International Arbitration 2026 Comparisons

International arbitration is established in Slovenia but cannot be considered the predominant method of dispute resolution. Domestic parties still primarily rely on litigation before state courts, particularly in purely domestic disputes. Arbitration is used mainly in commercial disputes, particularly in sectors such as construction, energy, real estate and investment, especially where contracts involve higher values or an international element.

A recent illustration from the energy sector is the dispute between Ascent Slovenia Ltd and Geoenergo d.o.o., joint venture partners in the development of the Petišovci oil and gas field, resolved before the Ljubljana Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s Permanent Court of Arbitration. The tribunal upheld monetary claims exceeding Geoenergo’s financial capacity, leading to its insolvency in January 2024. The case shows that domestic institutional arbitration continues to play a practical role in high-value energy joint venture disputes, even where the same underlying project is simultaneously the subject of investment treaty arbitration.

International arbitration is used primarily on the basis of arbitration agreements contained in international commercial contracts. Slovenian companies most commonly agree to arbitrate disputes arising out of cross-border commercial relationships before established international arbitral institutions.

An important aspect of arbitration practice in Slovenia is also the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Slovenia is a party to the 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention”), and foreign arbitral awards are recognised and enforced in accordance with the Slovenian Arbitration Act (Zakon o arbitraži; ZArbit) and the Convention. Under the Arbitration Act, the Ljubljana District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Ljubljani) has exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction over proceedings for the recognition and declaration of enforceability of arbitral awards, as well as over court assistance and supervisory proceedings provided for under the Act.

In Slovenia, arbitration plays an important role primarily in the resolution of disputes arising in the energy and infrastructure sectors. In the energy sector, this is illustrated by the arbitration between Holding Slovenske elektrarne (HSE) and General Electric Power, the legal successor to Alstom. In the infrastructure sector, an arbitration is expected to arise with the Turkish company Yapi Merkezi, which acted as the main contractor for the construction of the second track of the Divača–Koper railway line. The company is expected to seek compensation from the Republic of Slovenia for alleged damages, with publicly available information indicating that the claim may amount to approximately EUR330 million.

The energy sector has also generated the most visible investment arbitration activity involving Slovenia, most recently the ICSID award of 7 July 2026 in Ascent Resources Plc and Ascent Slovenia Ltd v Republic of Slovenia (ICSID Case No ARB/22/21). The dispute concerned the Petišovci oil and gas field in the Pomurje region. Ascent Resources held a 75% interest in a joint venture with the Slovenian concessionaire Geoenergo d.o.o. The claimants’ business plan relied on a significant increase in production through low-volume hydraulic stimulation of wells, a technique they characterised as distinct from large-scale fracking. That distinction became central to their case: the investment, they argued, had been caught by a prohibition designed for a different technology.

The claimants alleged three breaches:

• indirect expropriation;
• breach of the fair and equitable treatment standard, or the minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice; and
• arbitrary, unreasonable or discriminatory measures.

The claimants contended that two state measures breached Slovenia’s obligations: the March 2019 decision of the Slovenian Environment Agency requiring an environmental impact assessment before any stimulation-based extraction could proceed, upheld by the competent ministry and by the Administrative Court in June 2020; and the May 2022 amendment to the Mining Act (ZRud-1D) imposing a nationwide ban on hydraulic stimulation for hydrocarbon exploration and production. On this basis, the tribunal rejected in its entirety the claim of EUR598.7 million.

The Ascent Resources Plc and Ascent Slovenia Ltd v Republic of Slovenia case is significant not only from the standpoint of international arbitration but also carries considerable importance for environmental law. As of 30 July 2026, the content of the award rendered on 7 July 2026 had not been made publicly available; the statements herein are based on the claimant’s stock exchange disclosure and the public remarks of the State Attorney’s Office of 8 July 2026.

In Slovenia, the Ljubljana Arbitration Centre at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Slovenia (LAC) is the leading institutional arbitration body for the resolution of commercial disputes. In addition to domestic disputes, it also administers international commercial disputes where the parties have agreed to submit their dispute to its jurisdiction. Its arbitral awards may be recognised and enforced abroad under the New York Convention, provided that the applicable legal requirements are met.

No new arbitral institution has been established in Slovenia during the past year.

Slovenia does not have specialised courts designated exclusively to hear disputes relating to international or domestic arbitration, such as international commercial courts or specialised arbitration courts. Matters concerning arbitration, including court assistance and judicial supervision of arbitral proceedings, are dealt with by the competent ordinary courts in accordance with the Slovenian Arbitration Act and the general rules on court jurisdiction. Depending on the nature of the matter, jurisdiction may lie with the district courts, while appeals are heard by the higher courts.

The Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia also plays an important role in ensuring the consistent interpretation and application of arbitration law through its case law.

Both domestic and international arbitration in the Republic of Slovenia are comprehensively governed by the Slovenian Arbitration Act. The Act was adopted in 2008 and is largely based on the modern UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. The Slovenian Arbitration Act does not depart from the UNCITRAL Model Law in any significant respect. It was drafted with the intention of closely following the Model Law, and any deviations are limited to provisions necessary to accommodate the Slovenian legal system, such as those concerning the jurisdiction of national courts and procedural matters. These adaptations do not affect the fundamental principles of the UNCITRAL Model Law.

The Slovenian Arbitration Act does not, however, generally apply to investment treaty arbitrations in which Slovenia acts as the respondent. Such proceedings are generally conducted under a distinct, self-contained international legal regime. This is illustrated by Ascent Resources Plc and Ascent Slovenia Ltd v Republic of Slovenia, in which the claim was brought under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) and the 1996 bilateral investment treaty between the United Kingdom and Slovenia, and the proceedings themselves were conducted under the ICSID Convention and the 2022 ICSID Arbitration Rules, which apply to proceedings instituted after 1 July 2022. Investment treaty arbitration of this kind therefore operates independently of both the Slovenian Arbitration Act and the national court system.

No significant amendments to the Slovenian Arbitration Act have been adopted during the past year. Likewise, there is currently no pending legislation that would substantially alter the arbitration framework in Slovenia.

At this point, in light of the recent arbitral award in Ascent Resources Plc and Ascent Slovenia Ltd v Republic of Slovenia, it is significant to add that Slovenia has withdrawn from the ECT. The withdrawal took effect on 14 October 2024, while the withdrawal of the EU and Euratom took effect on 28 June 2025. However, Article 47(3) of the Treaty provides that investments that were already covered by its protection at the time the withdrawal took effect continue to enjoy protection for a further 20 years, which for Slovenia means continued exposure until 14 October 2044. The withdrawal thus closes the door to claims arising from new investments, but not to disputes arising from existing ones.

Under the Slovenian Arbitration Act, an arbitration agreement is enforceable if it is concluded in writing and clearly demonstrates the parties’ intention to submit existing or future disputes arising out of a defined legal relationship to arbitration. The writing requirement is satisfied by a signed document, an exchange of letters, emails or other recorded communications, or by reference to another document containing an arbitration clause, provided the reference makes the clause part of the contract. An arbitration agreement may relate to contractual as well as non-contractual disputes, provided that the subject matter is arbitrable under Slovenian law. The agreement must also comply with the general requirements for the validity of contracts under Slovenian law, including the parties’ legal capacity and the absence of defects of consent.

Under Slovenian law, not all disputes may be referred to arbitration. Pursuant to the Slovenian Arbitration Act, a dispute may be submitted to arbitration only if the parties are free to settle the subject matter of the dispute. This means that matters involving rights or interests over which the parties cannot freely dispose are generally considered non-arbitrable.

Certain matters involving personal status, family law, insolvency proceedings or other areas where mandatory statutory rules apply and the parties do not have the power to dispose of the relevant rights are generally excluded from arbitration.

A dispute is considered arbitrable where the parties have the legal capacity and authority to freely determine or settle the subject matter of the dispute. If the dispute concerns rights that are subject to mandatory legal protection or public interest considerations, it will generally not be capable of being resolved through arbitration.

Examples of arbitrable disputes include:

• commercial and contractual disputes (eg, sale, distribution, construction, agency and service agreements);
• shareholder and corporate disputes involving disposable rights;
• disputes arising out of joint venture agreements;
• claims for damages;
• disputes concerning intellectual property licensing and technology transfer agreements; and
• most international commercial disputes.

Under Slovenian law, national courts generally respect the principle of party autonomy when determining the law applicable to an arbitration agreement. The parties may expressly choose the law governing the arbitration agreement. If the parties have not made such a choice, the applicable law is determined in accordance with the conflict-of-law rules applicable to arbitration agreements, taking into account the circumstances of the case and the closest connection principle.

Slovenian courts generally adopt a pro-arbitration approach and favour the enforcement of valid arbitration agreements. Pursuant to the Slovenian Arbitration Act, a court seized of a dispute that is covered by a valid arbitration agreement must decline jurisdiction if the defendant raises the objection of the existence of an arbitration agreement in due time. The courts therefore generally respect the parties’ agreement to submit disputes to arbitration, unless the arbitration agreement is invalid, ineffective or incapable of being performed.

