In Slovenia, exceptionally, certain law provisions may have retroactive effect. Retrospectivity is allowed if single provisions are in question, they must be law provisions, the retrospectivity itself must be required in the public interest and the retrospective provision must not infringe any acquired rights (Art. 155/2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia). The criteria allowing retrospectivity must be cumulatively present. It would be legally inadmissible to give the criterion of public interest such weight as to allow an infringement of acquired rights.A retrospective legal provision must not remedy any possible effects (e.g. very high income) that originated within the framework of legally allowed possibilities and are ex post facto considered socially unjust. The real reason justifying a possible retrospective validity of a law provision is a present reason that did not yet exist at the time in which we retrospectively intervene.In real life it can happen that the factual tax situation is under development and therefore cannot be completely encompassed by a prospective provision. This circumstance, however, cannot be a legal pretext that would, by its very nature, justify retrospectivity. If a tax period cannot really be divided into several tax incomes because e.g. the payment is a onetime one and is due at the end of the calendar year, this means that the tax burden must be proportionate with regard to the length and the intensity of the tax period. This duty can only refer to the period running from the moment the law came into force.The principle of proportionality is not a criterion that would justify a retrospective infringement of an acquired right. The first stage of the principle of proportionality is that the aim as well as the means, between which a proper proportion is sought, must be constitutional and legal. A retrospective law provision that does not comply with the cumulatively prescribed retrospectivity criteria is an unconstitutional one. As soon as the aim and/or the means are illegal, it is eo ipso excluded that one would try to establish whether the means are suitable, necessary and proportionate in view of the aim.

Rights