Procedural Balance or Structural Disadvantage? Legal Remedies and Defence Rights in European Investigation Order
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18690/lexonomica.18.1.1-47.2026Keywords:
European Investigation Order, mutual recognition, adversarial proceedings, rights of defence, ECHR, effective legal remedyAbstract
As cross-border crime has increased, obtaining evidence from abroad has become crucial to effective prosecution. EU cross-border cooperation for evidence gathering has evolved from mutual legal assistance to instruments such as the European Investigation Order (EIO), which combines mutual assistance and mutual recognition and has significantly accelerated procedures. However, despite its advanced and structured regulation, the position of the defence in the EIO procedures remains uncertain in some countries. Directive 2014/41/EU does not provide a sufficient legal basis for the defence to issue an EIO independently, nor does it establish an explicit right to appeal against its issuance or execution. Although fundamental rights under the EU Charter and the ECHR apply to EIO proceedings, these standards are broadly framed and allow national discretion. The CJEU has taken a step forward, notably in Gavanozov II, highlighting the importance of legal remedies in EIO proceedings. Nonetheless, national criminal procedures still differ in key aspects, and significant gaps remain at the EU level in ensuring effective defence rights.
Povzetek članka v slovenskem jeziku (abstract in Slovene language)
Z naraščanjem čezmejnega kriminala je pridobivanje dokazov iz tujine postalo eden ključnih vidikov učinkovitega kazenskega pregona. Sodelovanje med državami članicami Evropske unije se je postopoma razvijalo od sistema medsebojne pravne pomoči do uvedbe evropskega preiskovalnega naloga (EPN), ki združuje elemente medsebojne pomoči in načela vzajemnega priznavanja ter je bistveno pospešil in poenostavil pridobivanje dokazov v čezmejnih primerih. Navkljub novi ureditvi pa položaj obrambe v okviru EPN ostaja nejasen in mestoma negotov. Direktiva 2014/41/EU namreč ne zagotavlja zadostne pravne podlage, da bi obramba lahko samostojno izdala EPN, prav tako pa ne določa izrecne pravice do pritožbe zoper njegovo izdajo ali izvršitev. Čeprav se temeljne pravice iz Listine EU in EKČP uporabljajo tudi v postopkih z EPN, so ti standardi oblikovani široko in dopuščajo nacionalno diskrecijo. Sodišče Evropske unije je naredilo korak naprej, zlasti v zadevi Gavanozov II, in poudarilo pomen pravnih sredstev tudi v postopkih z EPN. Kljub temu se nacionalni kazenski postopki še vedno razlikujejo v ključnih vidikih, pomembne vsebinske vrzeli pa pri zagotavljanju učinkovitega varstva pravic obrambe na ravni EU še vedno ostajajo v postopkih z EPN.
Downloads
References
Ambos, K. (2018) European criminal law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Arena, A. (2014) The rules on legal remedies: Legal lacunas and risks for individual rights. In: S. Ruggeri (Ed.), Transnational evidence and multicultural inquiries in Europe. Springer.
Belfiore, R. (2015) The European investigation order in criminal matters: Developments in evidence-gathering across the EU. In: European Criminal Law Review 5 (3), p. 312-324.
Brocardi.it, (n.d.) Dizionario giuridico, <https://www.brocardi.it/dizionario/3763.html> (available on December 15, 2025).
Buisman, C., Hooper, D. (2017) Defense investigations and the collection of evidence. In: C. Rohan & G. Zyberi (Eds.), Defense perspectives on international criminal justice (pp. 519–558). Cambridge University Press.
Centre for Judicial Cooperation and European University Institute, (2019) ACTIONES handbook on the techniques of judicial interactions in the application of the EU Charter, module 3 – Right to an effective remedy, <https://cjc.eui.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/D1.1.c-Module-3.pdf> (available on December 15, 2025).
Chikuruwo, R. S., Gamundani, A. (2022) The effects of volatile features on digital evidence preservation. In: ICISET 2023 (November 23, 2022), <https://ssrn.com/abstract=4332846 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4332846> (available on December 15, 2025).
