Interim measures in Slovenia

  1. Applicable law
  2. Jurisdiction
    1. International and geographical jurisdiction – the venue
    2. The effect of jurisdiction clauses
    3. Subject-matter jurisdiction
    4. Choice of venue if more than one court has jurisdiction
  3. Types of interim measures and their criteria
    1. Two main types of interim measures
    2. Preliminary injunctions
    3. Interim measures to secure monetary claims
    4. Interim measures to secure non-monetary claims
  4. Procedural and evidential requirements for interim measures
    1. Procedural requirements
    2. Evidential requirements
    3. Procedure regarding the preservation of evidence
  5. Legal safeguards for the respondent
    1. Response
    2. Objection
    3. Security
    4. Damages for unjustified interim measures
  6. Timing of interim measures
    1. Similarities and differences when filing a request before or after the case on the substantive matter is pending
    2. Duration of an interim measure procedure
  7. Costs
    1. Court costs and compensation for professional representation
    2. Advance on costs and security for party compensation
    3. Decision on costs and cost shifting
  8. Remedies against the decision on interim measures
    1. Modification and revocation
    2. Appellate remedies
  9. Enforcement of an interim measure
    1. Enforcement of interim measures issued by national courts
    2. Enforcement of interim measures issued by foreign courts
  10. Interim measures in international commercial arbitration
    1. Interim measures by state courts
    2. Interim measures by arbitral tribunal with seat in Slovenia
    3. Interim measures by a Ljubljana Arbitration Centre at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Slovenia
    4. Interim measures by arbitral tribunal with seat abroad
  11. Contacts

1. Applicable law

1.1.1 Civil judicial procedure in Slovenia is regulated primarily in the Civil Procedure Act 1 Zakon o pravdnem postopku (valid as of 14 July 1999 as amended). (CPA). Under the CPA the court has jurisdiction over disputes relating to personal and family relations, property and other civil relations of natural and legal persons. Certain proceedings relating to personal and family relations and property are also regulated by the Non-litigious Civil Procedure Act 2 Zakon o nepravdnem postopku (valid as of 1 October 1986 as amended). .

1.1.2 Interim measures in civil proceedings are mainly governed by the Enforcement and Securing of Civil Claims Act 3 Zakon o izvršbi in zavarovanju (valid as of 15 October 1998 as amended). (Enforcement  Act). Special provisions on interim measures are set out in the Courts Act 4 Zakon o sodiščih (valid as of 28 April 1994 as amended). , the Copyright and Related Rights Act 5 Zakon o avtorski in sorodnih pravicah (valid as of 29 April 1995 as amended). , the Industrial Property Act 6 Zakon o industrijski lastnini (valid as of 7 December 2001 as amended). , in a minor part in the Employment Relationship Act 7 Zakon o delovnih razmerjih (valid as of 12 April 2013 as amended).  and in the Administrative Dispute Act 8 Zakon o upravnem sporu (valid as of 1 January 2007 as amended). . In proceedings relating to matrimonial actions and actions concerning relations between parents and children, interim measures are also partially regulated by the CPA.

1.1.3 Interim measures may also be ordered as (i) part of administrative procedures which are governed by the General Administrative Procedure Act 9 Zakon o splošnem upravnem postopku (valid as of 1 April 2000 as amended). , (ii) in the procedure before the Constitutional Court, pursuant to the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia 10 Ustava Republike Slovenije (valid as of 23 December 1991 as amended). and the Constitutional Court Act 11 Zakon o ustavnem sodišču (valid as of 2 April 1994 as amended). , and (iii) in criminal proceedings governed by the Criminal Procedure Act 12 Zakon o kazenskem postopku (valid as of 1 January 1995 as amended). . The focus of this chapter is on the regulation of interim measures in civil proceedings only.

1.1.4 For international cases the provisions of the Private International Law and Procedure Act (PILPA) 13 Zakon o mednarodnem zasebnem pravu in postopku (valid as of 28 July 1999 as amended). and international treaties, in particular the (recast) Brussels I Regulation 14 Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. and Brussels II Regulation 15 Council Regulation (EC) No. 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility. , apply. These regulations set out provisions for the jurisdiction and enforcement of interim measures. However, in accordance with Article 29 of the CPA, and if no specific provisions are contained in PILPA or in an international agreement with regard to the particular type of dispute, the general national provisions on territorial jurisdiction shall be taken into account when determining jurisdiction of the Slovenian courts.

1.1.5 The Enforcement Act generally uses the term “creditor” for the applicant for an interim measure and “debtor” for the respondent. However, for the purpose of this chapter, the terms “applicant” and “respondent” are used for clarity.

2. Jurisdiction

2.1 International and geographical jurisdiction – the venue

2.1.1 Unless civil or other legal proceedings have already been commenced, territorial jurisdiction to decide upon an application for an interim measure is vested in the court which has the power to decide on the motion for enforcement of the measure granted. The territorial jurisdiction to issue interim measures is determined by reference to the subject of the interim measure – if it is movable property, the competent court is the court in the area in which the movable property is located or in the area where the respondent is resident. If the interim measure is to secure a monetary claim, a claim on book-entry security or other property right of the respondent, the competent court is the court in the area where the respondent is resident. If the subject to be secured is a partner’s share in a company, the court covering the area in which the company’s registered office is located shall be competent. If the subject to be secured is immovable property, the court in the area in which the immovable property is located shall have jurisdiction.

2.1.2 If civil or other legal proceedings have already been instituted, any application for an interim measure shall be decided by the court conducting such proceedings, as is explained further below.

2.1.3 To the extent applicable in international cases, the Brussels I Regulation and Brussels II Regulation prevail. The jurisdiction based on the Brussels I Regulation is double-tracked, meaning that both: (i) the court which under this Regulation has jurisdiction over the underlying claim; and (ii) the court which is competent under the national law are competent to issue interim measures 16 Brussels I Regulation, art 35. . The PILPA does not specifically address the issuing of interim measures, thus international jurisdiction is decided based on the territorial jurisdiction as specified in the previous paragraph.