Under Slovenian law, an arbitration clause may remain valid even if the contract in which it is contained is invalid. The Slovenian Arbitration Act expressly recognises the principle of separability of the arbitration agreement, according to which an arbitration clause is considered an agreement independent from the underlying contract.

Therefore, the invalidity, termination or rescission of the main contract does not, by itself, affect the validity of the arbitration agreement. Slovenian courts and arbitral tribunals may determine the existence and validity of the underlying contract without this affecting their jurisdiction based on a valid arbitration agreement.

This approach reflects the internationally recognised principle of separability and is consistent with the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. The arbitration agreement may only be disregarded where it is independently found to be invalid, ineffective or incapable of being performed.

Under Slovenian law, the parties generally enjoy broad autonomy in selecting arbitrators. The Slovenian Arbitration Act allows the parties to agree on the number of arbitrators, the procedure for their appointment and any qualifications they must possess.

In comparison with court proceedings, where each case is appointed to a judge in accordance with a statutorily prescribed order, the parties to arbitration proceedings enjoy somewhat greater autonomy and latitude with regard to the appointment of arbitrators.

However, this autonomy is subject to certain mandatory requirements. An arbitrator must be a natural person with legal capacity, and the parties’ choice must respect the principles of independence and impartiality. A person may not act as an arbitrator if circumstances exist that give rise to justified doubts as to their independence or impartiality. Arbitrators must also disclose any circumstances that could affect their independence or impartiality.

Under the Slovenian Arbitration Act, a default procedure applies if the parties’ agreed method for appointing arbitrators fails or if the parties cannot reach an agreement on the appointment. In such cases, the appointment may be made by the competent court upon the request of a party, unless the parties have agreed on another mechanism or have entrusted the appointment to an arbitral institution.

In the case of multiparty arbitrations, the parties are generally free to agree on the procedure for constituting the arbitral tribunal. If no agreement exists or the agreed procedure fails, the default mechanism under the Arbitration Act applies. The court may intervene to ensure the constitution of the arbitral tribunal and to prevent the arbitration from being frustrated due to disagreements between the parties.

Accordingly, Slovenian law prioritises party autonomy but provides a subsidiary appointment mechanism to ensure that arbitration proceedings can proceed even where the parties are unable to appoint arbitrators themselves.

Under Slovenian law, courts may intervene in the selection of arbitrators in limited circumstances, primarily where the parties’ agreed procedure for appointing arbitrators fails or where the parties are unable to reach an agreement on the appointment.

Pursuant to the Slovenian Arbitration Act, if an arbitrator cannot be appointed in accordance with the procedure agreed by the parties, a party may request the competent court to make the appointment. The court may also intervene in cases where the parties fail to agree on the appointment of the sole arbitrator or where one party fails to appoint an arbitrator within the prescribed time limit.

However, the court’s powers are limited. The court does not select arbitrators at its own discretion where the parties have successfully agreed on and implemented an appointment procedure. Its role is subsidiary and is intended only to ensure the constitution of the arbitral tribunal and to prevent arbitration proceedings from being obstructed by a failure of the appointment mechanism.

The Slovenian Arbitration Act contains specific provisions governing the challenge of arbitrators. A party may challenge an arbitrator if circumstances exist that give rise to justified doubts as to the arbitrator’s independence or impartiality. An arbitrator must also disclose any circumstances that could affect their independence or impartiality from the time of their appointment and throughout the arbitral proceedings.

A party may challenge an arbitrator only if it becomes aware of such circumstances after the arbitrator’s appointment, unless the parties have agreed otherwise. The challenge must be submitted in accordance with the procedure agreed by the parties. If the challenge is unsuccessful under the agreed procedure, the party may request the competent court to decide on the challenge.

These domestic provisions do not apply to investment treaty arbitration under the ICSID Convention, where challenge and disclosure are instead governed by the ICSID Arbitration Rules; nonetheless, ICSID practice involving Slovenia demonstrates the type of circumstance disclosure obligations are understood to cover.

In Ascent Resources Plc and Ascent Slovenia Ltd v Republic of Slovenia, the claimant-appointed arbitrator, Klaus Reichert, had previously presided over the tribunal in Rockhopper Exploration plc and others v Italian Republic, in which the tribunal unanimously found Italy liable for unlawful expropriation arising from an environmentally motivated ban on hydrocarbon extraction, awarding approximately EUR190 million. No challenge to the appointment is recorded, and the tribunal, with Reichert sitting, unanimously rejected the claim in its entirety. The case suggests that prior appointments or findings in related disputes do not alone give rise to justified doubts as to independence or impartiality, and that tribunal composition is not, on its own, predictive of outcome.

