HR Internal Investigations 2026 Comparisons

Circumstances typically giving rise to an HR internal investigation being opened are related to workplace harassment (mobbing) or discrimination, as well as cases related to breaches of employment obligations by employees.

The employer’s rights and obligations with respect to carrying out an HR internal investigation arise from the provisions of the Employment Relationships Act and the Whistleblower Protection Act.

Employers are not legally required to have specific channels through which employees may communicate with them to report concerns. However, in practice, most employers do have such channels in place.

Rules regarding who should be responsible for carrying out an HR internal investigation are determined by the employer in its own internal regulations. If the employer so decides, an external person may also participate in the internal investigation on the basis of a specific authorisation and the employee’s consent.

An HR internal investigation must be carried out if an employee reports mobbing, workplace harassment or discrimination.

Slovenian legislation does not recognise such cases in which an HR internal investigation may not be carried out.

Where the investigation concerns an employee’s breach of obligations, the decision when to move ahead with carrying out an HR internal investigation rests with the employer.

If the investigation concerns an employee’s breach of obligations, the employer is not required to inform the employee. There are no specific requirements regarding the information that the employer is required provide to employees. Such requirements may, however, be set out in the employer’s internal regulations.

Situations in which the opening of an HR internal investigation must be communicated to the authorities do not exist in Slovenian law or in Slovenia.

In practice, special agreements regarding the protection of personal data or business secrets are not concluded. The parties involved in these proceedings are, in any case, obliged not to disclose information concerning the employee processed during such proceedings to other unauthorised persons. If this obligation is not respected, the employee may have a potential right to compensation.

It is possible to conduct a preliminary investigation to determine whether a full HR internal investigation is warranted. This right mainly applies in circumstances where the employer first determines whether an employee breach has actually occurred and whether any procedure needs to be applied in relation to this breach.

If the investigation concerns mobbing, harassment or discrimination, the alleged perpetrator, witnesses and the potential victim are interviewed. If the procedure concerns breaches by an employee, the employee must be given the opportunity to present a defence, although they are not obliged to participate. During this defence, the employee may also be interviewed.

Failure on the part of the employee to participate in the investigation or interview could be considered a breach of their employment obligations.

There are generally no obstacles to interviews being carried out remotely.

Depending on the case, employers usually decide that multiple persons (at least two) must be present during interviews with the employee, as this ensures both impartiality and protection for the employer against potential claims of discriminatory treatment.

The obligation for a neutral third party to be present during interviews as a witness is not prescribed by law. Such cases are very rare, as they mostly involve proceedings in which the employee’s personal data may also be disclosed, and this information must not be shared with third parties. Representatives of trade unions or the works council may also be present at such interviews.

There are no obstacles to an interviewee being accompanied by a support person or lawyer. This right is, in fact, already provided for under the Employment Relationships Act.

There is no specific information that interviewers need to provide the interviewee.

Depending on the case, if an interviewee stops the interview, this may or may not constitute a breach of employment obligations.       

In most cases, minutes are also prepared, often summarising what was said. The participants usually review the minutes before signing, and it is not necessary for the minutes to be written by an “external” person.

If the employee agrees, interviews may be recorded, although this is more the exception than the rule. Special protective measures to prevent recording are almost never provided. Since unauthorised recording is a criminal offence in Slovenia, the dissemination of illegally obtained recordings practically never occurs.

The employer may also use other methods of evidence, for example, but not exclusively, by engaging a private investigator or conducting a (forensic) review of documentation. Methods or means that would constitute a violation or a criminal offence are not permitted.

There is a general obligation on the employer to protect the reporter. However, the employer must ensure that any measures taken do not contain elements of retaliation or violate the rights of the reporting employee under employment law.

It is true that the employer must ensure the safety of the potential “respondent” in all respects. Regardless of whether they are responsible for the alleged breach, they must not suffer any consequences other than those provided under employment or civil law. Otherwise, the employer is considered to be in breach of employment obligations.

In certain cases, the employee may be temporarily prohibited from performing work during the proceedings. If such a measure proves to be unlawful, the employer would owe the employee the difference in remuneration.

The obligation to protect other employees applies in all other cases as well.

The employee must be ensured all of the rights mentioned in 4. Protection of the Parties During an HR Internal Investigation. If these rights are not, or would not be, provided, the employer’s measure could be deemed unlawful.

The employer may stipulate many provisions in its internal regulation, and in such cases, it is bound by them. Additional obligations of the employer may also arise from company-level collective agreements or sectoral collective agreements.

In all of the cases mentioned in 5. Procedural Requirements and Proof, the burden of proof lies with the employer. The standard of probability depends on the specific case.

