Indicator history

The Act Implementing the Principle of Equal Treatment states in Article 22, §2 that if a person who claims discrimination states facts in judicial and administrative proceedings, as well as before other competent bodies, that justify the claim that the ban on discrimination (including harassment) has been violated, the alleged offender must prove that he or she did not violate the principle of equal treatment or the ban on discrimination in the case being heard. Further, Article 6, §4 of the Employment Relationship Act states that when a candidate or employee claims facts during a dispute which justify the assumption that the prohibition of discrimination (including harassment), the burden of proof rests with the employer. Article 45, §3 has the same provision. In criminal law, the burden of proof lies with the public prosecutor or private prosecutor since it would be inappropriate if it were the defendant who had to prove that there was no basis for their conviction. Furthermore, such a rule would be contrary to the principle of presumption of innocence. 

In practice, not problems are reported with regard to the implementation of the rule of the shift of burden of proof.

Source:

Zakon o uresničevanju načela enakega obravnavanja – Uradno prečiščeno besedilo [Act Implementing the Principle of Equal Treatment – Official Consolidated Version], Official Journal of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 93/2007. 

Report on legal measures to combat discrimination (Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC), Country report 2010 Slovenia, http://www.non-discrimination.net/content/media/2010-SI-Country%20Report%20LN_FINAL.pdf.