Under Slovenian law, arbitrators are required to be independent and impartial. The Slovenian Arbitration Act provides that a person may act as an arbitrator only if there are no circumstances that could give rise to justified doubts regarding their independence or impartiality.

An arbitrator must disclose, from the time of appointment and throughout the arbitral proceedings, any circumstances that may affect their independence or impartiality. This duty of disclosure is a continuing obligation and applies to any potential conflicts of interest that arise during the proceedings.

The principle of competence-competence applies in Slovenia. Under the Slovenian Arbitration Act, an arbitral tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction, including on objections concerning the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. An arbitration agreement contained in a contract is treated as separate from the underlying contract, meaning that a challenge to the validity of the main contract does not, by itself, affect the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction. The arbitral tribunal may therefore determine whether a valid arbitration agreement exists and whether it has jurisdiction to decide the dispute.

In the case of Ascent Resources Plc and Ascent Slovenia Ltd v Republic of Slovenia (before an ICSID tribunal), the Republic of Slovenia also challenged the tribunal’s jurisdiction; however, all jurisdictional objections were denied. The Tribunal confirmed its jurisdiction over the totality of the claimants’ claims under the ECT.

This sequencing is significant: the tribunal first confirmed its jurisdiction and only then proceeded to reject the claim on the merits, rather than declining jurisdiction outright. Jurisdictional objections raised by EU member states in ECT arbitrations frequently include a so-called intra-EU objection, based on the Court of Justice of the European Union’s rulings in Achmea (Case C-284/16) and Komstroy (Case C-741/19), which held that the ECT’s arbitration mechanism does not apply as between EU member states and investors from other member states.

Under Slovenian law, courts may address issues concerning the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal in limited circumstances. Courts may examine jurisdictional issues at certain stages, including when deciding on a party’s request to set aside an arbitral award or in proceedings concerning the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. Slovenian courts generally adopt a pro-arbitration and non-interventionist approach. Their role is limited to ensuring compliance with the requirements of the Arbitration Act and protecting fundamental procedural principles, rather than reconsidering the merits of the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdictional decisions.

Negative rulings on jurisdiction by arbitral tribunals may be subject to judicial review only within the framework provided by the Arbitration Act, primarily through proceedings concerning the setting aside of an arbitral award. Courts do not generally review such decisions at an interim stage and do not replace the arbitral tribunal’s assessment of its own jurisdiction.

Under Slovenian law, parties generally do not have the right to immediately challenge the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal before a court once arbitration proceedings have commenced. A party must raise an objection to the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction during the arbitration proceedings, generally no later than when submitting its statement of defence on the merits. If the arbitral tribunal rejects the objection and confirms its jurisdiction, the tribunal may continue with the proceedings and issue an award.

Under Slovenian law, courts generally apply a limited standard of review with respect to decisions of arbitral tribunals on questions of jurisdiction and admissibility. Judicial review is primarily exercised within the framework of proceedings for setting aside an arbitral award or recognition and enforcement proceedings. In such proceedings, courts examine whether the requirements provided by the Slovenian Arbitration Act have been met, including whether a valid arbitration agreement existed and whether the tribunal acted within the scope of its jurisdiction.

Under Slovenian law, national courts generally do not allow court proceedings to continue where the parties have entered into a valid arbitration agreement. Pursuant to the Slovenian Arbitration Act, a court seized of a dispute covered by an arbitration agreement must dismiss the action or decline jurisdiction if the defendant raises an objection based on the existence of the arbitration agreement in due time.

Slovenian courts generally adopt a pro-arbitration approach and respect the parties’ agreement to resolve disputes through arbitration. The courts will therefore refrain from hearing the merits of a dispute where the parties have validly agreed to arbitrate, unless the arbitration agreement is found to be invalid, ineffective or incapable of being performed.

Accordingly, there is a general reluctance of Slovenian courts to permit court proceedings that violate a valid arbitration agreement. Judicial intervention is limited to verifying the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement rather than assessing the merits of the dispute.

As a general rule, Slovenian law does not permit an arbitral tribunal to assume jurisdiction over individuals or entities that are neither parties to the arbitration agreement nor signatories to the contract containing the arbitration clause. Arbitration is based on the principle of consent, and an arbitral tribunal derives its jurisdiction exclusively from the parties’ agreement.

