Home / Europe / Slovenia
aerial panoramic view of romantic medieval ljubljana's city center, the capital of slovenia

Slovenia

Europe

Our legal team of 15 has been advising clients in Slovenia since 2008. Our client list includes Slovenian companies with international operations, international companies and multinationals from a wide range of industries. This list includes in particular industrial and manufacturing companies, the finance industry, automotive, telecommunications, tourism and chemical firms. They all share a belief in the great opportunities in this growth market and they all trust in the expert legal advice we give them. Furthermore, players in the private equity arena and international banks are also increasingly relying on our expertise.

Slovenia was the first former Yugoslavian republic to join the EU and adopt the euro as their currency. In the ensuing years, the legal system was completely remodelled and adapted to EU standards and barriers to investment were systematically removed. It came as no surprise then that Slovenia became a destination of choice for investors. We have made it our mission to help our clients with entry into the growing Slovenian market, to work together and successfully implement our projects.

CMS Ljubljana brings several things to the table to make this happen: legal advice in German, English and Slovenian according to international standards, an efficient regional network and, thanks to CMS’s worldwide presence, rapid access to expert knowledge. We provide our clients with full-service legal support in all matters of commercial law and other fields of expertise. We focus on M&A, labour and tax law, banking & financing, construction law and adversarial proceedings. Tailored solutions are increasingly in demand and we have successfully provided these in the areas of public tenders and lifesciences.

Our staff not only has roots in the local culture but they also feel at home in several jurisdictions. This all forms an excellent basis for us to leverage our regional expertise to your benefit and yet still maintain the impartiality which is essential for the successful realisation of international transactions.

Are you also looking for legal support in the Slovenian market? Get in touch with us. Contact us by email or telephone, we're looking forward to speaking to you.

Read more Read less

Location

  • experts for
  • Jurisdictions
Go to International Desks India Desk German Desk CEE German Desk