2.2 The effect of jurisdiction clauses

2.2.1 Under the CPA the legal effect of the use of jurisdiction clauses in respect of interim measures is unclear. Further, the Slovenian Supreme Court has not ruled on the use of jurisdiction clauses in interim measures proceedings. Pursuant to the PILPA, parties are limited in their choice of jurisdiction. Generally parties may only agree on the jurisdiction of a foreign court if at least one of them is a foreign person and the Republic of Slovenia does not have exclusive jurisdiction. The Slovenian courts have, inter alia, exclusive jurisdiction over disputes relating to Slovenian real estate matters and over execution matters if the object of the execution is located in the territory of Slovenia 17 In accordance with the PILPA a court in the Republic of Slovenia shall also have exclusive jurisdiction (i) in disputes which arise during the founding or cessation of or status changes in a company, other legal entity or association of natural persons or legal entities and in disputes over the validity of decisions by their bodies, if the head office of the company, other legal entity or association, is in the Republic of Slovenia; (ii) in disputes over the validity of entries in official registers kept in the Republic of Slovenia; (iii) in disputes in connection with applications for and the validity of patents and distinguishing marks, if the application was submitted in the Republic of Slovenia; (iv) in certain matrimonial and family disputes; and (v) to pronounce a missing Slovenian citizen to be dead. . Further, a jurisdiction clause cannot be agreed in disputes relating to consumer or insurance matters because the consumer/insured party must be protected by the laws of the Republic of Slovenia, if the consumer or the insured party is a natural person who has permanent residence in Slovenia.

2.2.2 Regarding forum selection clauses under the Brussels I Regulation, the Slovenian Supreme Court held that the established legal practice of the Court of the European Union set out in the Article 25 of the Brussels I Regulation should be followed 18 Decree of the Slovenian Supreme Court No III Ips 54/2012 as of 16 December 2012. The decision referred to article 23 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, which is now article 25 of the updated Council Regulations (EU) No. 1215/2012 of 12 December 2012. . Accordingly, the parties are able to agree a jurisdiction clause under the Brussels I Regulation, but a number of formalities must be observed, namely the agreement conferring jurisdiction shall be either (i) in writing or evidenced in writing, (ii) in a form which accords with practices which the parties have established between themselves or (iii) in international trade of commerce, in a form which accords with the usage of which the parties are or ought to have been aware and which in such trade or commerce is widely known to, and regularly observed by, parties to contracts of the type involved in the particular trade or commerce concerned.

2.3 Subject-matter jurisdiction

2.3.1 Subject to the exceptions mentioned in 2.3.2 below, if civil or other legal proceedings have not been initiated, the power to grant interim measures is vested in the local courts (okrajna sodišča).

2.3.2 The district courts (okrožna sodišča) are competent to decide on applications for interim measures before the initiation of the civil or other legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement, in commercial disputes and with regard to the intellectual property 19 Courts Act, art 101(2)(5). . Hence, there is no possibility for “forum shopping”.

2.3.3 Once proceedings have been initiated, an application must be brought in the court conducting such proceedings. The relevant court in which to commence the main proceedings will depend upon the subject matter of the dispute.

2.3.4 Therefore, specialised courts such as the circuit court, labour court, district court in non-litigious matters and administrative court, may decide on interim measures if proceedings have been initiated in these courts.

2.3.5 To the extent there is no specialised court, the relevant district court is competent for the main proceedings – and thus, once the proceedings are initiated, also for an application for interim measures – in:

  • property-law related disputes, when the value of dispute exceeds 20,000 EUR;
  • matrimonial disputes, disputes relating to the finding or challenge of paternity/maternity, disputes regarding statutory maintenance obligations and disputes relating to the care and upbringing of children;
  • disputes arising out of copyright, the protection or use of inventions and marks of distinctiveness or to the right to use a firm name;
  • disputes relating to competition issues;
  • commercial disputes; and
  • disputes arising from bankruptcy proceedings.

In other matters, subject-matter jurisdiction is vested in the local courts, if not provided otherwise by a statute.

2.3.6 The District Court in Ljubljana has exclusive competence for disputes relating to intellectual property.

2.3.7 Either a single judge or the panel may decide on an application for an interim measure depending upon the subject matter of the dispute. In civil proceedings before local and district courts the cases are generally heard by a single judge. The proceedings before higher courts and the Supreme Court are conducted by a panel. The panel consists of three to five (or exceptionally seven) judges.

2.3.8 In administrative disputes, the administrative court has the power to issue interim measures at the request of the plaintiff. The court may (i) stay the execution of the administrative act and/or (ii) temporarily regulate the situation regarding the legal relation in question until the final decision in the administrative dispute.

2.4 Choice of venue if more than one court has jurisdiction

2.4.1 As explained above, the ability to “forum shop” is limited and so it is not possible for parties to choose a less experienced local court to decide on an application for an interim measure in a commercial or intellectual property dispute.

2.4.2 Should an application for an interim measure be filed with a non-competent court, the application will be transferred to the competent court. However, this will take additional time and, if the respondent wasn’t already aware, put the respondent on notice of the application.

3. Types of interim measures and their criteria

3.1 Two main types of interim measures

3.1.1 The Enforcement Act distinguishes between interim measures to secure monetary claims and those to secure non-monetary claims. Interim measures to secure monetary claims may only be of a preventative nature, usually imposing some prohibition upon the respondent and/or its property. Interim measures to secure non-monetary claims can be preventative or regulatory (as outlined below).

3.1.2 These types of interim measures (preventative and regulatory) are not explicitly defined in Slovenian legislation. However, the distinction is important. The main characteristics of these interim measures are as follows:

  • Preventative measures 20 To secure e.g. a monetary claim, a plaintiff may request that the court issue e.g. an interim measure prohibiting the respondent from transferring, selling or encumbering its immovable property. are used to secure the future enforcement of a claim by preserving the status quo until the dispute in the main proceedings is concluded.
  • Regulatory measures are used to regulate temporarily the disputed legal relationship until the final court decision is rendered. They are not generally intended to protect the future enforcement of a claim, but rather to prevent the use of force or damage which is extremely difficult to repair and due to which a subsequent judicial protection would become meaningless. Regulatory measures may therefore be used to secure claims against property as well as constitutive claims (i.e. claims intended to establish, alter or cease a right or legal relationship) 21 In the event of a constitutive claim such as an action on annulment of a sales contract, a plaintiff may request that the court issue e.g. a regulatory interim measure prohibiting the defendant from alienating or disposing of real estate which is the subject of the contested contract. or declaratory claims (i.e. claims intended to declare the existence of a right or legal relationship) 22 An example of a declaratory claim is a claim requesting that the court declares the existence of the right of way. In order to secure such claim the plaintiff could ask the court to issue a regulatory interim measure by which the court would impose upon the defendant a requirement to remove the fence and allow the exercising of the claimed easement and to prohibit the defendant from any interference with the claimed easement. .
  • Regulatory measures are based on Slovenian Constitutional Court case law 23 Decision of the Slovenian Constitutional Court No Up-275/97 of 16 July 1998. . This stresses the importance of measuring the damage to the applicant and considering whether it is possible to reinstate the previous relationship existing between the parties in the event the applicant’s claim is rejected in the main proceedings. The granting of regulatory measures is limited to exceptional cases 24 Decision of the Slovenian Supreme Court No II Ips 105/2008 of 26 June 2008. .