Council of the European Union, (2011a) Document 14445/11, <https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-14445-2011-INIT/en/pdf> (available on January 1, 2026).
Council of the European Union, (2011b) Document 8036/11, <https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-8036-2011-INIT/en/pdf> (available on January 1, 2026).
Dediu, D. (2018) Protection of fundamental rights in the light of the directive regarding the European investigation order. In: Conferința Internațională de Drept, Studii Europene și Relații Internaționale 6 (6), pp. 298-307.
Dežman, Z., Erbežnik, A. (2003) Kazensko pravo Republike Slovenije. GV Založba.
EIPA - European Institute of Public Administration, European Centre for Judges and Lawyers, (2025) Mastering the European Investigation Order for cross-border investigation, Seminar of the European Institute of Public Administration, 17 June 2025 (Luxembourg), <https://www.eipa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Mastering-the-European-Investigation-Order-for-cross-border-investigations-17-June.pdf> and <https://www.eipa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/EIPA-EIO-Allegrezza-17-June-1.pdf> (available on January 15, 2026).
Eurojust and European Judicial Network, (2019) Joint note on the meaning of “corresponding provisions” and the applicable legal regime in case of delayed transposition of the EIO Directive, <https://www.ejn-crimjust.europa.eu/ejn/EJN_RegistryDoc/EN/3115/0/0> (available on December 15, 2025).
Eurojust, (2020) A decisive judicial response. In: Annual Report 2020, <https://www.eurojust.europa.eu/ar2020/1-decisive-judicial-response-cross-border-crime> (available on January 15, 2026).
Eurojust, (2024) Annual Report 2024, <https://www.eurojust.europa.eu/publication/eurojust-annual-report-2024> (available on November 15, 2025).
European Commission, (2016) Justice programme 2014-2020, <https://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/programmes-2014-2020/justice/index_en.htm> (available on January 15, 2026).
European Commission, (2017) Rights of suspects and accused, <https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/criminal-justice/rights-suspects-and-accused_en> (available on January 15, 2026).
European Commission, (2021) Poročilo Komisije Evropskemu parlamentu in Svetu o izvajanju Direktive 2014/41/EU Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 3. aprila 2014 o evropskem preiskovalnem nalogu v kazenskih zadevah, COM(2021) 409 final, <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52021DC0409&from=EN> (available on January 15, 2026).
European Commission, Reasoned proposal in accordance with Article 7(1) of the Treaty on European Union regarding the rule of law in Poland, COM/2017/0835 final, <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/SL/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52017PC0835> (available on January 1, 2026).
European e-justice, (last update 2026) Evropski nalog za prijetje, <https://e-justice.europa.eu/90/SL/european_arrest_warrant> (available on December 15, 2025).
Fauchon, C. (2021) European investigation order directive: What about defence rights? In: Vilnius University Open Series 2021, pp. 42-48, <https://www.zurnalai.vu.lt/open-series/article/view/24046/23354> (available on December 14, 2025).
Ferčič, A., Hojnik, J., Tratnik, M. (2011) Uvod v pravo Evropske unije. GV Založba.
Jerovšek, T. (2002) Ustavnosodna presoja, Človekove pravice in temeljne svoboščine/25. člen. In: Komentar Ustave Republike Slovenije, <https://e-kurs.si/komentar/ustavnosodna-presoja-18/> (available on January 15, 2026).
Jurka, R. (2016) Movement of evidence in the European Union: Challenges for the European Investigation Order. In: Baltic Journal of Law & Politics 9 (1), pp. 56-84.
Juszczak, A., Sason, E. (2023) The use of electronic evidence in the European area of freedom, security, and justice: An introduction to the new EU package on e-evidence. In: Eucrim 2, pp. 182-200.
Klip, A. (2016) European criminal law: An integrative approach (3rd ed.). Intersentia.
Kordiš, T., Stajnko, J. (2022) Evropski preiskovalni nalog - učinkovitost pregona čezmejnega kriminala na račun pravic obrambe? In: Pravna praksa 41 (3), pp. 11-13.
Kurcz, B. (2001) Harmonisation by means of Directives. In: European Business Law Review 12 (11/12), pp. 287-307.
