Non-discrimination

Participants considered that the right to non-discrimination was taken very seriously in Slovenia: a vast legislative framework provided that discrimination based on any grounds was prohibited in any area of public life, with an open-ground formula. Protection applied not only to individuals but also legal persons. It was explained that the Equality Body had a far-reaching mandate, and wide-ranging tasks and powers beyond awareness-raising, including representation of victims in court, access to the Constitutional Court and collective action. Its decisions were binding and it could also make recommendations. Data collection on equality was considered scarce, affecting the ability of the equality body to monitor the situation. It was also felt that more funding was needed to increase research and data collection by CSOs, for example on ethnic discrimination. The Slovenian authorities informed the delegation that they were working on improving data collection, but that progress in that area required some time. Despite the existence of good legislation, participants regretted certain gaps in policy implementation and a general prejudice in society. They explained that discrimination hit the most marginalised persons and groups, which included LGBTIQ+ people, minorities, foreigners and women. Discrimination was considered as high in access to the labour market and to healthcare, but it was also felt that integration in education, primary and secondary school had progressed significantly. Participants explained that while there were some specific anti-discrimination strategies, an overall strategy was missing. Some essential sectoral strategies were also lacking, such as on racism, while the strategy on gender equality is in the process of adoption. A participant explained that the reasonable accommodation principle had not been implemented in line with EU standards and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). The sanctioning of hate speech was also considered as flawed by some participants who believed that legislation on hate crime was needed and that intersectional discrimination needed to be better integrated in the law. Participants considered that there were minor issues with the Istanbul Convention (on action against violence against women and domestic violence) but that it was overall well implemented. The Slovenian authorities expressed strong support for the Istanbul Convention and said that a national strategy on preventing domestic violence was under preparation. Participants explained that three pieces of legislation governed the situation of foreigners in Slovenia, including migrants, asylum-seekers and refugees: the International Protection Act, the Citizenship Act and the Foreigners Act. Participants believed that pushbacks at the border had decreased since the 5/6 change of government and said that the approach by the new government had included the tearing down of the fence at the southern border. Ahead of Croatia's entry into the Schengen area, one participant feared that pushbacks would increase again. It was explained that the vast majority of foreigners in the country were migrant workers and that the criteria for family reunification were restricted under the previous government. Participants regretted that public capacity was lacking notably in the area of housing, affecting the ability of migrants to get a permanent address and, as a consequence, to get access to all rights and services. Practical procedures for migrants to obtain or renew their documents were considered as very slow, and the opening of a bank account was particularly difficult for migrants from certain countries. Participants explained that persons refused international protection went to detention centres and that in cases where deportation was impossible, they became "invisible" inhabitants, without any right or access to services. A participant said that minor migrants were detained in violation of international law. The Slovenian authorities said that the latest strategy on migration had been adopted in July 2019, providing a holistic and long-lasting approach. Participants believed that the visibility and social inclusion of LGBTIQ+ persons had much improved in the last years. Two landmark Constitutional Court decisions had led to legal equality in the areas of marriage and adoption for same-sex partnerships. However, there had also been increasing episodes of hate crime and hate speech, especially against transgender persons. Female couples and single women were still discriminated against in access to infertility treatments. A participant explained that medical transition was decided by a group of experts, and regretted that no protocol to get a second opinion existed if the transition was denied. Participants acknowledged that laws provided for inclusiveness in education, but said that this mainly applied in relation to children with special needs and ethnic minorities rather than to LGBTIQ+ children. The Slovenian authorities referred to the need to work on awareness-raising to change public perceptions. They also voiced support for the EU LGBTIQ equality strategy, but admitted that no national mechanism was currently in place. A participant explained that Slovenia was one of the first countries to adopt legislation on Roma inclusion. A public representative body for the Roma communities provided for consultation on policies that affected them. Unfortunately, it was felt that this body was not so representative and actually divided the communities. It was explained that discrimination was seriously under-reported by Roma persons. Many housing settlements still lacked infrastructure like running water, an issue which was being dealt with but in a slow way. Despite some progress in access to the labour market, unemployment for Roma individuals was still high, and so was the drop-out level in education. The health situation in Roma communities was considered as worse than the rest of the population; notably, Roma persons have a twenty-year lower life expectancy compared to other Slovenians. Participants believed that better policies for Roma communities were needed, and the Slovenian authorities stated their commitment to the betterment of conditions for Roma persons.