3.2 Preliminary injunctions

3.2.1 The Enforcement Act also regulates preliminary injunctions. The court can grant a preliminary injunction on the basis of a decision of a domestic court or another authorised body ordering the payment of a monetary claim which has not yet become enforceable 25 A court decision is enforceable if it became final and the deadline for the voluntary performance of the obligation has expired. . The applicant must demonstrate credibly that without the injunction, the enforcement of the claim would be rendered impossible or considerably impeded.

3.2.2 The court can also grant a preliminary injunction pursuant to any settlement which orders the payment of a claim not yet fallen due, if the settlement is concluded before a domestic court, other authorised body, or before a notary in the form of an enforceable notarial deed.

3.2.3 The main distinction between preliminary injunctions and interim measures is that preliminary injunctions are only granted: (i) to secure a monetary claim; (ii) if the applicant has an authoritative decision which is not yet enforceable; and (iii) where there is a risk that without the injunction, the court order or settlement reached will become impossible or considerably more difficult to enforce.

3.2.4 There are a number of prescribed types of preliminary injunction which may be requested in parallel, specifically:

  • seizure of movable property;
  • attachment of a monetary claim or of a claim for the delivery-up of goods;
  • attachment of other property or material rights;
  • attachment of a certain sum of money on a respondent’s bank account;
  • attachment of a partner’s share of a company; and
  • prenotation of a lien upon the respondent’s immovable property or its right in immovable property entered in the land register. This means that an advance notice of lien will be entered into the land register at the place where the respondent’s right is already entered on the register.

Upon request of an applicant the court may grant two or more types of preliminary injunction, if this proves to be necessary.

3.3 Interim measures to secure monetary claims

3.3.1 The Enforcement Act sets out the conditions that must be met before an interim measure will be issued by the court.
The conditions for interim measures to secure monetary claims

3.3.2 The court shall grant an interim measure to secure a monetary claim if the applicant can demonstrate credibly that a claim against the respondent exists or is about to arise.

3.3.3 Unless the applicant can demonstrate credibly that the measure for which he is applying will not result in any considerable damage to the respondent, he must also demonstrate credibly that there is a risk that the enforcement of its claim is likely to be rendered impossible or be considerably impeded due to the alienation, concealment or another sort of disposal of property by the respondent. There is no definition of the legal qualification of “no considerable damage”. The prevailing case law takes the view that any intervention in the respondent’s property which causes damage or prejudice to him shall be judged with consideration given to the proposed measure and the circumstances of the individual case. The burden of proof as to whether the application would cause “considerable damage” to the respondent lies with the applicant.

3.3.4 The risk of enforcement being rendered impossible or considerably impeded is deemed to exist where claims are to be enforced abroad, except where enforcement will take place in an EU Member State 26 Enforcement Act, art 270(4). .
The existence of a substantive claim

3.3.5 The applicant must demonstrate that he has an underlying claim against the respondent. The standard of proof is that the claim must be credible. The claim is deemed credible if there are more arguments in favour of the claim than against it.
The risk of enforcement being rendered impossible or considerably impeded

3.3.6 Around 80% of applications for interim measures are rejected as the applicant has not adequately substantiated the risk of enforcement being rendered impossible or considerably impeded 27 M Šipec et al, “Začasne odredbe v civilnih sodnih postopkih, postopkih pred delovnimi in socialnimi sodišči, upravnimi sodišči, ustavnim sodiščem ter v upravnem postopku”, GV Založba, 2001, p 37. . The applicant has to show there is both an objective risk (e.g. the mere objective fact that the respondent is overindebted) and a subjective risk (i.e. that particular respondent’s actions indicate that the enforcement of the claim is likely to be rendered impossible or considerably impeded).

3.3.7 The respondent’s actions have to:

  • be extraordinary;
  • be a deviation from its regular course of business; and
  • prevent the respondent from fulfilling its obligations in future, i.e. as well as existing at the time of the application, the applicant must also show that the risk will exist when the claim is enforced.
Types of interim measures to secure monetary claims

3.3.8 In order to secure a monetary claim, the court may issue any interim measure required to achieve the required protection. Such interim measures include:

  • prohibiting the respondent from disposing of and taking custody of the respondent’s movable property;
  • prohibiting the respondent from alienating or encumbering its immovable property or its rights in immovable property entered in the land register and ordering the entry of such prohibition onto the land register;
  • prohibiting the respondent’s debtor from settling its debts or delivering goods to the respondent and prohibiting the respondent from receiving property or enforcing a claim against its debtor; and/or
  • prohibiting a bank from paying an amount of money from the respondent’s account to the respondent or to any other person.

3.3.9 The applicant does not acquire a lien upon the secured property on the grant of an interim measure. This is important to note in the event an insolvency procedure is initiated against the respondent.

3.3.10 A prohibition on disposing of movable property is entered into the register of non-possessory liens and seized movable property, if such register is held for the movable property in question. An entry onto the register is made by the competent authority at the request of the court (i.e. the court submits the granted interim measure prohibiting the disposal of movable property to the competent authority by itself, or through an enforcement officer).

3.4 Interim measures to secure non-monetary claims

3.4.1 Interim measures to secure non-monetary claims are regulated in a relatively heterogeneous way. Special regulations apply to interim measures granted in matrimonial and parental disputes, disputes regarding the disturbance of possession, non-litigious proceedings and disputes arising out of copyright and intellectual property rights.

The conditions for interim measures to secure non-monetary claims

3.4.2 Similarly to the conditions described in paragraph 3.3.3 above, the court will grant interim measures to secure non-money claims if the applicant demonstrates credibly that the claim against the respondent exists or is about to arise.