Leroux, O. (2004) Legal admissibility of electronic evidence. In: International Review of Law, Computers & Technology 18 (2), pp. 193-220.
Lorenzetto, E. (2018) L’assetto delle impugnazioni. In: Daniele, M., Kostoris, R. E., (ed.). L’ordine europeo di indagine penale (Giappichelli, Turin).
Mangiaracina, A. (2014) A New and Controversial Scenario in the Gathering of Evidence at the European Level: The Proposal for a Directive on the European Investigation Order. In: Utrecht Law Review 10 (1), pp. 113-133.
Montero, G. R. (2017) The European Investigation Order and the Respect for Fundamental Rights in Criminal Investigations. In: Eucrim 1, pp. 45-50.
Schünemann, B. (2014) The European Investigation Order: A rush into the wrong direction. In: S. Ruggeri (Ed.), Transnational evidence and multicultural inquiries in Europe. Springer.
Scomparin, L., Ferraris, V., Cabiale, A., Peloso, C., Calavita, O. (2023) Abbreviated national report – Italy. In: K. Ambos, A. Heinze, P. Rackow, & M. Šepec (Eds.), European Investigation Order – Legal analysis and practical dilemmas of international cooperation. Duncker & Humblot.
Scomparin, L., Peloso, C. (2023) Defend yourself, by contesting: considerations on the relationship between right of defence and right to contest in the European Investigation Order. In: K. Ambos, A. Heinze, P. Rackow, & M. Šepec (Eds.), European Investigation Order – Legal analysis and practical dilemmas of international cooperation. Duncker & Humblot.
Sellier, E., Weyembergh, A. (2018) Criminal procedural laws across the European Union – A comparative analysis of selected main differences and the impact they have over the development of EU legislation. European Union, <https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/IPOL_STU(2018)604977> (available on December 15, 2025).
Šepec, M., Arzenšek, M., Baškovič, M., Bergant, K., Bučar, A., et al. (2023) Zakon o kazenskem postopku (ZKP): S komentarjem, 1. knjiga. M. Šepec (Ed.). Lexpera, GV Založba.
Šepec, M., Dugar, T., Erbežnik, A., Stajnko, J. (2023) Legal implementation and practical application of the EIO directive in Slovenia. In K. Ambos, A. Heinze, P. Rackow, & M. Šepec (Eds.), European Investigation Order – Legal analysis and practical dilemmas of international cooperation. Duncker & Humblot.
Šepec, M., Erbežnik, A., Stajnko, J., Dugar, T. (2020) European Investigation Order – Legal analysis and practical dilemmas of international cooperation – EIO-LAPD: National report – Slovenia. <https://lapd.pf.um.si/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/EIO-LAPD-National-Report-Slovenia-final2.pdf> (available on December 15, 2025).
Šugman Stubbs, K. (2015) Strukturne spremembe slovenskega kazenskega procesnega prava v zadnjih dvajsetih letih. In: Zbornik znanstvenih razprav 75, pp. 123-160.
Šugman Stubbs, K., Gorkič, P. (2011) Dokazovanje v kazenskem postopku. GV založba.
Šugman Stubbs, K., Gorkič, P., Fišer, Z. (2020) Temelji kazenskega procesnega prava. Lexpera, GV Založba.
Szijártó, I. (2022) The CJEU partially excludes Bulgaria from taking part in judicial cooperation – an absolute order or a balancing act? The Gavanozov II case. In: Pécs Journal of International and European Law, 1, pp. 45–50.
Topalnakos, P. G. (2023) Critical issues in the new EU regulation on electronic evidence in criminal proceedings. In: Eucrim, 2, pp. 200–203.
Tosza, S. (2020) All evidence is equal, but electronic evidence is more equal than any other: The relationship between the European Investigation Order and the European Production Order. In: New Journal of European Criminal Law 11 (2), pp. 161-183.
Wahl, T. (2021) CJEU: Bulgaria (currently) precluded from issuing EIOs due to lack of legal remedies. In: Eucrim 4, p. 228-229.
Wahl, T. (2023) E-evidence regulation and directive published. In: Eucrim 2, pp. 165-168.