Under the Slovenian Arbitration Act, an arbitral tribunal may, at the request of a party, order interim measures that it considers necessary in respect of the subject matter of the dispute, unless the parties have agreed otherwise. Interim measures ordered by an arbitral tribunal are binding on the parties. They may include measures aimed at preserving the status quo, preventing imminent harm or prejudice to the arbitral proceedings, preserving assets from which a future award may be satisfied or preserving evidence relevant to the dispute.

The Slovenian courts may order interim measures in support of arbitration both before and during the arbitral proceedings, irrespective of whether the seat of arbitration is in Slovenia, and such measures are enforced under the general rules on enforcement and security.

The Slovenian Arbitration Act does not regulate the appointment of emergency arbitrators, nor does it provide a statutory framework governing emergency arbitrator proceedings. However, parties may agree to institutional arbitration rules that provide for an emergency arbitrator mechanism, such as those of certain international arbitral institutions. In such cases, the powers and the binding effect of decisions of an emergency arbitrator are determined by the applicable institutional rules rather than Slovenian law.

The Slovenian Arbitration Act does not contain specific provisions authorising arbitral tribunals or courts to order security for costs. Consequently, there is no express statutory framework governing security for costs in arbitration under Slovenian law. However, an arbitral tribunal may, unless the parties agree otherwise, order security for costs under its general power to grant interim measures, provided that the statutory requirements for such measures are satisfied. The Slovenian Arbitration Act provides that the arbitral tribunal may require any party to provide appropriate security in connection with such an interim measure.

In addition, the availability of security for costs may derive from the applicable institutional arbitration rules. A number of institutional rules expressly empower arbitral tribunals to order security for costs or are sufficiently broad to encompass such relief as an interim measure.

Unlike the Slovenian Arbitration Act, which contains no specific provisions on security for costs, a novelty introduced by the 2022 ICSID Arbitration Rules (Article 53) is that the tribunal is expressly empowered to order security for costs. In the aforementioned case of Ascent Resources Plc and Ascent Slovenia Ltd v Republic of Slovenia, Slovenia invoked this provision, apparently taking the view that Ascent Resources Plc would be unable to satisfy an adverse costs award; the claimant had financed the proceedings through external sources, including after-the-event insurance. The content of the procedural order concerning the request for security for costs is not, however, publicly known.

The principal legislation governing arbitration proceedings in Slovenia is the Slovenian Arbitration Act, which entered into force in 2008 and is largely based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. The Act regulates, among other matters:

• the arbitration agreement;
• the constitution and jurisdiction of the tribunal;
• the conduct of proceedings; and
• the making, recognition and enforcement of awards.

In addition to the Arbitration Act, parties may agree that the arbitration will be conducted under the rules of an arbitral institution. The principal institutional rules in Slovenia are the Arbitration Rules of the Ljubljana Arbitration Centre at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Slovenia (the “Ljubljana Arbitration Rules”). Where the parties adopt institutional rules, those rules govern the procedure to the extent that they are consistent with the mandatory provisions of the Slovenian Arbitration Act.

Where the Republic of Slovenia is the respondent in investment treaty arbitration, however, procedural steps are prescribed not by the Arbitration Act but by the applicable treaty and institutional rules, and these can differ materially from the party-autonomy model described previously. In Ascent Resources Plc and Ascent Slovenia Ltd v Republic of Slovenia, the ICSID Arbitration Rules allowed procedural participation by parties outside the dispute. In this case, a non-disputing party’s application to file a written submission was granted. No equivalent specific right of non-party participation exists under the Arbitration Act in domestic or ordinary international commercial arbitration seated in Slovenia.

The Slovenian Arbitration Act does not prescribe a rigid procedural framework for arbitral proceedings. Instead, it is based on the principle of party autonomy, allowing the parties to agree on the procedure to be followed by the arbitral tribunal. In the absence of such agreement, the arbitral tribunal may conduct the proceedings in the manner it considers appropriate, subject to the mandatory provisions of the Act.

Nevertheless, the Act contains certain mandatory procedural requirements. In particular, the parties must be treated equally, and each party must be given a full opportunity to present its case. The arbitral tribunal must respect the principles of due process, including the right of each party to be heard.

Under the Slovenian Arbitration Act, arbitrators have broad powers to conduct arbitral proceedings while being subject to a number of statutory duties designed to ensure the fairness and integrity of the process. Arbitrators are required to act independently and impartially and must disclose without delay any circumstances that may give rise to justified doubts as to their independence or impartiality. They must treat the parties equally, ensure that each party is given a full opportunity to present its case, and conduct the proceedings fairly and efficiently.