3.4.3 In addition, the applicant must demonstrate credibly one of the following circumstances:

  • That there is a risk that the enforcement of the applicant’s claim is likely to be rendered impossible or considerably impeded if the interim measures sought are not granted, unless the applicant can credibly demonstrate that the measure for which he is applying will not result in any considerable damage to the respondent.
  • That the measure is necessary to prevent the use of force or damage 28 As a demonstration of damage which is difficult to repair, the following examples may be used: e.g. when the applicant has no place to live and meet its basic vital needs; when a natural person cannot access its home and personal effects; when a legal entity cannot access its business documents, seal and/or is prevented from conducting its business activity; or in the event that the bankruptcy proceedings are proposed or threatened against the applicant. The applications of interim measures due to threatening use of force are relatively rare, therefore the case law on this legal standard is also meagre. Threatening use of force was recognised e.g. when a defendant has removed boundary stones and threatened to shoot anyone who would set foot on the disputed real estate; or following police intervention he behaved violently and aggressively and stepped out of its vehicle with an axe. which would be extremely difficult to repair. The applicant has to demonstrate that the future use of force is likely or that damage is likely to occur. Previous use of force or damage to the subject of the claim is not considered to be a relevant factor. An applicant may face difficulty demonstrating the risk that any damage would be extremely difficult to repair – even if future damage is likely, such damage may not be irreparable.
  • That if the interim measure applied for proves to be unfounded, the respondent will not suffer consequences more adverse than those the applicant will suffer if the interim measure is not granted. In these cases the court will balance the parties’ interests. The applicant’s request will be denied if it is possible that the interim measure would inflict more harm on the respondent than the harm to the applicant if the measure is denied.

3.4.4 As noted above, the risk of enforcement being rendered impossible or impeded is deemed to exist where claims are to be enforced abroad except where enforcement will take place in an EU Member State.

The existence of a substantive claim

3.4.5 The applicant has to show that its substantive claim is credible, on the same basis as set out in paragraph 3.3.5 above.

Types of interim measures to secure non-monetary claims

3.4.6 In order to secure a non-monetary claim, the court may issue any interim measure required to achieve the intended protection. Such interim measures include:

  • prohibiting the respondent from disposing of and taking custody of the respondent’s movable property;
  • prohibiting the respondent from alienating or encumbering its immovable property or its rights in immovable property entered in the land register and the entry of such prohibition onto the land register;
  • prohibiting the respondent from committing anything that could cause damage to the applicant and prohibiting the respondent from changing the state of the claimed property and imposing a fine on the respondent in the event of non-compliance with the prohibition;
  • prohibiting the respondent’s debtor from delivering up the claimed property; and/or
  • paying compensation to an employee pending resolution of a dispute on the unlawfulness of a decision to terminate the employee’s employment contract, if this is necessary for the sustenance of the employee or of those persons he is required to maintain under Slovenian law.

3.4.7 The prohibition on disposing of movable property is entered into the register of non-possessory liens and seized movable property, if such register is held for the movable property in question. An entry onto the register is made by the competent authority at the request of the court (i.e. the court submits the granted interim measure prohibiting the disposal of movable property to the competent authority by itself or through an enforcement officer).

3.4.8 In respect of interim measures relating to non-monetary claims, if the respondent does not comply with the court’s order to refrain from doing anything that is capable of causing the applicant harm or from changing the state of property which is the subject of a claim, the court may impose a fine by virtue of its office on the basis of the order granting the interim measure. The fine that will be imposed in the event that the respondent does not comply with the interim measure is determined at the same time the interim measure is granted. The fine for a natural person may be up to EUR 10,000 and for a legal person and a sole entrepreneur up to EUR 500,000. A repeated breach of a court order can result in further fines being imposed by the court.

3.4.9 Separately, a court may, as part of its general powers, also impose a fine for a failure to comply with an order for an interim measure (whether monetary or non-monetary) even if the fine is not pre-determined in the order itself. This type of fine will amount to up to EUR 10,000 and up to EUR 100,000 for a legal person and a sole entrepreneur. The exact level of the fine will be set out in a separate cost order which imposes a deadline by which it must be paid, or else the respondent will face enforcement procedures in respect of the sum owed.

Regime regarding interim measures in connection with copyright disputes

3.4.10 Interim measures in connection with copyright disputes are governed by the Copyright and Related Rights Act (CRRA) 29 Copyright and Related Rights Act, art 170. . The CRRA states that the court shall order interim measures to secure non-monetary claims under the CRRA if the holder of the copyright can show probable grounds that it is the holder of the copyright and that its right has been infringed or that there is a real risk that its right will be infringed. The process of issuing the interim measure is undertaken on an urgent basis 30 Copyright and Related Rights Act, art 170(7). .

3.4.11 The copyright holder also has to show that it has probable grounds for believing either that:

  • there is a risk that enforcement of a claim will be impossible or considerably impeded if the interim measure is not granted;
  • an interim measure is necessary to avoid damage which is difficult to repair 31 An example of damage difficult to repair is e.g. posting a photograph on the internet, where the internet site is publicly available and popular - the unjustified viewing of such photography represents damage to its author and cannot be repaired, since viewing is irreversible. ; or
  • the interim measure will not have more detrimental consequences for the respondent (being the alleged infringer) than the harm that would be caused to the applicant if the interim measure were not granted.

3.4.12 If the applicant seeks an ex parte injunction 32 Please see paragraph 4 below. , in addition to the above it must show probable grounds for believing that any delay in the interim measure being granted will result in damage which would be difficult to repair 33 Please see example above at footnote 31. . The respondent must be given notice of the adopted measure after the enforcement of the interim measure at the latest.

3.4.13 If the applicant can demonstrate credibly that the interim measure will not result in any considerable damage to the respondent, he does not have to show there is a risk that enforcement in the main claim is likely to be rendered impossible or considerably impeded if the interim measure is not granted.

3.4.14 The risk of enforcement being rendered impossible or considerably impeded is deemed to exist where claims are to be enforced abroad, except where enforcement will take place in an EU Member State.

