🇸🇮 Slovenia

1. The status of digitalisation in enforcement of the judgments under the regulation in

question (a) under EOP Regulation, and (b) under EEO Regulation

a) Under EOP Regulation AND EEO Regulation

As ZPP is used mutatis mutandis in enforcement procedures unless otherwise provided (Article 15 of ZIZ), an electronic form is deemed to be equivalent to a written form if the information in electronic form is suitable for processing by the court, accessible and suitable for subsequent use (Article 16.a ZPP). Furthermore, electronic data is not denied probative value merely because it is in electronic form. Several judicial procedures in Slovenia are already digitalised and automatised, among them is enforcement on the basis of an enforcement order. The enforcement request can either be submitted electronically (through the portal eSodstvo) or sent to the competent court in written form. Only users who are logged in to the eSodstvo 20 ( eJustice) portal as externally qualified users may file an enforcement request on the basis of an enforceable title by selecting the electronic application 012 (Enforcement request on the basis of an enforceable title), duly completing, signing and submitting it. To register as an external qualified user, one must have a Slovenian national identification number, a Slovenian tax number and a secure electronic mailbox. An act governing electronic communications is also Pravilnik o obrazcih, vrstah izvršb in poteku avtomatiziranega izvršilnega postopka (Rules on forms, types of enforcement and the automated enforcement procedure).

Procedural aspects

2. Competent court or authority and procedure involved in the enforcement (a) under EOP

Regulation, and (b) under EEO Regulation a) Under EOP Regulation The notice on the application of the EOP Regulation states that in Slovenia, the Local courts will be competent to issue European orders for payment. However, until the Slovenian Civil Procedure Act explicitly regulates the jurisdiction over EOP, the currently applicable procedural provisions of national law determining the subject-matter jurisdiction apply. Hence, the jurisdiction to rule on an application for an order for payment is determined in the same way in the Republic of Slovenia as in other matters. Both Local and District courts have jurisdiction to issue a payment order. Jurisdiction is determined according to the value of the dispute (or the nature of the case, e.g. in commercial matters). Local courts have jurisdiction in disputes concerning property claims if the value of the subject matter of the dispute does not exceed EUR 20.000. District courts have jurisdiction to hear disputes concerning claims relating to property if the value of the subject matter of the dispute exceeds EUR 20.000. In commercial matters, only the District Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine cases at first instance. Commercial disputes are cases where one of the litigants is a legal person (a company, institution, or cooperative). Commercial disputes are also those where one of the litigants is the State or another self-governing local authority, such as a municipality. Local jurisdiction determines which of the several courts with subject-matter jurisdiction has jurisdiction to rule on a particular case. The general rule on territorial jurisdiction is that if a claim is brought against a natural or legal person, it must be brought before the court in the territory of which the defendant is domiciled or in the territory of which the legal person has its seat. In the case of proceedings against a foreign natural or legal person, the general place of jurisdiction rests with the court in the territory of which the defendant is domiciled in the Republic of Slovenia or in which such legal person has a branch. The Slovenian legal order also has rules on specific territorial jurisdiction, which is determined according to the subject and object of the dispute.

b) Under EEO Regulation The EEO of a decision, settlement or trustworthy document is issued, at the request of a party, by the court or authority which adjudicated the claim in the first instance or by the notary who drew up the trustworthy document (Article 42.a of the Enforcement of Judgements and Protective Measures Act - Zakon o izvršbi in zavarovanju, hereinafter: "ZIZ"). Article 40c of ZIZ provides that, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 42a(1) of ZIZ, in proceedings for the issuance of the EEO of a decision, settlement or trustworthy document, the court which, in the case of enforcement proceedings on the basis of a trustworthy document, has territorial jurisdiction to decide, after having ascertained the validity of the order of enforcement, on the basis of the authorised means of enforcement, is competent (Article 40c of ZIZ). The court or authority which issued the certificate referred to in Article 42a, paragraph 1 of ZIZ is competent to correct or revoke it. If the said certificate was issued by a notary public, the district court in the territory of which the notary public has his/her seat has jurisdiction to rectify or annul it. The competent authority rectifies or annuls, at the request of a party, the certificate by decision.