Feed

18/03/2024
Emerging Europe’s Energy Transition
CEE Legal Matters | 12 March 2024
15/03/2024
CMS Expert Guide on Real Estate Data Centre Consenting
Welcome to CMS’ online guide tool for data centre legal consenting considerations. Please use the tool to compare legal consenting considerations for data centre development and investment across key...
Comparable
15/03/2024
CMS Expert Guide to real estate finance law
A clear understanding of the security available is fundamental for lenders and borrowers. To assist, CMS has launched an interactive International Guide to Real Estate Finance. This provides a clear and...
13/03/2024
Tax: A CEE Level of Intricacy
CEE Legal Matters | 12 March 2024
13/03/2024
General purpose AI models and measures in support of innovation
General purpose AI models (Currently Title VIIIA, Art. 52a-52e)The AI Act is founded on a risk based approach. This regulation, intended to be durable, initially wasn’t associated to the characteristics of any particular model or system, but to the risk associated with its intended use. This was the approach when the proposal of the AI Act was drafted and adopted by the European Commission on 22 April, 2021, when the proposal was discussed at the  Council of the European Union on 6 December, 2022. However, after the great global and historical success of generative AI tools in the months following the Commission’s proposal, the idea of regulating AI focusing only on its intended use seemed then insufficient. Then, in the 14 June 2023 draft, the concept of “foundation models” (much broader than generative AI) was introduced with associated regulation. During the negotiations in December 2023, some additional proposals were introduced regarding “very capable foundation models” and “general purpose AI systems built on foundation models and used at scale”. In the final version of the AI Act, there is no reference to “foundation models”, and instead the concept of “general purpose AI models and systems” was adopted. General Purpose AI models (Arts. 52a to 52e) are distinguished from general purpose AI systems (Arts. 28 and 63a). The General Purpose AI systems are based on General Purpose AI models: “when a general purpose AI model is integrated into or forms part of an AI system, this system should be considered a general purpose AI system” if it has the capability to serve a variety of purposes (Recital 60d). And, of course, General Purpose AI models are the result of the operation of AI systems that created them.“General purpose AI model” is defined in Article 3.44b as “an AI model (…) that displays significant generality and is capable to competently perform a wide range of distinct tasks regardless of the way the model is placed on the market and that can be integrated into a variety of downstream systems or applications”. The definition lacks quality (a model is “general purpose” if it “displays gen­er­al­ity”1Re­cit­al 60b contributes to clarify the concept saying that “generality” means the use of at least a billion of parameters, when the training of the model uses “a large amount of data using self-supervision at scale”. footnote) and has a remarkable capacity for expansion. Large generative AI models are an example of General Purpose AI models (Recital 60c). The obligations imposed to providers of General Purpose AI models are limited, provided that they don’t have systemic risk. Such obligations include (Art. 52c) (i) to draw up and keep up-to-date technical documentation (as described in Annex IXa) available to the national competent authorities, as well as to providers of AI systems who intend to integrate the General Purpose AI system in their AI systems, and (ii) to take some measures in order to respect EU copyright legislation, namely to put in place a policy to identify reservations of rights and to make publicly available a sufficiently detailed summary about the content used. Furthermore, they should have an authorised representative in the EU (Art. 52ca). The most important obligations are imposed in Article 52d to providers of General Purpose AI models with systemic risk. The definition of AI models with systemic risk is established in Article 52a in too broad and unsatisfactory terms: “high impact capabilities”. Fortunately, there is a presumption in Article 52a.2 that helps: “when the cumulative amount of compute used for its training measured in floating point operations (FLOPs) is greater than 10^25”. The main additional obligations imposed to General Purpose AI models with systemic risks are (i) to perform model evaluation (including adversarial testing), (ii) to assess and mitigate systemic risks at EU level, (iii), to document and report serious incidents and corrective measures, and (iv) to ensure an adequate level of cybersecurity. Finally, an “AI system” is “an AI system which is based on a General Purpose AI model, that has the capacity to serve a variety of purposes” (Art. 3.44e). If General Purpose AI systems can be used directly by deployers for at least one purpose that is classified as high-risk (Art. 57a and Art. 63a), an evaluation of compliance will need to be done.
12/03/2024
Revised European Commission Notice on the definition of the relevant market...
On 8 February 2024, the Commission adopted its revised Notice on the definition of the relevant market for the purposes of Union competition law. The objective of this Notice, which was the subject of...
12/03/2024
After EU Commission's first decision on Carbon Contracts for Difference,...
The European Commission approved the first Carbon Contracts for Difference (CCfD) scheme under the new Guidelines on State aid for climate, environmental protection and energy 2022 (CEEAG).Fol­low­ing the...
12/03/2024
Prohibited AI practices and high-risk AI systems