Slovenian law does not impose specific qualification requirements on legal representatives appearing in arbitration proceedings. Unlike court proceedings, representation in arbitration is governed primarily by the principle of party autonomy, allowing parties to choose their representatives freely. Legal representatives are not required to be Slovenian attorneys-at-law or to hold any specific domestic professional qualification. Any domestic or foreign natural person having legal capacity, or any domestic or foreign law firm, may act as a legal representative.

The Slovenian Arbitration Act does not prescribe detailed rules on the taking of evidence. Instead, the parties are free to agree on the procedure to be followed, and, failing such agreement, the arbitral tribunal has broad discretion to determine the manner in which evidence is collected and presented. The Slovenian Arbitration Act contains no specific provisions on legal privilege. Issues of privilege and confidentiality are generally determined by the applicable substantive law, the parties’ agreement or the procedural rules chosen for the arbitration.

Witness evidence is commonly admitted, and arbitral tribunals may hear witnesses during oral hearings. Written witness statements are also widely accepted, particularly in international arbitration, although their use depends on the parties’ agreement, the applicable institutional rules or the tribunal’s procedural directions. Cross-examination of witnesses is permitted and regularly used in international arbitrations, but it is not governed by detailed statutory rules.

The rules of evidence applicable in Slovenian court proceedings do not automatically apply to arbitrations seated in Slovenia. While arbitral tribunals may draw guidance from domestic procedural principles where appropriate, they are not bound by the evidentiary rules of the Slovenian Civil Procedure Act.

Under the Slovenian Arbitration Act, an arbitral tribunal may request the parties to produce documents and other evidence and may hear witnesses and experts. However, arbitral tribunals do not possess coercive powers and cannot compel the production of evidence or the attendance of witnesses by themselves. A party may request the assistance of the competent Slovenian court. The court may order the taking of evidence in accordance with the applicable provisions of Slovenian procedural law, including the examination of witnesses or the production of documents where the statutory requirements are met.

Under Slovenian law, arbitral proceedings are generally considered confidential. The Slovenian Arbitration Act does not contain a comprehensive statutory provision expressly regulating confidentiality of arbitral proceedings. However, confidentiality is generally derived from the parties’ agreement, the applicable institutional arbitration rules and the nature of arbitration as a private dispute resolution mechanism.

In practice, the parties, the arbitrators and the arbitral institution are typically under an obligation to maintain confidentiality regarding the proceedings, including pleadings, evidence, documents submitted during the proceedings and the arbitral award.

The Slovenian Arbitration Act does not contain a general statutory duty of confidentiality applicable to all arbitral proceedings. Confidentiality therefore primarily depends on the parties’ agreement, the applicable arbitration rules and, where relevant, the duties of the arbitrators and the arbitral institution.

Where proceedings are conducted under the Ljubljana Arbitration Rules, Article 50 establishes a comprehensive confidentiality regime. Unless the parties expressly agree otherwise, the Ljubljana Arbitration Centre, the arbitral tribunal (including an emergency arbitrator), tribunal-appointed experts and members of the Presidency and Secretariat must keep confidential the arbitral proceedings, the award, procedural orders and other decisions.

The parties must likewise treat as confidential all such decisions and all documents submitted in the arbitration that are not publicly available. Disclosure is permitted only where required by law or where necessary to protect or enforce a party’s rights, including for the purposes of the recognition, enforcement or setting aside of an arbitral award before a state court. The tribunal’s deliberations are confidential.

The ICSID Arbitration Rules, as applied in the proceedings Ascent Resources Plc and Ascent Slovenia Ltd v Republic of Slovenia, contain a similar provision, pursuant to which consent to the publication of the award is deemed to have been given if neither party objects thereto in writing within 60 days of the dispatch of the document. In the present case, this time limit expires in early September 2026. If no objection is raised, the full text of the award will be published on the ICSID website. If an objection is raised, the Centre must instead publish excerpts of the award under the staged procedure prescribed by the Rules.

It should also be noted that court proceedings relating to arbitration, including proceedings for the setting aside of an arbitral award and proceedings for the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards before the Slovenian courts, are not confidential and are generally subject to the ordinary rules governing court proceedings.

Under the Slovenian Arbitration Act, an arbitral award must comply with certain formal and substantive requirements. The award must be made in writing and signed by the arbitrators. Unless the parties have agreed otherwise, the award must contain reasons upon which it is based. It must also include:

• the names and addresses of the parties;
• the names of the arbitrators;
• the date and place of arbitration;
• the operative part of the decision; and
• the decision on the costs of the proceedings.

The Slovenian Arbitration Act does not prescribe a general statutory time limit within which an arbitral tribunal must render an award. The parties may agree on a time limit, and institutional arbitration rules may also contain provisions regarding the timing of the award. In the absence of such a requirement, the tribunal must render the award within a reasonable time, taking into account the circumstances of the case and the need for efficient conduct of the proceedings.

