgment of 17 Apr 2014, no 20981/10.

  66. 66.

    Constitutional Court, Up-584/12, judgment of 22 May 2014.

  67. 67.

    Constitutional Court, Up-2940/07, judgment of 5 Feb 2009.

  68. 68.

    ECtHR, Dyundin v Russia, judgment of 14 October 2008, no 37406/03.

  69. 69.

    Constitutional Court, Up-570/09, judgment of 2 Feb 2012.

  70. 70.

    Constitutional Court, Up-444/09, judgment of 12 Apr 2012.

  71. 71.

    ECtHR, Ribitsch v Austria, Series A 336 (1995); Selmouni v France, Reports 1999-V; Salman v Turkey, Reports 2000-VI; Rehbock v Slovenia, Reports 2000-XII; Avşar v Turkey, Reports 2001-VII. See also Wildhaber (2006), p. 97.

  72. 72.

    Constitutional Court, Up-55/03 and Up-827/04, judgment of 6 July 2006.

  73. 73.

    EctHR, Matko v Slovenia, judgment of 2 Nov 2006, no 43393/98.

  74. 74.

    Constitutional Court, Up-679/12, judgment of 16 Oct 2014.

  75. 75.

    ECtHR, Rehbock v Slovenia, Reports 2000-XI; Matko v Slovenia, judgment of 2 Nov 2006, no 43393/98; Butolen v Slovenia, judgment of 26 Apr 2012, no 41356/08.

  76. 76.

    ECtHR, Kudła v Poland, Reports 2000-XI.

  77. 77.

    ECtHR, Šoć v Croatia, judgment of 9 May 2003, no 47863/99.

  78. 78.

    Official Gazette RS, No 50/97 et sub.

  79. 79.

    Constitutional Court, U-I-65/05, judgment of 22 Sept 2005.

  80. 80.

    ECtHR, Lukenda v Slovenia, Reports 2005-X.

  81. 81.

    Official Gazette RS, No 67/12 – official consolidated text.

  82. 82.

    Constitutional Court, Up-695/11, judgment of 10 Jan 2013.

  83. 83.

    For example the judgements ECtHR, Giancarlo Lombardo v Italy, Series A 249-C (1992); Duclos v France, Reports 1996-VI, para 55; Süßmann v Germany, Reports 1996-IV, para 4; Pammel v Germany, Reports 1997-IV.

  84. 84.

    For more on the principle of subsidiarity, see Petzold (1993), pp. 41–62, and Wildhaber (2006), p. 94.

  85. 85.

    Wildhaber (2006), p. 184.

  86. 86.

    On the influence of the ECtHR on the case law in civil matters, see Betetto (2012), pp. 1235–1248.

  87. 87.

    Čeferin (2012), pp. 250–262, notes that the regular courts in Slovenia are more restrictive regarding freedom of expression and freedom of the press than the Constitutional Court, whereby the latter evaluates these rights very similarly as the ECtHR.

  88. 88.

    Supra n 19.

  89. 89.

    Supra n 17.

  90. 90.

    ICJ, Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy, Greece intervening), judgment of 3 Feb 2012, ICJ Reports 2012, 99.

  91. 91.

    See Škrk (2012), p. 321.

  92. 92.

    ECtHR, Kurić and Others v Slovenia, judgment of 26 June 2012, no 26828/06.

  93. 93.

    In particular U-I-284/94, judgment of 4 Feb 1999 and U-I-246/02, judgment of 3 Apr 2003, see Kogovšek Šalamon (2012), p. 26.

  94. 94.

    Official Gazette RS, No 99/13.

  95. 95.

    Supra n 26 and 30.

  96. 96.

    Supra n 32 and 33.

  97. 97.

    Matscher (1993), p. 63.

  98. 98.

    Zupančič (2004), p. 23.

  99. 99.

    Zupančič (2004), p. 26. That the binding effect of a precedent judgment primarily concerns a question of analogy and not deduction is also noted by Kerševan (2012), p. 807.

  100. 100.

    In Peruš v Slovenia, the ECtHR established a violation of the right to an impartial tribunal, after the Constitutional Court had rejected the constitutional complaint due to a lack of legal interest.

  101. 101.

    The ECtHR established such violation also in Kurić and Others v Slovenia.

  102. 102.

    Macdonald (1993), p. 83. See also Wildhaber (2006), p. 95.

  103. 103.

    See Ribičič (2007), p. 204 and Ribičič (2010), p. 118.