Weiss Hernandez, A. (2022) Effective protection of rights as a precondition to mutual recognition: Some thoughts on the CJEU’s Gavanozov II decision. In: New Journal of European Criminal Law 13 (2), pp. 180-197.
Weyembergh, A. (2022) About the Gavanazov II and HP judgments of the CJEU on the European Investigation Order Directive: strengthening the judicial protection in the issuing Member State, <https://www.eurojust.europa.eu/20-years-of-eurojust/gavanazov-ii-and-hp-judgments-cjeu-european-investigation-order> (available on January 15, 2026).
Wijk, M. C. van (2017) Cross-border evidence gathering: Equality of arms within the EU? Eleven International Publishing.
Winter Bachmaier, L. (2010) European investigation order for obtaining evidence in the criminal proceedings Study of the proposal for a European directive. In: Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 9, pp. 580-589.
Zimmermann, F. (2015) Conflicts of Criminal Jurisdiction in the European Union. In: Bergen Journal of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 3(1), pp. 1-21.
Legal acts
Codice di procedura penale, Testo del D.P.R. 22 settembre 1988, n. 447 aggiornato, da ultimo, al D.Lgs. 7 dicembre 2023, n. 203.
Directive (EU) 2023/1544 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2023 laying down harmonised rules on the designation of designated establishments and legal representatives for the purpose of gathering electronic evidence in criminal proceedings, OJ L 191, 28.7.2023.
Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings, OJ L 142, 1.6.2012.
Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and consular authorities while deprived of liberty, OJ L 294, 6.11.2013.
Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the European Investigation Order in criminal matters, OJ L 130, 1.5.2014.
European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Council of Europe, ETS No 30, 20 April 1959).
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights, as amended by Protocols Nos 11, 14 and 15 and supplemented by Protocols Nos 1, 4, 6, 7, 12, 13 and 16) (1950) 213 UNTS 221.
Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, OJ C 303, 14.12.2007.
Convention established by the Council in accordance with Article 34 of the Treaty on European Union on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union, OJ C 197, 12.7.2000.
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, OJ C 326, 26.10.2012.
Odvetniška zbornica Slovenije, Kodeks odvetniške poklicne etike, <https://www.odv-zb.si/odvetniska-zbornica/predpisi/odvetniska-poklicna-etika/> (available on January 15, 2026).
Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, OJ C 326, 26.10.2012.
Protocol established by the Council in accordance with Article 34 of the Treaty on European Union to the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union, OJ C 326, 21.11.2001.
Zakon o kazenskem postopku (ZKP), Uradni list RS, št. 176/21 – uradno prečiščeno besedilo, 96/22 – odl. US, 2/23 – odl. US, 89/23 – odl. US, 53/24, 93/25 – ZNUZJV in 10/26 – ZKOM.
Zakon o ratifikaciji Evropske konvencije o medsebojni pravni pomoči v kazenskih zadevah in Dodatnega protokola k Evropski konvenciji o medsebojni pravni pomoči v kazenskih zadevah (MEKPPKZ), Uradni list RS – Mednarodne pogodbe, št. 25/99, 13/01 in 12/21.
Zakon o sodelovanju v kazenskih zadevah z državami članicami Evropske unije (ZSKZDČEU-1), Uradni list RS, št. 48/13, 37/15, 22/18 in 94/21.
Zakon o spremembah in dopolnitvah Zakona o sodelovanju v kazenskih zadevah z državami članicami Evropske unije – ZSKZDČEU-1B, Uradni list RS, št. 22/18 z dne 4. 4. 2018.
Ustava Republike Slovenije (URS), Uradni list RS, št. 33/91-I, 42/97 – UZS68, 66/00 – UZ80, 24/03 – UZ3a, 47, 68, 69/04 – UZ14, 69/04 – UZ43, 69/04 – UZ50, 68/06 – UZ121,140,143, 47/13 – UZ148, 47/13 – UZ90,97,99, 75/16 – UZ70a, 92/21 – UZ62a in 98/25 – UZ74a.
Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, OJ L 239, 22.9.2000.
Council Framework Decision 2002/465/JHA of 13 June 2002 on joint investigation teams, OJ L 162, 20.6.2002.
Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, OJ L 190, 18.7.2002.
Council Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA of 22 July 2003 on the execution in the European Union of orders freezing property or evidence, OJ L 196, 2.8.2003.
Council Framework Decision 2008/978/JHA of 18 December 2008 on the European evidence warrant for the purpose of obtaining objects, documents and data for use in proceedings in criminal matters, OJ L 350, 30.12.2008.
Regulation (EU) 2023/1543 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2023 on the European Production Order and the European Preservation Order for electronic evidence in criminal proceedings and for the execution of custodial sentences following criminal proceedings, PE/4/2023/REV/1, OJ L 191, 28.7.2023.
Resolution of the Council of 30 November 2009 on a Roadmap for strengthening procedural rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings, OJ C 295, 4.12.2009.
Decreto Legislativo 21. 6. 2017, n. 108 Norme di attuazione della direttiva 2014/41/UE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, del 3 aprile 2014, relativa all'ordine europeo di indagine penale, 17G00120, GU n.162 del 13-7-2017.
Case law
Association Innocence en Danger and Association Enfance et Partage v. France, Applications nos. 15343/15 and 16806/15, Judgment of 4 June 2020, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2020:0604JUD001534315.
Beraru v. Romania, Application no. 40107/04, Judgment of 18 March 2014, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:0318JUD004010704.
Bivolaru and Moldovan v. France, Applications nos. 40324/16 and 12623/17, Judgment of 25 March 2021, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:0325JUD004032416.
Boyle and Rice v. The United Kingdom, Applications nos. 9659/82, 9658/82, Judgment of 27 April 1988, ECLI:CE:ECHR:1988:0427JUD000965982.
Budayeva and others v. Russia, Applications nos. 15339/02, 21166/02, 20058/02, 11673/02 and 15343/02, Judgment of 20 March 2008, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:0320JUD001533902.
C. v. Italy, Applications nos. 10889/84, Judgment of 11 May 1988, ECLI:CE:ECHR:1988:0511DEC001088984.
Case 41-74, Yvonne van Duyn v Home Office, ECLI:EU:C:1974:133.
Case C-209/22, AB, with the participation of Rayonna prokuratura Lovech, ECLI:EU:C:2023:634.
Case C-216/18 PPU, LM, ECLI:EU:C:2018:586.
Case C 282/10, Maribel Dominguez v Centre informatique du Centre Ouest Atlantique, Préfet de la région Centre, EU:C:2012:33.
Case C 324/17, Ivan Gavanozov, ECLI:EU:C:2019:892.
Case C-324/17, Request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Spetsializiran kazatelen sad (Bulgaria) on 31 May 2017 in criminal proceedings against Ivan Gavanozov, OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.
Case C 367/16, Dawid Piotrowskega, EU:C:2018:27.
Case C-506/04, Graham J. Wilson v Ordre des avocats du barreau de Luxembourg, ECLI:EU:C:2006:587.
Case C-584/19, A. and Others, EU:C:2020:1002.
Case C-625/25, Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) – NV v Ministère public in the criminal proceedings against Prudniez, OJ C, C/2025/6126, 8.12.2025.
Case C-852/19, Ivan Gavanozov, ECLI:EU:C:2021:902.
Çelik and İmret v. Turkey, Application no. 44093/98, Judgment of 26 October 2004, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2004:1026JUD004409398.
Corte di cassazione Sezione VI penale Sentenza, dated 7. 2. 2019, nos. 14413.
Council Of Civil Service Unions v. The United Kingdom, Application no. 11603/85, Judgment of 1 January 1987, ECLI:CE:ECHR:1987:0120DEC001160385.
Csüllög v. Hungary, Application no 30042/08, Judgment of 7 June 2011, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2011:0607JUD003004208.
De Souza Ribeiro v. France, Application no. 22689/07, Judgment of 13 December 2012, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:1213JUD002268907.
Joined cases C-404/15 and C-659/15 PPU, Pál Aranyosi and Robert Căldăraru v Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Bremen, ECLI:EU:C:2016:198.
Kadiķis v. Lettonie (n° 2), Application no. 62393/00, Judgment of 4 May 2006, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:0504JUD006239300.
