Published on 5 January 2026
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 36538/25
Urša REGVAR
against Slovenia
lodged on 16 November 2025
communicated on 11 December 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicant is a lawyer and a refugee counsellor who has been acting in this capacity since 2017. Refugee counsellors provide legal aid to asylum seekers in proceedings before the Administrative and Supreme Court. They are lawyers with completed bar exams, including some of them attorneys, appointed for a period of five years, which can be renewed. Their fees are covered by the Ministry of Justice; however, the latter can request reimbursement of expenses from asylum seekers who have sufficient means of subsistence.
The applicant represented more than 81 asylum seekers in proceedings before the Administrative and Supreme Court against the decisions issued by the Ministry of Interior. She is currently representing four asylum seekers before the national courts.
In December 2020 the Ministry of Justice published a proposal for the amendment of the International Protection Act which intended to introduce a new provision concerning specific obligation of the refugee counsellors to report to the State authorities certain relevant information related to the persons they represent in the proceedings. The applicant – together with other refugee counsellors and an NGO specialised in this field – opposed the proposed amendments, but to no avail. The amendment to the International Protection Act was adopted on 26 March 2021 and entered into force on 9 November 2021. It provides – in the sixth indent of Section 9 (10) – that the Minster of Justice can dismiss the refugee counsellor if the latter is aware of the asylum seeker’s true identity, is in possession of the asylum seekers’ identification documents, is aware of the actual age of the asylum seeker claiming to be a minor, or is aware of facts on the basis of which the asylum seeker is not entitled to refugee status or subsidiary protection, but fails to inform the competent authority thereof (hereinafter “the reporting obligation”).
On 19 June 2025, at a request of a group of deputies of the National Assembly, the Constitutional Court decided on the review of the constitutionality of, inter alia, the above-mentioned provision of the International Protection Act. The Constitutional Court considered that the relationship between a refugee counsellor and an asylum seeker was of such nature to enjoy constitutional protection under Article 35 of the Constitution (protection of right to privacy and personal rights). It further considered that the reporting obligation concerned information about the substance of the refugee counsellor’s work, as it involved disclosing sensitive information obtained while providing the asylum seeker with the required professional assistance. Taking this into account and given that the refugee counsellor could be dismissed for failing to report such information to the State authorities, the Constitutional Court concluded that the impugned legal provision constituted an interference with the right to privacy. The Constitutional Court went on to find that the reporting obligation was appropriate and necessary to ensure the effective implementation of international protection procedures and proportionate stricto sensu. The Constitutional Court’s decision was published on 16 July 2025.
The applicant complains of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention arguing that she is a direct victim of the interference arising from the reporting obligation. She submits, inter alia, that the reporting obligation pursues no legitimate aim, has no rational connection to the stated objective of ensuring efficiency of the international protection procedure, lacks proper legal basis due to insufficient clarity, delimitation, and foreseeability of its application, lacks adequate procedural safeguards, creates a chilling effect on the refugee counsellors, including her, and is in essence disproportionate and thus in breach of Article 8.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Having regard to the legal professional privilege, specifically protected by Article 8 of the Convention, does the reporting obligation, as provided in the sixth indent of Section 9 (10) of the International Protection Act, comply with paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Convention (compare, Michaud v. France, no. 12323/11, §§ 52-53, 92 and 117-130, ECHR 2012)?
2. What safeguards, if any, are in place to protect confidentiality of the relations between the refugee counsellors and the asylum seekers they represent (compare, Michaud, cited above, §§ 127-130)? Is there any limitation imposed on the scope of the reporting obligation with a view to protecting the aforementioned confidentiality? If so, the parties are invited to define the limitations in question.