There has been no litigation in relation to private actors in Slovenia. However, a case can be based on:

  • Obligations Code 2001: Article 133 allows for the request for removal of risk of damage. It provides that “Any person may request that another person remove a source of danger that threatens major damage to the former or an indeterminate number of persons and refrain from the activities from which the disturbance or risk of damage derives, if the occurrence of disturbance or damage cannot be prevented by appropriate measures”

Under the Obligations Code 2001, the following remedies can be granted:

  • Orders that appropriate measures to prevent the occurrence of damage or disturbance or to dispose of a source of danger be taken at the expense of the possessor
  • Compensation for damage in excess of the customary boundary. Court has noted that compensation under Article 133 is available only when the interference in the environment is excessive and only for the difference between the normal and excessive interference of the activity in the environment (VSM Judgment I Cp 2989/2005, 7 November 2006; Judgment II Ips 940/2007, 24 January 2008)

For locus standi, claimants have to demonstrate the act or omission by the private actor has resulted in damage or disturbance to the claimant.

For more country specific context and relevant national climate change law see:

This country report has been produced by Robbie McAdam, C2LI Research Assistant, Iona McEntee, C2LI Senior Research Assistant and Lydia Omuko-Jung, C2LI Legal Analyst. This summary is based on Vasilka Sancin and Maša Kovič Dine, “Emerging Awareness of Climate Change Litigation in Slovenia” in F. Sindico and M. Moise Mbengue, Comparative Climate Change Litigation: Beyond the Usual Suspects, Springer, 2021.