References

  • Betetto N (2012) Vpliv Evropske konvencije za človekove pravice na slovensko sodno prakso [The impact of the European Convention on Human Rights on Slovenian case law]. Podjetje in delo 2012:1235–1248

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernhardt R (2007) Rechtsfortbildung durch den Europäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte. In: Breitenmoser S, Ehrenzeller B, Sassoli M, Stoffel W, Wagner Pfeifer B (eds) Human rights, democracy and the rule of law, Liber amicorum Luzius Wildhaber. Dike Verlag AG, Zürich, St. Gallen, pp 92–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Čeferin R (2012) Meje svobode tiska v praksi Ustavnega sodišča in Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice [The limits of Press freedom in jurisprudence of the constitutional court and the European Court of Human Rights]. GV Založba, Ljubljana

    Google Scholar 

  • Frowein J (2007) The binding force of ECHR judgments and its limits. In: Breitenmoser S, Ehrenzeller B, Sassoli M, Stoffel W, Wagner Pfeifer B (eds) Human rights, democracy and the rule of law, Liber amicorum Luzius Wildhaber. Dike Verlag AG, Zürich, St. Gallen, pp 261–269

    Google Scholar 

  • Graseli G (2002) In: Šturm L (ed) Komentar Ustave Republike Slovenije [Commentary on the constitution of the Republic of Slovenia]. Fakulteta za podiplomske in evropske študije, Ljubljana, pp 140−144

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerševan E (2012) Precedenčna moč odločitev Ustavnega sodišča [The authority of constitutional court decisions as precedents]. Pravnik 67:797–833

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogovšek Šalamon, N (2012) Izbrisanim je treba priznati odškodnino [Erased persons must be recognised compensation]. Pravna praksa 2012(26):25–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Macdonald RStJ (1993) The margin of appreciation. In: Macdonald RStJ, Matscher F, Petzold H (eds) The European system for the protection of human rights. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, pp 83–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Matscher F (1993) Methods of interpretation of the convention. In: Macdonald RStJ, Matscher F, Petzold H (eds) The European system for the protection of human rights. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, pp 63–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Petzold H (1993) The convention and the principle of subsidiarity. In: Macdonald R St J, Matscher F, Petzold H (eds) The European system for the protection of human rights. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, pp 41–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Ribičič C (2007) Evropsko pravo človekovih pravic [European law on human rights], Selected Chapters. Univerza v Ljubljani, Pravna fakulteta, Ljubljana

    Google Scholar 

  • Ribičič C (2010) Človekove pravice in ustavna demokracija [Human rights and constitutional democracy]. Študentska založba, Ljubljana

    Google Scholar 

  • Škrk M (2007) Odnos med mednarodnim pravom in notranjim pravom v praksi Ustavnega sodišča [The relationship between internationl law and internal law in the case law of the constitutional court]. Pravnik 62:275–311

    Google Scholar 

  • Škrk M (2010) The relationship between international law and internal law in the case law of the constitutional court. In: Vukas B, Šošić TM (eds) International law: new actors, new concept–continuing dilemmas; Liber Amicorum Božidar Bakotić. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 41–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Škrk M (2012) “Ukradeni otroci” in sodna imuniteta držav [“Stolen Children” and jurisdictional immunity of states]. Pravnik 67:321–350

    Google Scholar 

  • Sovdat J (2002) In: Šturm L (ed) Komentar Ustave Republike Slovenije [Commentary on the constitution of the Republic of Slovenia]. Fakulteta za podiplomske in evropske študije, Ljubljana, pp 144−151

    Google Scholar 

  • Umek U (2011) In: Šturm, L (ed) Komentar Ustave Republike Slovenije, Dopolnitev – A [Commentary on the constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, Appendix A]. Fakulteta za podiplomske in evropske študije, Ljubljana, pp 131−145

    Google Scholar 

  • Wildhaber L (2006) The European Court of Human Rights, 1998–2006, history, achievements reform. N.P. Engel, Kehl am Rhein

    Google Scholar 

  • Zupančič B (2004) O razlagi sodnih precedensov in sodb ter posebej sodb Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice [On the interpretation of legal precedents and of the judgements of the European Court of Human Rights]. Revus, revija za evropsko ustavnost 2004(2):9−27

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia

    Dragica Wedam Lukić

Authors
  1. Dragica Wedam Lukić
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dragica Wedam Lukić .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

    Stefan Kadelbach

  2. Faculty of Law, Augsburg University, Augsburg, Germany

    Thilo Rensmann

  3. Faculty of Law, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Eva Rieter

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Wedam Lukić, D. (2019). Slovenia. In: Kadelbach, S., Rensmann, T., Rieter, E. (eds) Judging International Human Rights. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94848-5_23

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94848-5_23

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-94847-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-94848-5

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation