Indicator history

Close Window

Is the State or are state representatives reported to engage in discriminatory acts or practices by independent authoritative sources?

Key Area:
Anti-discrimination Legislation & Implementation
12/12/2011 - 16:12
Short Answer

Yes, there are several cases in which the Advocate of the Principle of Equality or an inspectorate found discrimination by state actors.  

Qualitative Info

Case 1: Advocate of the Principle of Equality, opinion no. 0921-15/2010-9, 25 May 2010: The case concerned the conditions for acquiring a state sponsored concession for carrying out veterinary services in the private sector. According to one of the conditions veterinarians with more years of experience received fewer points in the evaluation procedure for acquiring the concession.The Advocate decided that the conditions constitute indirect discrimination on the grounds of age. The Advocate did not accept the justification of the Veterinarian Administration which stated that older workers are less adjustable and less open for novelties, and that workers over 55 may not be required to work overtime and “on duty” as, according to the law, they have to give their prior consent for that. Due to these reasons they are defined as risky for carrying out the concession activity. The Advocate held that these conditions put older workers in less favourable position. The Advocate concluded that indirect discrimination on the grounds of age could be allowed in case of a legitimate aim, and if the means to achieve this aim were appropriate and necessary. However, the Veterinarian Administration did not state any facts that would justify that.


Case 2: Ministry of Education and Sports, School Inspectorate, case no. 20102 – 228 – 2011, 12 October 2011: In the school year 2011/12 the children received an invitation to attend the catholic religious class in the church. The invitation was accompanied by a letter written by archbishop. The invitation and the letter were handed out to them in the school premises. The complaint was filed against the school due to the violation of the principle of the separation of church and state, and the violation of the principle of non-discrimination. The School Inspectorate found that the activities of the school violated the provisions of the Organization and Financing of the Education Act which guarantee the autonomy of the school environment and contain a prohibition of religious activities.   


Case 3: Advocate of the Principle of Equality, opinion no. 0921-22/2010-7, 6 September 2010: The Ministry of Education and Sports carried out an awareness-raising campaign in high schools called ‘Proud at my sex/Proud at my pole” (Ponosen sem na (s)pol). The aim of the campaign was allegedly to raise awareness about safe sex and about the fact that the two sexes ensure reproduction of humanity. In the course of the campaign the students were invited to sign declarations that they are proud at their (biological) sex. No other information was actually provided to the students on the matter of safe sex. A non-governmental organization lodged a complaint that the campaign causes discrimination. The Advocate agreed that the campaign constitutes direct discrimination on the grounds of gender identity, as it implicitly forced the students to choose one of the two sexes, excluding people with experiences with transgender identities. Further, the Advocate also found that the campaign caused indirect discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, disregarding students with past, current or future experience with same-sex orientation. The Advocate recommended to the Ministry to discontinue the campaign, introduce sex education in schools with information on all views of different sexual orientation and gender identities, and provide non-discrimination trainings that would reduce the possibilities of discrimination on these grounds. (Weblink:  


Case 4: Ministry of Labour, Family and Social Affairs; Social Inspectorate, decision no. 06185-148/2010, 30 September 2010: The case concerns a Roma couple who inquired about a possibility to acquire municipal financial assistance at the Centre for Social Work. When they inquired about this possibility, the social worker at the Centre responded that this financial assistance is not for Roma. A volunteer of a local association verified by phone whether Roma may apply for this assistance and she also received a negative response: the social worker confirmed that Roma may not apply for this financial assistance. The social inspectorate found that such treatment constitutes discrimination, as there is no provision in the law that would allow a denial of a certain right on the basis of race or ethnicity. Municipal assistance is available for all people who meet the conditions, regardless of their ethnicity. In the procedure it was establish that if the couple applied for this assistance it would have been granted to them, as they met all the conditions.   


Case 5: Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia, decision no. U-I-118/09, 1 October 2009: Article 27 of the Placement of Children with Special Needs Act defined a six month-deadline to the competent body for issuing a decision on placement of children with special needs in the appropriate school or educational program. A child with disabilities claimed that this time limit is too long and that there is no reason why in these cases the competent bodies would not be bound by general time limits set to two months for issuing decisions in any kind of administrative procedures. The legislative claimed that a six-month time limit is necessary to take decisions of quality in such difficult and demanding matters.  The Constitutional Court decided that the length of a six-month time limit does not guarantee the quality of a decision and that there is no reason why the general time limit of two months would not apply in these cases. It found that the disputed provision violates Article 52 of the Constitution, stating that children with disabilities have the right to education which will enable them to participate in the society. (Weblink:

Groups affected/interested Roma & Travelers, Ethnic minorities, Religious minorities, Majority, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender, Persons with disability
Type (R/D) Anti-roma/zinghanophobia, Homophobia, On grounds of disability, On grounds of other belief
Key socio-economic / Institutional Areas Employment - labour market, Health and social protection, Education, Daily life, Religion
External Url
21/01/2013 - 13:47
Short Answer

Yes, in 2012 the European Court of Human Rights confirmed that the act of "erasure" committed by the Ministry of Interior in 1992 (when more than 25.000 individuals were unlawfully deprived of their legal status) was an act of discrimination.   

Qualitative Info

In 1992 the Slovenian Ministry of Interior deprived 25.671 individuals of their permanent residence status. This was a group that consisted of nationals of former Yugoslavia who were permanently residing in Slovenia but did not obtain Slovenia nationality after the country declared its independence. The group later became known as “the erased people”. The Slovenian Constitutional Court found with two rulings adopted in a constitutional review procedure that this status deprivation had no legal basis and that the Aliens Act which the Ministry of Interior invoked as a legal basis was in fact unconstitutional due to the fact that it contained no provisions on the regulation of legal status of this group of people. In spite of the Constitutional Court decisions which contained instructions on how to regulate the issue and regularize the legal status of affected people, the authorities failed to do adopt comprehensive legislation that would enable regularization of all erased people. On 4 July 2006 eleven erased people who were unable to regularize their legal status lodged a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights. 


On 13 July 2010 ECHR issued a chamber judgment finding Slovenia responsible for violation of Article 8 (the right to protection of private and family life) and Article 13 (the right to effective remedy). The chamber found that by failing to fully implement the Constitutional Court decisions Slovenia also failed to provide effective domestic remedies which would enable the erased people to regularize their legal status, by which it also interfered with their right to protection of private and family life. The chamber however did not find violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (property rights). Also, it only found violation with regard to eight applicants, while the remaining two were considered to have lost their victim status as they received a permanent residence permit in the course of the procedure (the eleventh applicant died). The case was appealed by both the Slovenian government and the applicants. On 26 June 2012 the Grand Chamber again found in favour of the applicants, convicting Republic of Slovenia not only for violation of Article 8 and 13, but also Article 14 – prohibition of discrimination. Namely, the Grand Chamber found that while the Aliens Act did not include provisions on status regularization for nationals of former Yugoslavia who resided permanently in Slovenia but did not obtain Slovenian nationality after the independence, but it did include provisions on regularization of legal status for those people who were legally residing in Slovenia as foreigners (from other non-Yugoslav countries) when the country was still part of Yugoslavia. While the latter did not have to do anything to retain their legal status, the former group was left without any kind of status. It decided that this constituted discrimination between the two groups based on ethnic grounds. The Grand Chamber recalled that the same finding has already been established by the Slovenian Constitutional Court and stated that it saw no reason to depart from this finding. The Grand Chamber found violation of convention grounds for six applicants (who in the meantime applied for and received permanent residence permits), while two who have not yet applied for their permanent residence permit were deemed to have lost their victim status as well. The six applicants were also awarded compensation in amount of 20.000 EUR for non-pecuniary damages, while the court reserved a decision on pecuniary damages for a later stage. The judgment is also a pilot judgment by nature as the Grand Chamber ordered the state to adopt an ad hoc domestic compensation scheme for the erased persons within one year since the delivery of the judgment.



Kurić and others v. Slovenia, Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 26 June 2012

Groups affected/interested Migrants, Ethnic minorities
Type (R/D) Nationalism
Key socio-economic / Institutional Areas Employment - labour market, Health and social protection, Education, Political participation, Daily life
External Url{"itemid":["001-111634"]}