Laukkanen and Manninen v. Finland, Application no. 50230/99, Judgment of 3 February 2004, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2004:0203JUD005023099.
M.S. v Sweden, Applications no. 20837/92, Judgment of 27 August 1997, ECLI:CE:ECHR:1997:0827JUD002083792.
M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece, Application no. 30696/09, Judgment of 21 January 2011, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2011:0121JUD003069609.
Opinion of Advocate General Bobek in Case C-852/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:346..
Opinion of Advocate General Bot in Case C-324/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:312.
Opinion of Advocate General Pikamäe in Case C-209/22, ECLI:EU:C:2023:249.
Özgür Radyo-Ses Radyo Televizyon Yayın Yapım Ve Tanıtım A.Ş. v. Turkey (n° 1), Applications nos. 64178/00, 64179/00, 64181/00, 64183/00, 64184/00, Judgment of 30 March 2006, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:0330JUD006417800.
Paulino Tomas v. Portugal, Application no. 58698/00, Judgment of 27 March 2003, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2003:0327DEC005869800.
Peck v. The United Kimgdom, Application no. 44647/98, Judgment of 28 January 2003, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2003:0128JUD004464798.
Pélissier and Sassi v. France, Application no. 25444/94, Judgment of 25 March 1999, ECLI:CE:ECHR:1999:0325JUD002544494.
Pine Valley Developments Ltd and others v. Ireland, Application no 12742/87, Judgment of 29 November 1991, ECLI:CE:ECHR:1991:1129JUD001274287.
Posevini v. Bulgaria, Application no. 63638/14, Judgment of 19 January 2017, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0119JUD006363814.
Powell in Rayner v. The United Kingdom, Application no. 9310/81, Judgment of 21 February 1990, ECLI:CE:ECHR:1990:0221JUD000931081.
Silver and others v. The United Kingdom, Applications nos. 5947/72, 6205/73, 7052/75, 7061/75, 7107/75, 7113/75, 7136/75, Judgment of 25 March 1983, ECLI:CE:ECHR:1983:0325JUD000594772.
Smith and Grady v. The United Kingdom, Applications nos. 33985/96, 33986/96, Judgment of 27 September 1999, ECLI:CE:ECHR:1999:0927JUD003398596.
The minister for Justice and Equality v. Celmer no. 5, (2018) IEHC 639, The High Court, record no. 2013 295 EXT.
USRS odločba U I 98/91, ECLI:SI:USRS:1992:U.I.98.91.
USRS odločba U-I-190/00, ECLI:SI:USRS:2003:U.I.190.00.
USRS odločba U-I-27/95, ECLI:SI:USRS:1996:U.I.27.95.
USRS odločba U-I-426/02 Up-546/01, ECLI:SI:USRS:2003:U.I.426.02.
USRS odločba Up-11/00, ECLI:SI:USRS:2002:Up.11.00.
USRS odločba Up-143/97, ECLI:SI:USRS:1997:Up.143.97.
USRS odločba Up-3367/07, ECLI:SI:USRS:2009:Up.3367.07.
USRS odločba Up-34/93, ECLI:SI:USRS:1995:Up.34.93.
USRS odločba Up-369/01, ECLI:SI:USRS:2001:Up.369.01.
USRS odločba Up-899/16, Up-900/16, Up-901/16, ECLI:SI:USRS:2022:Up.899.16.
VSRS sodba I Ips 214/97, ECLI:SI:VSRS:2002:I.IPS.214.97.
VSRS sodba I Ips 291/2007, ECLI:SI:VSRS:2007:I.IPS.291.2007.
VSRS sodba I Ips 320/2007, ECLI:SI:VSRS:2008:I.IPS.320.2007.
VSRS sodba I Ips 44415/2010, ECLI:SI:VSRS:2021:I.IPS.44415.2010.1.
Zavoloka v. Latvia, Application no. 58447/00, Judgment of 7 July 2009, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:0707JUD005844700.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 University of Maribor, University Press
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
© Univerza v Mariboru, Pravna fakulteta, Univerzitetna založba
Prosti pristop