The myth of the model: Hidden fault lines in Slovenia’s minority protection system

Despite the multi-ethnic character of Slovenia, the constitution recognizes only two groups as “autochthonous national communities”: the Hungarians and the Italians. Whereas the Roma also enjoy some constitutional protection, the most numerous ex-Yugoslav ethnic groups, also known as “new communities” (Albanians, Bosniaks, Montenegrins, Croats, Macedonians, and Serbs), received legal recognition only recently. Importantly, neither the “new communities”, nor the German-speaking population benefit from the protection of the ECRML or the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCNM).

Specifically, Article 64 of the Constitution of Slovenia provides for the special rights of the “autochthonous Italian and Hungarian national communities” (avtohtoni italijanski in madžarski narodni skupnosti), irrespective of the actual number of their members. Collective and individual minority rights of Italians and Hungarians are guaranteed on the basis of the principle of territorial protection in ethnically mixed areas. In turn, Article 65 sets out that the status and special rights of the “Roma community” (romske skupnosti) shall be regulated by law. According to the last official census which collected ethnic data, conducted in 2002, these three communities together make up 0.5 % of the total population: 6243 Hungarians (0.32%), 2258 Italians (0.11%), and 3246 Roma (0.17%). In turn, members of ex-Yugoslav communities are estimated to make up 10-11% of Slovenia’s population. Most of these persons migrated from other republics of former Yugoslavia between the mid-1960s and the early 1980s, but some traditional settlements of Serbs and Croats have existed in Slovenia for quite a long time. Yet, up until recently, they were not recognized as minorities, and they did not enjoy any minority rights. The first step in this process was the adoption of a declaration by the Parliament in 2011 which provided the Albanians, Bosniaks, Montenegrins, Croats, Macedonians and Serbs the right to their own national self-identification and self-organization, in recognition of their “de facto and formal constitutive role” in all republics of the former Yugoslavia. As a follow-up to this declaration, a parliamentary act on the rights of the ex-Yugoslav national communities was adopted in May 2024. Albeit this law does not define a new legal status for these communities, it provides some protection on the cultural field. (The practical application of the law has so far not been addressed by international monitoring organs.)

Based on a thorough analysis of the five opinions of the Advisory Committee of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (ACFC) and the 24 concluding observations of UN treaty bodies adopted on Slovenia, it seems that the state does not comply fully with its international obligations on the protection of minorities.

One of the most problematic issues concerns the concept of “autochthony”, which is used as the main justification to make distinctions between the various ethnic groups. (As explained above, there is a clear hierarchy between the ethnic groups of Slovenia, where Hungarians and Italians occupy the top position, followed by the Roma, and then the “rest”.) However, the lack of any legal definition of the concept of “autochthony” in Slovenia makes it extremely difficult to use in practice, with divergent interpretations across the different segments of administration. Furthermore, owing to the distinction between “autochthonous” vs. “non-autochthonous” Roma, some Roma remain outside the minority protection system, and are not systematically covered by the measures on the socio-economic situation and political participation of the Roma community. Thus, monitoring organs have repeatedly emphasized that in view of the legal uncertainty as to the meaning of the notion of “autochthony” as well as the risks of arbitrary exclusion and discriminatory practices inherent in it, Slovenia should review its relevance and the justification for retaining it.

Another problem is that Slovenia’s system of minority protection does not consider the established reality on the ground. For instance, the “new communities” not only represent a significant proportion of the population, but most of them had already settled permanently in Slovenia before the country’s independence, with many of them now possessing Slovene citizenship. Likewise, there is a long-standing presence of a German-speaking minority, including the Kočevje Germans or Gottscheer, who identified themselves as German or Austrian in the last census. Although the government acknowledges their historical presence, it does not consider them as a national minority. Notwithstanding the issue of recognition, monitoring organs have not only evaluated the rights of the Hungarians, the Italians, and the Roma, but also the “new communities”, the Germans, the Muslims, and the Sinti.

Instead of Slovenia’s restrictive approach to minority protection, the monitoring organs propose an inclusive and pragmatic one. In the context of the FCNM this means that Slovenia should consider protecting persons belonging to other groups, possibly on an article-by-article basis, and including non-citizens where appropriate. This is in line with the standard, generally inclusive approach of the ACFC to the Framework Convention’s personal scope of application, which is based on finding practical solutions in close consultations with the groups concerned, taking full consideration of the principle of free self-identification. Similarly, the UN treaty bodies are rather discontented with the differentiated protection of minority groups in Slovenia, and specifically that the Roma and the “new communities” do not enjoy the same level of protection as the “autochthonous” Italians and Hungarians, and that prejudices and discrimination against the former remain widespread in the country. The UN treaty bodies’ main message is that all minorities in Slovenia, regardless of their official recognition, should be entitled to protection of their rights.