After several relatively calm years, corporate bankruptcies in Slovenia trended upward during 2024 and into 2025. The Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia reports that in July 2025, bankruptcies were 60% higher than in July 2024, indicating a clear upward trend.
The numbers underscore why efficiency – shorter timelines, proportionate costs, and realistic creditor recoveries – matters. Some online commentaries have cited an “approximately 90% recovery rate.” That figure appears significantly exaggerated. In practice, a significant share of corporate bankruptcies still close without any dividend because the estate is nonexistent or does not even cover case costs, and the Slovenian Insolvency Act expressly permits closure without distribution in such circumstances.
Length of Proceedings: The principle of procedural expediency requires courts to act within statutory deadlines and to supervise insolvency administrators, so they do the same. Insolvency matters are prioritized. The rules reflect this: claim-filing deadlines are preclusive; appeals generally do not suspend the effect of court orders; decision deadlines are short; electronic communication is used; and administrators face liability for delay. Publication runs through the Agency of the Republic of Slovenia for Public Legal Records and Related Services’ eObjave portal, which functions as the official notice board for insolvency acts and filings. Nevertheless, cases often take too long. The main drivers are litigation over disputed claims, heavy caseloads for courts and administrators handling multiple matters, numerous creditors, and difficulties in selling assets. Recent amendments aim to ease sales: the 2023 package promoted wider use of transparent online auctions to broaden bidder pools and curb collusion – steps in the right direction, but not a full cure for illiquid or encumbered assets.
Too-Late Initiation of Proceedings: Timely proceedings protect creditors and the market from businesses taking on obligations they cannot meet. In recent years, many bankruptcy cases have been creditor-initiated and therefore late, by which time asset values have deteriorated, and creating new value in proceedings is difficult. Management is best placed to act on time. The Slovenian Insolvency Act requires management to file without undue delay and, in any event, within one month after insolvency occurs (with a longer period only in exceptional events). Failure can trigger civil exposure and, where warranted, criminal liability. Despite these “sticks,” practice shows frequent delays. Comparative experience suggests that measured incentives (e.g., clearly supervised management‑retention or turnaround bonuses, safe‑harbor protection for early filers, and readily available DIP‑style interim financing tools) can encourage earlier, value‑preserving filings while respecting creditor safeguards and public policy. Slovenia’s framework would benefit from a calibrated debate on this front.
What About Restructuring Proceedings? In 2024, no preventive restructuring proceedings were commenced, and so far in 2025, only one such proceeding has been initiated. Many restructurings continue to occur out of court through tailored agreements between companies and their main creditors, which are often more flexible than formal preventive restructuring. At the beginning of 2025, provisions on a new judicial restructuring procedure to avert imminent insolvency began to apply. It is unlikely, however, that this by itself will dramatically increase in-court restructurings.
Where Is the Problem? Despite repeated amendments, outcomes have changed little because the main obstacles lie in practice rather than on paper. First, enforcement is uneven: sanctions for late filing or administrator delay exist but too often lack bite, so incentives to act promptly remain weak. Second, judicial resources are stretched, which slows scheduling and decision-making even where the rules aim for speed. Third, case economics frequently undermine results: a high share of estates are asset-less or too thin to fund costs, so proceedings close without any distribution. Fourth, debtor behavior persists as a drag – management often defers filing until trading losses have crystallized, by which point value preservation is far harder. The tools – strict deadlines, generally non-suspensive appeals, centralized e-publication, transparent auctions, and contract-stabilization during restructuring – are in place. What is still needed is earlier action by debtors, firmer and faster enforcement by courts and regulators, and sufficient capacity to keep cases moving. Put simply, the framework is there, but making it work hinges on timing, supervision, and resources.
Concluding Assessment: Slovenia’s insolvency system has sound design premises for speed and predictability. The 2023-2025 reforms moved the needle, yet the practical efficiency gap persists wherever filings are late and estates are thin. Policy that nudges earlier filing – paired with continued judicial capacity‑building and transparent, competitive asset sales – would likely yield more meaningful creditor recoveries than any tweak to statutory text alone. In insolvency, there are only two times that matter: in time and too late.
By Matjaz Ulcar, Managing Partner, and Tija Hladnik, Associate, Cerha Hempel Ulcar & Partnerji
This article was originally published in Issue 12.8 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.