Types of interim measures relating to copyright disputes

3.4.15 In order to protect the applicant’s claims under the CRRA, the court may issue any interim measure required to achieve the intended protection. In particular, it can issue an order:

  • prohibiting the respondent from continuing to infringe copyright or taking action which would infringe copyright; and/or
  • seize, exclude from circulation and take into custody the objects of the alleged infringement and/or the means of infringement that are intended or used exclusively or principally for infringement.
Regime regarding interim measures in connection with industrial property rights

3.4.16 The special regulation regarding interim measures sought in connection with industrial property rights is governed by the Industrial Property Act and is similar to the CRRA regarding interim measures in connection with copyright disputes (see above).

4. Procedural and evidential requirements for interim measures

4.1 Procedural requirements

4.1.1 The procedure for issuing interim measures is primarily governed by the Enforcement Act. If certain procedural questions are not regulated in the section on interim measures, the general rules on the enforcement of claims apply by analogy 34 Enforcement Act, art 239. . For the procedural questions not specifically regulated by the Enforcement Act, the general rules of civil procedure under CPA apply by analogy 35 Enforcement Act, art 15. .

Form of the application

4.1.2 An application for an interim measure has to follow the general rules applicable to legal submissions in court proceedings, as defined in the CPA. The provisions on electronic applications are not clear and so not commonly used in practice, therefore usually a written application is filed.

Content of the application

4.1.3 The application has to be intelligible and shall contain all matters necessary for proceeding with the application. It has to contain information about the court and the parties; an indication of the claim for which the protection is sought; a prayer for interim relief including the applicant’s proposal for which measure should be imposed, how it should be carried out and for how long the interim measure is to continue; legal submissions; and an explanation of the grounds for the requested interim measure. The prayer also usually requests the imposition of a fine on the respondent in the event of its non-compliance with the interim measure. The court is generally limited by the content of the prayer and may not decide on different or wider interim relief. An exception to this rule is found in matrimonial and parental disputes where the court may issue an interim measure at its own motion (ex officio).

Enclosures to the request

4.1.4 The request has to be substantiated with adequate evidence. In accordance with the principle of urgency and speed the Enforcement Act does not require the application for an interim measure to be served on the respondent prior to the court’s decision. The court’s decision on the application is therefore usually provided within a short period of time and without the respondent’s reply to the application. Consequently, the evidence has to be attached and/or adduced in the application itself, since the court is bound by the arguments and evidence submitted by the applicant when assessing whether the conditions for the interim measures are met. If the applicant does not give sufficient arguments for the requested interim measure, the application will be rejected. Inadequate arguments cannot be replaced by a proposal that the parties be heard in proceedings.

4.2 Evidential requirements

4.2.1 The court must assess the claim against a standard of credibility. The claim is deemed credible if there are more arguments in favour of the claim than against it. The applicant for an interim measure to secure a monetary claim is also required to show that there is a credible reason to conclude that the respondent is likely to take action which will hinder or considerably impede the applicant’s future enforcement of the claim.

4.2.2 The general rules of CPA on the submission of evidence apply. Evidence in support of the application for an interim measure may be presented to the court in any form. It is the court’s decision which evidence will be taken into account. The court usually does not hear oral witness evidence (generally there is no hearing before issuing the interim injunction). Instead the court makes an assessment as to whether the parties’ submissions are credible or not by examining only the documentary evidence that is submitted.
Hearing of evidence

4.2.3 In enforcement and security proceedings the court in principle makes its decision based only on the pleadings and writings. The court may conduct a hearing if it deems it expedient. When assessing the credibility of the application the court is free to decide either ex parte or inter partes and with or without a hearing (i.e. by examining just the documentary evidence). The speed of the proceedings largely depends on the importance of the matter for the parties and whether the respondent should be given the opportunity to respond to the application before the court makes its order. As interim measures are usually required quickly, it is rare that the court would allow more than one exchange of written submissions between the parties.

4.2.4 Usually, delaying the granting of an interim measure would defeat the purpose of the application. Since the Enforcement Act does not require the application for an interim measure to be served on the respondent prior to the court’s decision, the court may decide the application without hearing evidence from the respondent. In this case, the application would be served on the respondent with the court’s decision. Should the court decide that there is no urgency justifying the granting of an interim measure ex parte, the application can be sent to the respondent and the respondent can be invited to file a response. The court will then decide on the interim measure, either granting the interim measure or rejecting it.

4.3 Procedure regarding the preservation of evidence

4.3.1 The court can make orders regarding the preservation of evidence if the production of specific evidence is expected not to be possible, or to be hindered, at a later stage. The court can order the evidence to be produced at an earlier stage. An application to secure evidence can be filed during or before proceedings have been commenced or even after the court decision has become binding, if this is necessary for extraordinary judicial review of the proceedings.

4.3.2 The application must set out the facts to be proved, the evidence which will need to be produced and the reasons why the production of evidence at a later stage will not be possible or will be considerably impeded. The application must also contain the opponent's details (unless the circumstances show the opponent is not known) 36 The opponent could be unknown in compensation claims – e.g. if a dog bit a person, this person would be entitled to claim damages from the dog’s owner. However, if the owner is not present at the incident, finding the owner would take some time and the applicant would not know who the opponent is when applying for the preservation of evidence before filing a claim. .

4.3.3 The pleading containing a motion to preserve evidence shall be served on the opponent if the latter is known. When required urgently, the court may decide upon the motion without hearing the opponent. If an application regarding the preservation of evidence is granted, the court will fix an evidentiary hearing, confirm the facts to be proved and evidence to be produced, and, if necessary, appoint experts 37 The court shall examine an expert witness when expert knowledge is required for purposes of determination or clarification of a certain fact. . If the application is not served on the respondent before the court’s decision, it must be served on him with the order granting the preservation of evidence.

5.1 Response

5.1.1 As noted above, in accordance with the principle of urgency and speed the Enforcement Act does not require the application for an interim measure to be served on the respondent prior to the court’s decision. The court’s decision on the application is therefore usually provided within a short period of time and without the respondent’s reply to the application. The respondent's right to be heard is assured by his right to file an objection against the ex parte decision. However, the court may decide to serve the request for an interim measure on the respondent. The Enforcement Act does not stipulate a time limit for the respondent’s answer – such deadline is usually set by the court. However, if the respondent does not file a response in time, the court may decide on the basis of the statements made in the applicant’s request.