Under Slovenian law, there are generally no specific statutory limitations on the types of remedies that an arbitral tribunal may award, provided that the remedy falls within the scope of the parties’ arbitration agreement and the tribunal’s jurisdiction. The arbitral tribunal may grant the types of relief that the parties could otherwise obtain through court proceedings, including:

• monetary compensation;
• declaratory relief;
• specific performance; and
• where appropriate, interim or injunctive measures.

However, arbitral tribunals are limited by mandatory rules of Slovenian law and public policy. An arbitral award may not grant relief that would be contrary to mandatory legal provisions, fundamental principles of the Slovenian legal order or rights that are not capable of being freely disposed of by the parties. Punitive damages are generally not available under Slovenian law, as damages are primarily compensatory in nature. An arbitral tribunal seated in Slovenia would therefore generally not be able to award punitive damages unless such an award were compatible with the applicable substantive law and public policy.

Under Slovenian law, parties may generally recover interest and legal costs in arbitral proceedings. The arbitral tribunal has the authority to decide on the allocation of costs, including arbitration fees, expenses of the tribunal and reasonable legal costs incurred by the parties, unless the parties have agreed otherwise.

As regards interest, an arbitral tribunal may award statutory default interest or contractual interest where such entitlement exists under the applicable substantive law. The tribunal may also determine the period for which interest is payable, provided that the award is consistent with the applicable law and the parties’ claims.

With respect to costs, Slovenian arbitration practice generally follows the principle that costs follow the event, meaning that the unsuccessful party is usually ordered to reimburse the successful party for its reasonable costs. However, the arbitral tribunal has discretion to allocate costs differently where the circumstances of the case justify such an approach, for example where both parties have been partially successful or where the parties’ conduct during the proceedings warrants a different allocation.

Although the prevailing party is generally entitled to reimbursement of legal costs, the costs of arbitration are frequently significantly higher than those of litigation. Costs before the LAC depend primarily on the value of the dispute, the number of arbitrators and the type of proceedings; an indicative calculator on the LAC website shows, for a three-member tribunal with EUR10 million in dispute, an indicative cost of EUR163,750 plus VAT, while costs above EUR50 million are determined by the Presidency on a case-by-case basis.

A similar “costs follow the event” logic applies where Republic of Slovenia is the respondent in investment treaty arbitration, although costs are allocated pursuant to the applicable institutional rules rather than Slovenian law or LAC fee scales. In Ascent Resources Plc and Ascent Slovenia Ltd v Republic of Slovenia, the tribunal unanimously dismissed the EUR598.7 million claim for alleged indirect expropriation and related treaty breaches, and ordered the claimants to reimburse Republic of Slovenia approximately EUR3 million in legal representation costs, while the costs of the arbitration proceedings themselves were shared equally between the parties.

Under Slovenian law, parties generally do not have a right to appeal an arbitral award on the merits. An arbitral award is final and binding on the parties, and the Slovenian Arbitration Act does not provide for a regular appeal procedure against arbitral awards.

The available remedy is an action for setting aside the arbitral award before the competent court. Such an action may only be brought on limited grounds specified in the Arbitration Act, which largely correspond to the grounds provided under the UNCITRAL Model Law.

The court’s review is limited and does not extend to a reconsideration of the merits of the dispute or the correctness of the arbitral tribunal’s legal or factual findings. The purpose of the setting-aside procedure is to ensure compliance with fundamental procedural requirements and the legitimacy of the arbitral process.

Under Slovenian law, the parties cannot agree to create a broader right of appeal against an arbitral award than that provided by the Slovenian Arbitration Act. The principle of finality of arbitral awards means that arbitral awards are not subject to review on the merits unless the parties have agreed otherwise within the limits permitted by law. The parties may, however, agree to exclude the possibility of setting aside an arbitral award to the extent permitted under the Arbitration Act.

Judicial review of arbitral awards is limited to the grounds for setting aside provided by the Arbitration Act. These grounds concern:

• fundamental procedural defects;
• issues relating to the validity and scope of the arbitration agreement;
• the constitution of the arbitral tribunal;
• arbitrability of the dispute; and
• violations of Slovenian public policy.

The purpose of judicial review is not to correct alleged errors of fact or law made by the arbitral tribunal, but to ensure the integrity and legality of the arbitral process.