No such rules exist to govern when an HR internal investigation may be ended.

There are no specific legal rules once a decision to end an HR internal investigation has been made (except where the investigation results in the termination of the employment contract or a warning prior to termination for just cause), although such rules can be set out in the employer’s internal regulations. In the case of an HR internal investigation concerning mobbing, harassment or discrimination – ie, a formalised procedure – the employer must make a formal decision regarding its outcome.

If the decision referred to in 6.2 Procedure for Ending an HR Internal Investigation is made, it must be in written form.

There are no specific legal rules about the information that must be included (except when the procedure ends with the termination of the employment contract, a warning, or a disciplinary sanction), but such rules can be set out in the employer’s internal regulations. In most cases, the employer’s decisions are properly justified, as only the facts presented in the decision’s reasoning may be subject to a potential later judicial review. In certain cases, such as proceedings to determine mobbing, harassment or discrimination, the committee may also recommend (individual or general) measures for the employer to implement in its report to management.

The parties in all types of proceedings have the right to receive information regarding the outcome of an HR internal investigation. It applies to the employee under investigation and, in cases of proceedings concerning mobbing, harassment, or discrimination, it applies to the reporting employee.

Except in cases where, during such an investigation, a suspicion of a criminal offence is identified that is so serious that the law requires it to be reported (to certain authorities), the employer does not have the obligation to report the conclusion of the investigation to the authorities.

There are no other parties to whom information about the conclusion of an HR internal investigation typically is communicated, as these cases mostly involve factual information that includes personal data.

Employers always specify deadlines for individual actions in the mandatory internal regulations governing internal proceedings to determine mobbing, harassment or discrimination. The measures range from a warning or notice to, in extreme cases, summary termination of the employment contract.

This is not common in Slovenia for employers to take other types of measures whether or not the allegations are substantiated, following an HR internal investigation. In rare cases, employers may organise training on this topic.

The employer may collect or process only personal data that is strictly necessary and only for as long as required for the purposes of the investigation.

It is necessary to comply with the general provisions of the Employment Relationships Act, the General Data Protection Regulation, and the Personal Data Protection Act; no other specific provisions apply when collecting and/or processing personal data for an HR internal investigation.

The parties in all types of proceedings have the right to access personal data which is collected. The right applies to the employee under investigation and, in cases of proceedings concerning mobbing, harassment or discrimination, also to the reporting employee.

AI is not used, nor should it be used when conducting internal investigations (due to personal data protection).

In Slovenia, whistle-blowing is also regulated by law under the Whistleblower Protection Act, which implements Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons reporting breaches of EU law. Under this law, a whistle-blower is an individual who reports or publicly discloses information on violations learned in their work environment. A whistle-blower is entitled to protection if they had reasonable grounds to believe that the reported information was true at the time of reporting. Any form of retaliation against the whistle-blower is prohibited, including but not limited to:

• termination of employment;
• suspension of the employment contract;
• demotion, hindrance of promotion, or denial of advancement;
• reassignment of duties, change of workplace, working hours, reduction of workload, non-payment or reduction of salary or benefits, non-payment of bonuses or severance;
• hindrance or denial of education and professional training;
• low performance ratings or negative employment references;
• disciplinary proceedings, sanctions, or penalties;
• harassment, coercion, intimidation, bullying, exclusion, or inadequate protection of dignity;
• discrimination or unfair treatment;
• refusal to enter into a fixed-term contract when conditions are met;
• early termination of a fixed-term contract;
• other arbitrary actions by the employer causing harm, including reputational, financial, or business loss;
• early termination of contracts for goods or services or other business co-operation;
• revocation or suspension of licenses or permits;
• arbitrary imposition of health or fitness-for-work checks;
• blacklisting within a sector or industry affecting future employment; or
• initiating malicious proceedings against the whistle-blower.

Furthermore, the whistle-blower is entitled to protective measures, including:

• confidentiality and prohibition of identity disclosure;
• exemption from liability;
• judicial protection and interim measures in case of retaliation;
• free legal assistance;
• unemployment compensation; and
• psychological support.

General measures for allegations concerning sexual harassment and/or violence are provided for under the Employment Relationships Act, the Criminal Code, and the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

These are general provisions containing protections for allegations concerning other types of discrimination and/or harassment, including bullying and/or mobbing in the Employment Relationships Act. There have been no recent changes to these provisions.

Employment law proceedings are separate from criminal proceedings (except as noted above). It may be useful to mention the longer limitation period for filing termination of employment for just cause or for summary dismissal.

No special procedures are provided for cases that are multi-jurisdictional.