5.2 Objection

If the court grants the applicant’s request (ex parte or after hearing the respondent) and issues the requested interim measure, the respondent may file an objection with the court issuing the decision, within eight days of the day the decision of the court is served. The objection must contain a statement of reasons and does not suspend enforcement of the court’s decision. The court shall then serve a copy of the timely, complete and admissible objection on the applicant, who can respond to the objection within eight days.
If the applicant fails to submit its response to the respondent’s objection within eight days, the court shall deem the facts alleged by the respondent to be true. If the applicant contests the facts alleged in the objection, the court may conduct a hearing, if it deems it expedient. Alternatively it may issue a decision considering only the written submissions.
The objection shall be decided upon by the court of first instance, i.e. the court issuing the initial decision on the interim measure. The court may uphold the objection, reject it or dismiss it as belated, incomplete or inadmissible. In enforcement and security proceedings the court (in principle) takes action and decides very quickly.

5.3 Security

5.3.1 Upon lodging an application for an interim measure, or at a later date, the applicant may confirm that it is willing to withdraw the measure if the respondent pays a certain amount of money as security for the claim. The respondent can also request that it pay security in exchange for the lifting of the interim measure. Should the respondent make such a payment, the court will discontinue the interim proceedings and annul any acts which have already been performed in the interim (e.g. the issued interim measure).

5.3.2 If the applicant cannot meet the required evidentiary standard, he can still obtain an order for an interim measure from the court if it is willing to pay an amount ordered by the court upon request as security for the damage that may be suffered by the respondent as a consequence of the interim measure being granted.

5.3.3 The respondent can request that the court only issues an interim measure on the condition that the applicant deposits security, even if the applicant can meet the required evidentiary standard.

5.3.4 The security shall be paid into the account of the court and proof of payment submitted to the court.

5.4 Damages for unjustified interim measures

5.4.1 The respondent has the right to demand indemnification from the applicant for damage suffered as a consequence of an interim measure which the applicant applied for without having reasonable grounds, or which he has subsequently failed to justify.

5.4.2 The applicant is deemed to have justified the interim measure if he brings an action or institutes other proceedings in due time. The existing case law on the question of the applicant’s damage liability, in the event that the applicant is not successful in the main proceedings, is not consistent. However, recent case law of the Slovenian Supreme court took the point of view that the applicant shall be liable for the damage caused by an interim measure if it is not successful in the main proceedings, regardless of fault 38 Judgment of the Slovenian Supreme Court No III Ips 173/2006 of 31 July 2008 and Judgment of the Slovenian Supreme Court No II Ips 58/2013 of 19 February 2015. .

6. Timing of interim measures

6.1 Similarities and differences when filing a request before or after the case on the substantive matter is pending

6.1.1 An interim measure may be granted prior to, during or after the end of court or administrative proceedings, and until execution can be carried out. The applicant has to substantiate its application following the same principles as outlined in previous sections.

6.1.2 If an interim measure is granted before an action is commenced, or if it was granted to protect a claimant’s right to claim, the court instructs the applicant to commence proceedings to justify the interim measure. The court also sets a deadline by which the proceedings are to be commenced.

6.2 Duration of an interim measure procedure

6.2.1 The court will specify the period of time for which the interim measure is to continue. The duration of the interim measure depends upon the applicant’s request. If the duration of the interim measure is not specified, it shall, in the event of success of the applicant in the main proceedings, stay in force until the court order in the main proceedings is enforced, unless there is another reason for its termination 39 Decision of the High Court No III Cp 972/2001 of 20 June 2001. . The court may prolong the validity of an interim measure upon application by the applicant.

6.2.2 If the applicant has failed to bring an action within the timeframe specified by the court or if the period of validity of the interim measure has expired, the court discontinues the proceedings for the interim measure and annuls all acts that have already been performed (e.g. the issued interim measure).

6.2.3 At the respondent’s request, the court may also discontinue the interim proceedings and annul all already-performed acts if:

  • since the time of the issuing of the interim measure, the circumstances have changed so that the interim measure is no longer necessary;
  • the respondent deposits with the court the amount necessary to secure the claim, together with interest and the costs of the proceedings;
  • the respondent demonstrates that at the time of the issuing of the interim measure the claim had already been paid or appropriately secured; or
  • it is finally determined that the claim has never come into existence or that it has ceased.

7. Costs

7.1 Court costs and compensation for professional representation

7.1.1 The costs of court proceedings (court costs) include all expenses incurred during or as a consequence of the litigation and include the attorney’s fees and the fees of other persons (e.g. expert witnesses and enforcement officers) as regulated under the CPA. In interim measure proceedings, the applicant must (apart from the attorney’s fees) take into account court fees, costs of any translation of evidence, the costs of experts and enforcement officers’ fees. In addition, an applicant must take into account the actual costs (i.e. not just tariff-based attorney’s fees, see paragraph 7.1.3 below) of its own representation and the fact that usually a number of the required costs need to be paid in advance.

7.1.2 Court costs are calculated based on various official tariffs. Court fees, for example, are set out in the special tariff annexed to the Court Fees Act 40 Zakon o sodnih taksah (valid as of 1 October 2008 as amended). . Court fees should be paid in advance before each stage of the litigation procedure (e.g. written submissions, appeal proceedings, enforcement proceedings etc.). Court fees are determined individually for each type of proceedings (e.g. civil proceedings, matrimonial proceedings, enforcement proceedings, bankruptcy proceedings etc.) and are either determined to be a fixed cost or to fall within a range depending upon the estimated value of the dispute. Court fees in interim measures proceedings are normally determined as fixed amount from €10 to €74.

7.1.3 As with the court fees, attorney’s fees are determined in the Attorney Tariff 41 Odvetniška tarifa (valid as of 10 January 2015 as amended). The Attorney Tariff was adopted based on Article 19 of the Attorneys Act by the Bar Association of Slovenia subject to prior consent of the Minister for Justice. either as fixed costs or as a percentage of the value of the claim. Attorney compensation includes compensation for professional representation (attorney’s fees) and, to a certain extent, reimbursement of necessary expenses, which are usually the predominant costs in the proceedings 42 However, if substantial translation or involvement of experts is required, these costs may be significant too. . The Attorney Tariff 43 Odvetniška tarifa (valid as of 10 January 2015 as amended). limits the fees of professional representation and reimbursement of expenses that can be awarded by courts when considering the costs to be reimbursed by the losing party. However, in accordance with the Attorneys Act 44 Zakon o odvetništvu (valid as of 24 April 1993 as amended). and Attorney Tariff the attorneys may agree with their clients in writing on fees higher than tariff-based attorney’s fees 45 Attorneys Act, art 17(2), and Attorney Tariff, art 15. . Such higher fees will not be taken into account by the court when considering the costs to be recognised as the costs of the civil proceedings that may be recovered from the losing party.