3. rules on service

a) under EOP Regulation AND EEO Regulation

Articles 132-150 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPP) regulate the service of documents corresponding to Articles 13-15 of both the European Order for Payment (EOP) and European Enforcement Order (EEO) Regulations. Under Article 132 ZPP, service may be effected by several methods, including postal service, secure electronic mail, bailiffs, service at court premises, or by other legally authorised professional servers. Service is generally carried out between 6:00 and 22:00, while electronic service may be effected at any time. At the request of a party, the court may order service by a bailiff or a detective nominated by that party, with the associated costs borne by the applicant. Parties may also opt for service by secure electronic means by registering a secure electronic mailbox or service address within the judiciary's information system; once a party files documents electronically, it is presumed to have consented to electronic service unless it indicates otherwise. Even without an explicit request, courts may serve documents electronically if the party is known to have a registered secure electronic address and has previously been notified by personal service of the switch to electronic service. Certain categories of persons and institutions, such as public authorities, lawyers, and notaries, are subject to mandatory electronic service. Where a party is represented by a statutory representative or counsel, service is effected on that representative, and service on one of multiple authorised representatives is sufficient. A document is deemed served on the party once it has been delivered to the authorised recipient or temporary representative in accordance with Article 137 ZPP.

4. Language of the certificate and documents to be appended

a) Under EOP Regulation The official languages in court proceedings are Slovenian as well as the two national minority languages in official use at the courts in the areas where these national minorities live (Articles 6 and 104 ZPP). The national minority languages are Italian and Hungarian. Pursuant to Article 5 of the Act on the Establishment of Municipalities and Municipal Boundaries(Zakon o ustanovitvi obcin ter o dolocitvi njihovih obmocij, hereinafter 'ZUODNO' ), mixed-nationality municipalities are those identified as such by the current statutes of Lendava, Hodoš-Šalovci, Moravske Toplice, Koper, Izola and Piran municipalities.

b) Under EEO Regulation The official languages in court proceedings are Slovenian as well as the two national minority languages in official use at the courts in the areas where these national minorities live (Articles 6 and 104 ZPP). The national minority languages are Italian and Hungarian. Pursuant to Article 5 of ZUODNO 13 , mixed-nationality municipalities are those identified as such by the current statutes of Lendava, Hodoš-Šalovci, Moravske Toplice, Koper, Izola and Piran municipalities.

5. enforcement fees

a) under EOP and EEO Regulation

A court fee must be paid when filing an enforcement request, as well as when filing an objection to or an appeal against enforcement (Article 29.b of ZIZ). It must be paid within 8 days after the payment order for the court fee is served (Article 34 ZST-1). The court fee is 55 EUR (Tariff code 4011, ZST-1). If the court fee is not paid within the deadline and in accordance with the payment order and the conditions for exemption, deferment or payment in instalments of the court fee do not apply, the enforcement request is deemed to have been withdrawn (Article 29.b of ZIZ). Court fees may be paid in cash, electronically or using any other valid payment method (Article 6 ZST-1). Court fees may be paid remotely, by bank transfer, credit or debit card payment or direct debit from the claimant's bank account. Thus, parties can pay the court fees from any Member State. Court fees must be paid to the courts' accounts specifically set up for the payment of court fees, as published on the websites of the various courts. Pursuant to Article 33.a(1) ZST-1, if a party files an application in electronic form (where that is possible), the court fee is reduced by 20 per cent, except as otherwise provided by ZST-1. Pursuant to Article 38 of ZIZ, the creditor pays the enforcement costs in the first place. The creditor advances the costs of the enforcement proceedings in the manner, amount and within the deadline fixed by the court. If the creditor fails to pay the advance within the deadline set, the court stays the enforcement proceedings. However, the debtor shall reimburse the creditor, at the latter's request, for the costs incurred in the enforcement proceedings, including the costs of making enquiries concerning the debtor's property, or for the costs of the ex officio proceedings. The creditor must reimburse the debtor or, at the request of the debtor, a third party, for enforcement costs unreasonably incurred by the creditor. Article 38 of ZIZ also states that unless otherwise provided by law, reimbursement of enforcement costs must be claimed as soon as they are incurred and their amount is known, but at the latest within thirty days after the end of the stay of the enforcement proceedings or the conclusion of the last enforcement action after which enforcement was not resumed, failing which the costs shall not be recognised. The court must decide on the costs within eight days of receipt of the request.