The Republic of Slovenia is a party to the New York Convention. The Republic of Slovenia became a party to the Convention through succession following the dissolution of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

The Republic of Slovenia succeeded to the reservations made by the former Yugoslavia, namely the reciprocity reservation and the commercial reservation, so that the Convention is applied only to awards made in the territory of another contracting state and only to disputes arising out of relationships that are considered commercial under Slovenian law. The Convention provides the principal international framework for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Slovenia.

Under Slovenian law, the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards are primarily governed by the New York Convention and the Slovenian Arbitration Act. A party seeking enforcement must submit an application to the competent Slovenian court together with the arbitral award and the arbitration agreement, as well as any required translations. The court does not review the merits of the arbitral award. Its review is limited to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement provided by the New York Convention and the Arbitration Act.

As regards sovereign immunity, Slovenian law recognises the distinction between acts performed in the exercise of sovereign authority (acta iure imperii) and acts of a commercial or private nature (acta iure gestionis). A state or state entity may generally invoke immunity in relation to sovereign acts, but such immunity is more limited where the state has acted in a commercial capacity or has agreed to arbitration. Accordingly, a state entity that has entered into an arbitration agreement in connection with commercial activities will generally have limited ability to rely on sovereign immunity to resist enforcement.

Slovenian courts generally adopt a pro-enforcement approach towards the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. The review conducted by the courts is limited and does not extend to the merits of the dispute. Courts primarily examine whether the procedural and jurisdictional requirements for recognition and enforcement under the Slovenian Arbitration Act and the New York Convention have been satisfied.

When assessing foreign arbitral awards, Slovenian courts apply the concept of international public policy rather than domestic public policy in the ordinary sense. The relevant standard is whether enforcement of the foreign award would be manifestly incompatible with fundamental principles of the Slovenian legal system, including basic procedural guarantees and essential principles of justice.

Slovenian law does not expressly provide for class action arbitration or group arbitration. The Slovenian Arbitration Act is primarily based on the principle of consent, meaning that arbitration may generally only be initiated by and against parties that have agreed to submit their disputes to arbitration.

As a result, collective arbitration proceedings involving persons who are not parties to the same arbitration agreement are generally not available under Slovenian law. Multiple parties may participate in the same arbitration proceedings where there is a valid arbitration agreement binding all relevant parties and where the applicable procedural rules allow for joinder or consolidation of proceedings.

Lawyers representing parties in arbitration proceedings are primarily bound by the Attorneys Act, the Code of Professional Ethics of the Slovenian Bar Association and general principles governing the legal profession, including duties of independence, loyalty to the client, confidentiality, professional integrity and avoidance of conflicts of interest. These standards apply regardless of whether the arbitration is domestic or international.

Arbitrators are required under the Slovenian Arbitration Act to act independently and impartially, and to disclose any circumstances that may give rise to justified doubts regarding their independence or impartiality.

Slovenian law does not contain specific legislation regulating third-party funding of arbitration proceedings. Unlike some jurisdictions, the Republic of Slovenia does not have a dedicated statutory framework governing litigation or arbitration funding by third parties. Third-party funding is therefore neither prohibited nor expressly permitted, and its admissibility is assessed under the general rules of contract law. In practice, funded claims remain rare, and the principal practical concerns relate to the disclosure of the funding arrangement for the purposes of assessing arbitrator conflicts and to the treatment of funding costs in the allocation of costs.

However, the broader legal framework continues to evolve at the EU level. The European Parliament has called for the adoption of an EU-wide regulatory framework for third-party litigation funding, addressing issues such as transparency, conflicts of interest, capital adequacy and the protection of funded parties. Although no binding EU legislation has yet been adopted, future developments at the EU level may influence the regulation of third-party funding in Slovenia.

The Republic of Slovenia was, however, involved in proceedings before ICSID (Ascent Resources Plc and Ascent Slovenia Ltd v Republic of Slovenia), in which the claimant financed the proceedings through external sources, including, inter alia, after-the-event insurance.

In institutional arbitration, consolidation may be available where the relevant arbitration rules provide for such a possibility. In the absence of party agreement or applicable institutional rules, an arbitral tribunal generally cannot unilaterally consolidate separate proceedings, as arbitration is based on the consent of the parties. Similarly, Slovenian courts do not have a general power to order the consolidation of separate arbitral proceedings.

Under Slovenian law, third parties are generally not bound by an arbitration agreement or an arbitral award unless they have consented to arbitration or have otherwise become legally bound by the arbitration agreement. However, in limited circumstances, third parties may become bound by an arbitration agreement through mechanisms recognised under general principles of civil law, such as universal or singular succession, assignment of contractual rights or obligations, subrogation or transfer of a legal position together with the arbitration agreement.