7.2 Advance on costs and security for party compensation

7.2.1 Court fees must always be paid in advance, meaning that the court will only commence proceedings if the applicant has paid the required court fee. A court may refuse to consider evidence if the necessary amount relating to the evidence (e.g. costs for the expert witness) is not paid in time.

7.2.2 The court has discretion to require the applicant to pay security for the costs of enforcement in an amount prescribed by the court, based on the value of the claim and the personal and financial circumstances of the applicant.

7.2.3 Normally each party is required to pay in advance any costs that will be incurred as a result of the application to the court. However, where the application relates to the securing of evidence, all the costs of the proceedings shall be covered by the applicant. This means the applicant is required to refund the costs of the respondent or its attorney. These costs may be claimed back later if the applicant is successful in the main proceedings.

7.3 Decision on costs and cost shifting

7.3.1 The court may decide on costs either when deciding on the interim application or later in the final judgment.

7.3.2 The principle of success in the proceedings applies to both court costs and party compensation. This means that if an applicant’s request for an interim measure is fully approved, the respondent (the losing party) shall refund the applicant’s costs. When deciding which costs are to be refunded, the court only takes into account expenses which were reasonably incurred. Irrespective of the outcome of the interim measure application, a party is required to refund the opposing party for costs which are incurred as a result of default, or due to an incident occurring to one of the parties 46 Such incident is e.g. failure to attend a hearing, or to meet a relevant deadline on justified grounds and any related application for the reinstatement of a case, or a sudden illness of a party to the proceedings, its legal representative or counsel and any related adjournment of a hearing. .

8. Remedies against the decision on interim measures

8.1 Modification and revocation

8.1.1 An applicant has limited opportunities to modify or revoke its application once it has been submitted to the court, since the court’s decision on the application usually follows within a very short period of time from the filing of the application. A request to modify or revoke the application must be filed with the court before which the original application for an interim measure was filed.

8.1.2 The court can also request that the applicant correct or supplement its application, where the application is unintelligible or does not contain all matters necessary for proceeding, but this is rare.

8.1.3 Due to the general principle of ne bis in idem 47 I.e. that no legal action can be instituted twice for the same cause of action. , if an application has already been denied by the court, an applicant cannot request an interim measure based on identical facts and law pursuant to the same cause of action 48 Decision of the High Court of Lubljana No I Cpg 340/99 of 9 April 1999 and Decision of the High Court of Ljubljana No I Cpg 306/99 of 19 March 1999. . The courts have ruled that an interim application which is the same as an application previously rejected except for the amount or type of proposed security or in relation to new factual arguments will not be considered by the court 49 M Šipec et al, p 262 and Decision of the High Court of Lubljana No I Cpg 332/2000 of 4 April 2000. . However, if the new factual arguments were not known at the time of the decision on the first application, such new application will be admissible, even if the proposed security is the same 50 Decision of the High Court of Lubljana No I Cp 322/2000 of 1 March 2000. .

8.2 Appellate remedies

The Slovenian appellate system

8.2.1 Slovenia has four higher courts of appellate jurisdiction in Celje, Koper, Ljubljana and Maribor, which mainly hear appeals against decisions of the local and district courts in their territories. These second instance courts may decide on appeals on factual matters and the proper application of law.

Objection to the granting of interim measures

8.2.2 As set out above in paragraph 5.2, the respondent (or any other third person who is affected by the interim measure) may object to the issuing of an interim measure by filing an objection to the court’s decision pursuant to the procedure specified in the CPA and the Enforcement Act.

Appealing interim measures

8.2.3 Both the applicant (in the event the application for an interim measure was (partly) rejected) and the respondent (in the event its objection was (partly) rejected) may bring an appeal against a decision of a first instance court. The appeal does not suspend the execution of the court’s decision. For the appeal against all interim measures the procedure set out in the CPA applies. The CPA also applies mutatis mutandis for appeals related to interim measure applications brought pursuant to specific acts such as the Enforcement Act, Copyright and Related Rights Act and

Industrial Property Act etc. 51 M Šipec et al, p 258.

8.2.4 The appeal must be filed in writing in a sufficient number of copies for the court and the opposing party 52 CPA, art 342. , eight days from the day following service of the judgment. The decision of the first instance court may only be challenged on grounds of severe violation of civil procedure, erroneous or incomplete determination of facts or violation of substantive law. Contrary to the appellate procedure against a court judgment, the procedure for appealing an interim measure decision, which is a court order, is less complex. With court orders, courts usually decide on procedural questions (i.e. whether to stay the proceedings or regarding the scheduling of a hearing) in accordance with the principle of economy and efficiency, so the opposite party is not notified about the appeal against a court order, it may not submit a response and no hearing takes place. However, the Enforcement Act provides that an appeal against the court order issued in security proceedings and regarding any objection should be served on the opposing party, which in these circumstances has the right to answer to the appeal 53 Enforcement Act, art 9(4). .

8.2.5 The Enforcement Act provides that an appeal, as well as any objection, shall not suspend the execution of the court order imposing the interim measure 54 Enforcement Act, art 9(6). . This provision has resulted in discussion among legal theorists and practitioners on the effect of the right to appeal and whether an appeal being commenced should result in the suspension of enforcement of the interim measure. Taking into account the purpose of interim measures, it can be argued that the decision upholding an objection and repealing the granted interim measure should not suspend the effects of the issued interim injunction until the decision on the objection becomes final (i.e. until it is decided on the appeal against such decision) 55 Decision of the High Court of Ljubljana No III Cp 425/2007 of 1 February 2007. . In other words, an appeal should only suspend the decision of the court where the respondent’s objection has been upheld and the granted interim measure has been revoked.

Extraordinary judicial review of interim measures

8.2.6 An extraordinary judicial review of the final decision of the second instance courts can be carried out by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia (except in a reopening of proceedings which has to be filed with the court which rendered the decision in the first instance). However, no appeal to the Supreme Court or reopening of proceedings is possible for interim measure decisions.

9. Enforcement of an interim measure

9.1 Enforcement of interim measures issued by national courts

9.1.1 The court’s decision on interim measures is directly enforceable. In the event the respondent does not comply, fines may be imposed as explained in paragraphs 3.4.8-3.4.9 above.

