Overview
Slovenia has been an EU member state since 1 May 2004, a Schengen member since December 2007 and a member of the eurozone since 2007. It is fully integrated into the European Arrest Warrant system; the legal basis is Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA and Sections 78 ff. IRG.
Extradition practice between Germany and Slovenia is less case-intensive than with other EU neighbors. Slovenia is among the more constitutionally stable of the newer EU members; structural deficiencies within the meaning of the L and P line of case law are not found. In practice, the focus lies on narcotics proceedings, economic offenses and, more rarely, violent offenses.
On the Slovenian side, the Zakon o kazenskem postopku (Code of Criminal Procedure, ZKP, Official Gazette RS No. 63/1994 as subsequently amended) applies, together with the Zakon o sodelovanju v kazenskih zadevah z državami članicami Evropske unije (Act on Cooperation in Criminal Matters with EU Member States, ZSKZDČEU-1, Official Gazette RS No. 48/2013).
Legal basis
Extradition to Slovenia is governed primarily by Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European Arrest Warrant, transposed domestically in Sections 78 ff. IRG (Eighth Part). In addition, the relationship with Slovenia is governed by the European Convention on Extradition of 1957, to which Slovenia is a party, and by the German–Yugoslav extradition treaty of 26 November 1970 (BGBl. 1974 II p. 1258), which continues in force in relation to Slovenia (BGBl. 1993 II p. 1261); both are now relevant only for constellations not covered by the EAW Framework Decision and for legacy proceedings.
On the German side, the Higher Regional Courts are competent in the admissibility proceedings (Section 29 IRG); the granting decision is made by the General Public Prosecutor's Office (Section 79(2) IRG). On the Slovenian side, the okrožna sodišča (district courts — eleven in number, including in Ljubljana, Maribor, Celje and Koper) issue European Arrest Warrants; the second instance is the višja sodišča (higher courts). The highest instance in criminal matters is the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Supreme Court); the constitutional court is the Ustavno sodišče Republike Slovenije, based in Ljubljana.
The central authority for international mutual legal assistance is the Slovenian Ministry of Justice (Ministrstvo za pravosodje); the highest prosecuting authority is the Vrhovno državno tožilstvo Republike Slovenije (General Public Prosecutor's Office). The Specializirano državno tožilstvo (Specialized Prosecutor's Office) is responsible for cross-border serious crime and corruption.
For German citizens, Article 16(2) of the Basic Law in conjunction with Section 80 IRG applies. For Slovenian citizens, Article 47 of the Slovenian Constitution governs the extradition of nationals; the restriction is limited by the EAW Framework Decision.
Country-specific issues in Slovenia
Rule of law in the judiciary: The Slovenian judiciary is consistently assessed as constitutionally stable in the EU Rule of Law reports. Points of criticism concern, in part, the lengthy duration of proceedings (Article 6(1) ECHR; several ECtHR pilot proceedings, including Lukenda v. Slovenia, 23032/02 of 6 Oct 2005) and the limited resources of the courts. Structural deficiencies within the meaning of the L and P line of case law are not assumed.
Detention conditions — Muršić standard: Slovenian prisons are assessed in a differentiated manner in CPT reports (most recently 2024). The most recent CPT report (visit of October 2024, CPT/Inf (2025) 13) notes a sharply increased prisoner population; most facilities were occupied well above their capacity. Particularly critical assessments concerned the Ljubljana facility (in part only 3.5 m², in isolated cases 2.7 m² per person) and the occupancy situation in Koper; in addition, there are considerable staff shortages. The central facility for men in closed detention is ZPKZ Dob pri Mirni (Zavod za prestajanje kazni zapora Dob pri Mirni).
Border and migration-law contexts: Owing to its location on the EU external border with Croatia (until Croatia's accession to Schengen in 2023) and, historically, on the Adriatic route, Slovenia has played a particular role in asylum and migration proceedings. This is indirectly relevant for extradition proceedings, for example in the case of third-country nationals with a right of residence in Slovenia.
Continuing German–Yugoslav treaties: The German–Yugoslav treaties on extradition and mutual legal assistance in criminal matters (1970/1971), which continue to apply in relation to Slovenia, remain relevant — alongside the European Convention on Extradition and the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters — for constellations outside the scope of the EAW Framework Decision (e.g. transit and assistance with enforcement).
Dual criminality: Outside the list catalog of Article 2(2) of the EAW Framework Decision, a substantive review applies. Slovenian criminal law (Kazenski zakonik, KZ-1, Official Gazette RS No. 55/2008) is, in substance, largely compatible with continental European standards.
Detention conditions and the human-rights review
Detention conditions in Slovenian prisons were long regarded as largely unproblematic; the most recent CPT report (visit of October 2024), however, finds substantial overcrowding and staff shortages throughout the prison system — in particular, in the Ljubljana facility at times less than 3 m² of personal space per prisoner. The Uprava Republike Slovenije za izvrševanje kazenskih sankcij (prison administration) operates six prisons (with satellite units) as well as the Radeče juvenile correctional facility.
The central facility ZPKZ Dob pri Mirni (men, closed detention) was not covered by the CPT's 2024 periodic visit; report CPT/Inf (2025) 13 concerns the Ljubljana and Koper facilities and finds substantial overcrowding there.
In German extradition practice, a facility-specific assurance is generally not required for Slovenia, since the Higher Regional Courts have so far not found systemic deficiencies within the meaning of the first stage of review under Aranyosi/Căldăraru; in light of the current CPT findings, this must be reassessed in the individual case. In the case of pre-trial detention at the Ljubljana facility, an inquiry into the specific cell conditions (Muršić standard, the 3 m² threshold) is warranted in the individual case on account of documented overcrowding.
Lines of defense
The defense in Slovenia EAW cases focuses on the following points:
- Section 80 IRG (extradition of Germans): review of the connection to the place of the offense and the assurance of return.
- Section 83b(2) IRG (bar to granting): where there is long-standing habitual residence in Germany, request the exercise of discretion by the General Public Prosecutor's Office.
- Article 3 ECHR / Muršić standard: in the case of pre-trial detention in Ljubljana and in older parts of facilities, facility-specific assurances where appropriate.
- Article 6 ECHR (excessive length of proceedings): have regard to the Lukenda line; in the case of older convictions, request compensation in the target proceedings where appropriate.
- Section 81 no. 1 IRG (sentencing range): substantive review outside the list catalog.
- Section 83 IRG (judgments in absentia): assurance of a retrial under obnova kazenskega postopka (Sections 406 ff. Zakon o kazenskem postopku).
- Rule of specialty (Section 83h IRG): limitation to the offenses granted; observe the requirement of consent in the case of a supplementary request.
- Ne bis in idem (Article 50 of the EU Charter): where there are parallel proceedings in Germany or other member states, review the blocking effect.
- Constitutional complaint with an urgent application (Section 32 BVerfGG): where fundamental-rights objections remain.
Legal representation in Slovenian extradition proceedings
An extradition case is a specialized mutual-legal-assistance procedure that goes beyond classic criminal defense. Engaging a defense lawyer specialized in extradition law at an early stage is regularly decisive — not only after the formal extradition arrest warrant has been issued, but already from the moment of an arrest based on an Interpol notice, an SIS alert or a European Arrest Warrant.
As a Certified Specialist in Criminal Law with a focus on extradition law, I advise and represent affected persons nationwide before the competent Higher Regional Courts and in constitutional complaint proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court.