Prohibited Artificial Intelligence practices (Currently Title II, Art. 5) 1. Introduction to the unacceptable risk category Article 5 categorises certain AI technologies as posing an “unacceptable risk” (Unacceptable Risk). Unlike other risk categories outlined in the AI Act, the use of AI technologies that fall within this category is strictly prohibited ("Prohibited AI Systems"). It is therefore necessary to distinguish between:those technologies that are clearly prohibited; andthose AI applications that are not clearly prohibited but may involve similar risks. The most challenging problem in practice is to ensure that activities, which are not prohibited, do not become Unacceptable Risk activities and therefore prohibited. 2. Unacceptable Risk: Prohibited AI practices Article 5 explicitly bans harmful AI practices: The first prohibition under Article 5 addresses systems that manipulate individuals or exploit their vulnerabilities, leading to physical or psychological harm. Accordingly, it would be prohibited to place on the market, put into services or use in the EU:AI systems designed to deceive, coerce or influence human behaviour in harmful ways; andAI tools that prey on an individual’s weaknesses, exacerbating their vulnerabilities. The second prohibition covers AI systems that exploit these vulnerabilities, even if harm is not immediate. Examples include:AI tools that compromise user privacy by collecting sensitive data without consent; andAI algorithms that perpetuate bias or discrimination against certain groups. The third prohibition focuses on the use of AI for social scoring. Social scoring systems assign scores to individuals based on their behaviour, affecting access to services, employment or other opportunities. Prohibited practices in­clude:AI-driv­en scoring mechanisms that lack transparency, fairness or accountability; andSystems that discriminate based on protected characteristics (e.g. race, gender, religion). The fourth prohibition covers biometric real-time identification in publicly accessible spaces for law enforcement purposes. This includes:AI systems that identify individuals without their knowledge or consent; andContinuous monitoring of people’s movements using biometric data. 3. Clearly listed: Best practices and compliance Transparency and accountability are essential in complying with the prohibitions under Article 5. Firms using AI must design and continuously test systems, be transparent about their intensions and avoid manipulative practices. They should also disclose AI systems functionality, data usage, and decision-making processes. Companies should conduct thorough impact assessments to identify unintended vulnerabilities and implement specific safeguards to prevent exploitation. This should form part of assessments of AI systems to understand their impact on individuals and society. Companies should develop clear guidelines for scoring systems to prevent the development of social scoring characteristics, and prioritise ethical design, fairness and non-dis­crim­in­a­tion. Privacy impact assessments should be pursued to ensure compliance with the various prohibitions. In particular, firms should be very careful using any real-time identification systems. In all cases, companies should maintain comprehensive records of AI system design, training, and deployment. Any critical decision made by AI systems should be overseen by a human. 4. Not clearly listed: Categorisation Unacceptable Risk AI systems cover systems that are deemed inherently harmful and are considered a threat to human safety, livelihoods, and rights In contrast, high-risk AI systems cover systems designed to be applied to specific use cases, including using AI for hiring and recruitment that may cause harm but are not inherently harmful. High risk AI systems are legal, but subject to important requirements under the AI Act. It is therefore crucial to determine the difference between high risk and unacceptable risk AI systems. In essence, any high risk activity can escalate to Unacceptable Risk under the following cir­cum­stances:Bi­as and Discrimination: if AI perpetuates bias or discriminates against protected groups. Privacy Violations: when AI systems compromise user privacy or misuse sensitive data. Psychological Harm: if AI manipulates individuals, causing psychological distress. AI systems that are able to perform generally applicable functions and are able to have multiple intended and unintended purposes (being General Purpose AI models) are not inherently prohibited under the AI Act, but must be used with care since in certain scenarios they lead to Unacceptable Risk activities. To assess whether a General Purpose AI Model poses an Unacceptable Risk, it is necessary to consider the context in which the model operates. If it influences critical decisions (e.g. hiring, credit scoring), perpetuates bias or discriminates, compromises user privacy (e.g. by collecting sensitive data without consent), the risk increases, and the model may need to be adapted. 5. Best practice and compliance While the AI Act provides examples of explicit prohibitions under the AI Act, it cannot cover all possible situations as the technology is, through updated versions and by definition, constantly evolving. As a guide, legal and compliance teams should ask the following questions when considering high- risk AI systems:Risk assessment:What is the evidence that the categorisation of the AI application is minimal, limited, high or Unacceptable Risk?Does the application in any circumstances use or act on sensitive data or influence critical de­cisions?Con­tex­tu­al analysis:Does the application operate in a sector that has a presumption of increased risk, for example, (a) financial services, or (b) healthcare?In what ways does the deployment of the application impact (a) individuals, and (b) society?Specific criteria:Can any decisions of the application be considered to give rise to manipulation, exploitation, discriminatory scoring, or biometric iden­ti­fic­a­tion?Does the application operate or have access to data that could give rise to the exploitation of subliminal techniques or vulnerabilities related to protracted characteristics, such as age or dis­ab­il­ity?Trans­par­ency and Documentation:In what ways is the AI system transparent about its inherent functioning and de­cision-mak­ing?In what ways does the user’s documentation of the design, training and deployment of the application demonstrate compliance with the various rules? 6. Conclusion Unacceptable Risk AI activities are those practices that pose inherent harm to people and are strictly forbidden under the AI Act. The potential for reputational damage and regulatory sanctions serve as strong deterrents for firms to avoid breaching these provisions of the AI Act. It is essential for companies to take proactive measures to ensure compliance and prevent harm to individuals and society.