9.2 Enforcement of interim measures issued by foreign courts

9.2.1 If an interim measure is ordered in any EU Member State which is bound by the Brussels I Regulation, enforcement can be carried out as per the provisions of this Regulation.

9.2.2 Under the Brussels I Regulation free circulation of judgments is established 56 For the purposes of the Brussels I Regulation a judgment means any judgment given by a court or tribunal of a Member State, whatever the judgment may be called, including a decree, order, decision or writ of execution, as well as a decision on the determination of costs or expenses by an officer of the court (Brussels I Regulation, art 2(1)(a)). . A judgment given in a Member State shall be recognised in the other Member States without any special procedure being required 57 Brussels I Regulation, art 36(1). and, if enforceable in that Member State, a judgment shall be enforceable in the other Member States without any declaration of enforceability being required 58 Brussels I Regulation, art 39. . For the purpose of recognition and enforcement of judgments, this also includes provisional (including protective) measures if such measures were ordered by a court which by virtue of the Brussels I Regulation has jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter (i.e. the court with the jurisdiction in the main proceedings). However, free circulation of a provisional measure is possible only if it was adopted in an adversarial procedure or the judgment containing the measure is served on the defendant prior to enforcement 59 (Brussels I Regulation, art 2(a). .

9.2.3 Unless enforcement is contested by the person against whom the enforcement is sought, Member States should enforce interim measures without imposing any additional hurdles for the party seeking enforcement 60 Brussels I Regulation, art 44. . Member States may only refuse the enforcement of an interim measure upon the application of the person against whom the enforcement is sought on the grounds expressly listed in the Brussels I Regulation, after a formal check of the documents supplied 61 Brussels I Regulation, art 46 in connection with art 45 and art 41(2). .

9.2.4 The recognition and enforcement of court decisions from non-EU Member States is governed by the Fourth Chapter of the PILPA. However, as this Act does not cover interim measures, the general view is that enforcement of foreign interim measure orders is not possible. It is thus advisable to file any request for an interim order before the Slovenian courts, if the Slovenian court is competent for the issuing of the interim measure in accordance with territorial jurisdiction as specified in paragraph 2.1.1 above. The fact that the main proceedings are taking place abroad does not prevent the Slovenian courts from issuing protective measures (i.e. interim measures), which may therefore support the main proceedings commenced abroad.

10. Interim measures in international commercial arbitration

10.1 Interim measures by state courts

10.1.1 The CPA does not refer to interim measures in an arbitration context. Nevertheless, in accordance with the Arbitration Act 62 Zakon o arbitraži (valid as of 9 August 2008 as amended). the existence of an arbitration agreement does not prevent the court from granting, at the request of a party before or during arbitral proceedings, an interim measure relating to the subject matter of the arbitration. This applies also in the case of arbitral proceedings abroad 63 Arbitration Act, art 12. .

10.2 Interim measures by arbitral tribunal with seat in Slovenia

10.2.1 The Arbitration Act, consistent with the position in the UNCITRAL Model Law 64 Article 17 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration as amended. , permits an arbitral tribunal to order interim measures. However, to be enforced in Slovenia, the interim measure must be recognized by the state court under a special procedure set out in the Article 43 of the Arbitration Act.

10.2.2 Article 43 of the Arbitration Act provides that the court which has jurisdiction under the rules of enforcement and insurance (i.e. the Enforcement Act) will, upon the application of the applicant, decide on the execution of an interim measure ordered by a domestic arbitral tribunal. The court shall permit the enforcement of an interim measure ordered by an arbitral tribunal, unless a request for the issuance of the same interim measure has already been made before the court and/or grounds for refusal of declaration of enforceability of a domestic arbitral award 65 In accordance with Article 41 of the Arbitration Act the court shall refuse a request for a declaration of enforceability of a domestic arbitral award if one of the grounds for setting aside an award (i.e. the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration or the award is in conflict with the public policy of the Republic of Slovenia) exists. Any such ground for setting aside shall not be taken into account if, at the time of the request for a declaration of the enforceability of the arbitral award, a request for setting aside the award based on that ground has already been refused by a final and binding court decision. or recognition of a foreign arbitral award 66 In accordance with Article 42 of the Arbitration Act the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral award is governed by the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, done on 10 June 1958 in New York. exist. The court may order the party who is seeking enforcement to provide appropriate security, if this has not been ordered by the arbitral tribunal and the court considers security is necessary to protect the rights of third parties.

10.2.3 The enforcement of an interim measure may be denied if the respondent can show that the applicant was ordered to provide security which has not been provided or if the arbitral tribunal has changed, suspended or revoked the interim measure.

10.3 Interim measures by a Ljubljana Arbitration Centre at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Slovenia

10.3.1 The Ljubljana Arbitration Rules 67 Arbitration Rules of the Ljubljana Arbitration Center at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Slovenia (Arbitražna pravila Stalne arbitraže pri Gospodarski zbornici Slovenije) 2014. regulate the arbitration procedure at the permanent Ljubljana Arbitration Centre at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Slovenia, including in relation to interim measures. In accordance with Article 37 the arbitral tribunal may, at the applicant’s request, grant any interim measure it considers appropriate. However, as set out in paragraph 10.2.1 above, the state court will need to recognise the interim measure in accordance with the procedure presented in paragraph 10.2.2 before it is enforced. Once recognised by the state court, the interim measure will have the same standing as an execution order and may be executed with the help of state enforcement officers.

10.4 Interim measures by arbitral tribunal with seat abroad

10.4.1 The New York Convention 68 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, done on 10 June 1958 in New York. governs the recognition and enforcement of international arbitral awards in Slovenia. Interim orders issued by an arbitral tribunal with its seat abroad (i.e. foreign arbitration) are not enforceable under the convention as they are not final. However, in accordance with the Arbitration Act interim measures issued by a domestic and foreign arbitration are treated equally, therefore interim measures issued by a foreign arbitral tribunal are enforceable too. They must be recognized by the state court prior to their enforcement, in accordance with the same procedure as interim measures issued by a domestic arbitral tribunal 69 Arbitration Act, art 43. . The procedure for recognition is described in paragraph 10.2.2 above.

11. Contacts

CMS Reich-Rohrwig Hainz
Bleiweisova 30
1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia

Luka Fabiani
Maja Pukl