6. Refusal, stay, or limitation of the enforcement procedure under the regulation in question in

the intended Member State (a) under EOP Regulation, and (b) under EEO Regulation

a) under EOP Regulation AND EEO Regulation

In Slovenia, decisions concerning enforcement, including refusal, stay, or limitation of enforcement, fall within the jurisdiction of local courts and are governed by the Enforcement and Securing of Civil Claims Act (ZIZ). Section 71 ZIZ regulates the postponement of enforcement and is particularly relevant for the application of Article 21 of both the European Order for Payment (EOP) and European Enforcement Order (EEO) Regulations. Upon the debtor's request, the court may postpone enforcement in whole or in part where immediate enforcement would likely cause irreparable harm to the debtor that outweighs the harm suffered by the creditor. Postponement is available in specific situations, including where the debtor has lodged an extraordinary legal remedy against the enforcement title, has applied for restitutio in integrum in the proceedings leading to the enforceable decision, or has brought an action to set aside a settlement agreement forming the basis of enforcement. Where enforcement is postponed due to a pending legal remedy, the suspension lasts until the conclusion of those proceedings. Enforcement resumes once the postponement period expires, although the court may, at the creditor's request, resume enforcement earlier if the grounds for postponement have ceased or if the creditor provides security. Under Article 76 ZIZ, courts must terminate enforcement ex officio if the enforcement title has been revoked, amended, annulled, or declared invalid. In such cases, enforcement measures already taken are annulled unless this would affect rights acquired by third parties. As a general rule, enforcement under Slovenian law is not permitted while a regular appeal against the judgment is still possible, meaning that an EOP judgment cannot be enforced before it becomes final. While ZIZ provides for additional grounds to stay or limit enforcement, such as failure by the creditor to advance court fees, these are not relevant to Articles 21 of the EOP and EEO Regulations. No specific national provisions exist concerning Article 23 of either Regulation.

7. Availability of any legal aid for guidance on the enforcement procedures under the

regulation in question in the intended Member State (a) under EOP Regulation, and (b) under EEO Regulation

There are a few options to obtain practical assistance in the EOP or EEO enforcement procedure. Firstly, the judicial staff of the competent court provide free practical assistance in form-filling and general information on the procedure. Secondly, natural persons (as well as NGOs and non-profit organisations) may also apply for free legal aid provided they meet the conditions laid down in ZBPP. However, ZBPP sets some limits to granting legal aid in enforcement procedures. Pursuant to Article 8 of ZBPP, legal aid will not be granted where the applicant for legal aid is the debtor in enforcement proceedings initiated on the basis of an enforceable title under the law governing enforcement, unless he or she is likely to establish the existence of grounds for objection to the enforcement order which, under the provisions of the law governing enforcement, preclude enforcement.

8. Critical assessment of the enforcement procedures under the regulation in question in the

intended Member State (a) under EOP Regulation, and (b) under EEO Regulation

Several structural and practical obstacles affect the effective enforcement of European Orders for Payment (EOP) and European Enforcement Orders (EEO) in Slovenia.

A first major issue concerns language requirements. All documents must be submitted in the official language of the proceedings-Slovenian, or Italian/Hungarian in minority areas. Applications and standard EU forms cannot be filed in other languages, and any foreign-language document must be accompanied by a certified translation. Although translation costs may theoretically be reimbursed at the end of proceedings, in practice they significantly increase enforcement costs and undermine the efficiency and affordability objectives of EOP and EEO procedures.

A second problem relates to digital enforcement. While electronic enforcement is available through the eSodstvo (eJustice) portal, access is effectively limited to users with a Slovenian national identification number, tax number, and secure electronic mailbox. As a result, foreign creditors are usually unable to use digital enforcement and must rely on paper-based procedures. This difficulty is compounded by the fact that the entire portal operates exclusively in Slovenian, creating additional language barriers. Although professional legal assistance can overcome these obstacles, this further increases costs and diminishes the practical advantages of EOP and EEO mechanisms.

A third, more systemic issue concerns the incompatibility of Slovenian national enforcement based on a "trustworthy document" with EEO standards. Under Slovenian law, the debtor is not served with the enforcement application before the enforcement order is issued. The procedure becomes adversarial only after the order has been made, when the debtor may lodge an objection. If no objection is filed, the enforcement order becomes final automatically. This structure fails to meet the minimum adversarial standards required for EEO certification, meaning such Slovenian enforcement orders cannot be validated as EEOs.

This incompatibility was confirmed by the CJEU in Case C-484/15, which held that procedures in which the debtor is not served with the initial procedural document and becomes aware of the claim only after the enforcement order is issued are not adversarial. Moreover, the deficiencies of the Slovenian procedure cannot be remedied through the "cure of non-compliance" mechanism under Article 18 EEO Regulation, as this mechanism applies only where there are at least two services on the debtor. In unilateral proceedings-such as enforcement based on a trustworthy document, where only the enforcement order is served-convalidation is not possible.

Overall, these issues significantly limit the effectiveness, accessibility, and cross-border usability of EOP and EEO enforcement in Slovenia, particularly for foreign creditors.