11/03/2024
Looking ahead to the EU AI Act
Introduction The European Union is preparing for the imminent adoption of the world’s most significant legislation on Artificial Intelligence, solidifying its position as a pioneer among global legislators. This initiative aims to establish and reinforce the EU’s role as a premier hub for AI while ensuring that AI development remains focused on human-centered and trustworthy principles. To expedite the achievement of these goals, on 8 December 2023, after three days of debate, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union finally reached a provisional agreement on the “Proposal for a Regulation laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence” (the so-called AI Act), which aims to ensure that AI systems placed on the European market are safe and respect the fundamental rights and values of the EU. Subsequent to this provisional agreement, technical refinement of the AI Act continued to finalise the regulation’s details and text. The final vote of the European Parliament on the AI Act will take place at 13 March 2024. Since the European Parliament's Committees on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) and on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) have endorsed overwhelmingly the proposed text, the approval of the European Parliament can be expected. After a long and complex journey that began in 2021 with the European Commission’s proposal of a draft AI Act, this new regulation is expected to be passed into law in spring 2024, once it has been approved by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union . The AI Act aims to ensure that the marketing and use of AI systems and their outputs in the EU are consistent with fundamental rights under EU law, such as privacy, democracy, the rule of law and environmental sustainability. Adopting a dual approach, it outright prohibits AI systems deemed to pose unacceptable risks while imposing regulatory obligations on other AI systems and their outputs. The new regulation, which also aims to strike a fair balance between innovation and the protection of individuals, not only makes Europe a world leader in the regulation of this new technology, but also endeavours to create a legal framework that users of AI technologies will be able to comply with in order to make the most of this significant development opportunity. In this article we provide a first overview of the key points contained in the text of the AI Act1This article (including the relevant citations below) is based on the latest draft available on the Council’s website. The AI Act remains subject to possible further refinement, but not as regards content, and the text referred to for this article should be considered as the closest to the one that will be voted on by the EU Parliament. footnote that companies should be aware of in order to prepare for the implementing regulation.
11/03/2024
Adoption of MiFID 3 and MiFIR 2 to enhance transparency on markets in financial...
On 8 March 2024, Regulation 2024/791 amending Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 (MiFIR) and Directive 2024/790 amending Directive 2014/65/EU (MiFID 2) on markets in financial instruments were published in the...
08/03/2024
Effects of the ESG Transformation on D&I – Is it helping with developing...
This International Women's Day, join us for an online discussion on the effects of the ESG transformation in developing diversity and in­clu­sion.  Or­gan­ized on 8 March 2024, this event is a testament to our ongoing commitment to championing the cause of women across all spheres of professional life.  Our goal is to explore whether the ESG transformation has been a catalyst for developing equality, offering insights into how these global standards are reshaping the dynamics of D&I. Event high­lights:En­gage with an esteemed panel of speakers who are at the forefront of the ESG and D&I do­mains. Ex­am­ine the tangible impacts of ESG initiatives on creating equitable opportunities for all. Discover strategies and best practices for integrating ESG and D&I principles. Enjoy a spotlight on women's advancement.  Featured speakers Luciano Duque-Cordero, Legal Counsel at UniCredit Bank Austria AG and External Lecturer at FH Joanneum, brings a wealth of international legal expertise, with a focus on financial services and corporate law. His diverse experience spans across Austria, China, and various global roles, offering unique insights into the ESG transformation's impact on diversity and inclusion. Fiona Watson, Senior Director in Redefining Value at the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), a role that leverages her extensive background in corporate law, finance and sustainability. Her work in leading transformative agendas around corporate performance and accountability makes her an authoritative voice on the intersection of ESG initiatives and D&I efforts. Your participation matters! Whether you're a seasoned professional or just embarking on your career journey, your voice adds valuable perspective to our collective exploration of ESG's role in shaping a more equitable world. Join us in shaping a more inclusive future this International Women's Day.
08/03/2024
EU takes stand against environmental crimes with new Directive
The escalating problem of environmental degradation is triggering a re-evaluation of our legal systems' effectiveness in preventing and justly sanctioning such harms. Now the EU has taken a significant...