77
UDC: 349.2:331.108.45
 330.322.3
Primož Rataj
*
Employee’s “Working Obligation” for 
a Certain Period or Alternative Costs’ 
Reimbursement Resulting from  
Employer’s Provision of Specific  
Training or Financing of Education
1. Introduction
The European Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR) was proclaimed on 17 November 2017 
by leaders of the European Union’s (EU) key institutions. It seemed remarkable at first 
sight, that the idea of promoting the well-being of the EU citizens and sustainable de-
velopment of Europe, based on balanced economic growth and price stability, highly 
competitive social market economy aimed at full employment and social progress, where 
solidarity between generations is sought and social justice and protection are promoted, 
was to be achieved by an EU-wide Pillar of Social Rights.
1
 The choice of words, such as 
social market economy, social progress, social justice, and solidarity, seems to indicate 
that the EU is heavily invested in safeguarding the legal position of its citizens, seeing 
solidarity and socialness as ends instead of means. This can be achieved by guaranteeing 
its citizens social rights as legal grounds upon which claims before national courts could 
be successfully made.
Unfortunately, by reading further, it becomes quickly clear, that this is not what the 
EPSR represents. A reader can promptly realise that, paradoxically, it expresses “principles 
∗	
Master of Law, T eaching Assistant at the Faculty of Law, University of Ljubljana, primoz.rataj@pf.uni-
lj.si.
1
 See paragraph 1 of the Preamble to the EPSR.
3

78
Zbornik znanstvenih razprav – LXXX. letnik, 2020 
Perspektive Evropskega stebra socialnih pravic / Pers Pectives on the e uro Pean Pillar of s ocial r ights and rights essential for fair and well-functioning labour markets and welfare systems”. It 
adds “‘new principles” and “for them to be legally enforceable, the principles and rights 
first require dedicated measures or legislation to be adopted at the appropriate level.”
2
 It 
is astonishing how many times the word “principles” is used, effectively expressing that 
the EPSR is merely a proclamation of already existing principles and the two are vastly 
different in its effects. Nevertheless, critique, although perhaps on point, can be under-
stood by the overall institutional and constitutional design of the EU, that is, by the lack 
of competences and the complications arising out of political processes, where gaining 
the required majority or consent is sometimes best described as the Gordian knot.
Despite the limited scope of the EPSR, its effect for the future should not be underes-
timated, and any acknowledgement of some foundational key existing principles that are 
publicly promoted and respected is welcome. It is not a coincidence that among these 20 
principles, some relate to education, training, and equal opportunities (also in accessing 
the labour market). More specifically, the first established guiding principle is that every-
one has the right to quality and inclusive education, training, and life-long learning to 
maintain and acquire skills that enable them to participate fully in society and manage 
transitions successfully in the labour market.
It could be argued that education, learning, training, and vocational training (here-
inafter “education” and/or “training”)
3
 as foundations for obtaining knowledge are the 
cornerstones of our society.
4
 After all, this is evident through provisions in international 
(human rights) acts
5
 or national constitutions.
6
 Moreover, this content is quintessential 
2
 Ibid., see paragraphs 14ff.
3
 For the different meanings and connotations of education, training, and vocational training see 
Teršek, Medved, Pravica delavcev do dodatnega izobraževanja (2018), pp. II–V; and Korpič - 
Horvat, Izobraževanje, pravica in dolžnost delavca (2007), p. 43. In this contribution the nouns 
“education” and/or “training” will refer to either of these terms in their general sense, either as 
obtaining a higher level of officially recognised education; as professional, vocational training; as 
attendance at various seminars and other programmes designed towards obtaining knowledge; etc.
4
 Some argue that education up until employment is not sufficient anymore, it is expected and de-
sired that members of society undergo life-long education. Moreover, a well-established system of 
permanent education ought to be a political priority to ensure that knowledge has an everlasting 
status of a fundamental value. See Teršek, Medved, Pravica delavcev do dodatnega izobraževanja 
(2018), p. II. Very interestingly, the concept of long-life learning or permanent educational process 
(for adults) has already been discussed (and the idea broadly accepted) already in the 1970s. See 
Končar, Pravica, obveznost in odgovornost delavcev do izobraževanja (1978), pp. 167–168.
5
 For a short overview of several (not only human rights) international sources of law referring to ed-
ucation, see Korpič - Horvat, Izobraževanje, pravica in dolžnost delavca (2007), p. 42; Franca, Med 
teorijo in prakso: vsebine izobraževanja in usposabljanja v kolektivnih pogodbah dejavnosti (2018), 
p. 612; and Teršek, Medved, Pravica delavcev do dodatnega izobraževanja (2018), pp. II–IV.
6
 See, for instance, the guarantee of freedom of education in Article 57 of the Slovenian Constitution, 
Official Gazette of RS, No. 33/91-I, last amended in 2016. Some argue that knowledge is one of the 

79
Primož Rataj – Employee’s “Working Obligation” for a Certain Period or Alternative 
Costs’ Reimbursement Resulting from Employer’s Provision of Specific  
training or Financing of Education
for the EU.
7
 Knowledge is something that cannot be taken from an individual and makes 
up one’s identity. Its value cannot be overstressed in the broadest general sense,
8
 but also 
when looking for (desired) working opportunities. Education and training, construed in 
the light of qualification of employees, are in the present a “key factor of modern human 
resource management”.
9
 In other words, knowledge and qualifications are marketable 
products, meaning they are provided in exchange for earnings. Moreover, in an employ-
ment relationship, education, training and life-long learning can be perceived as a right 
and a duty of an employee that is generally financed by an employer when the knowledge 
obtained is of added value for the work performed.
2. Framing of the “Working Obligation”
What is relevant is that education and training costs money. It is not a rare occurrence 
that training provided costs a substantial amount of money, which employers are reluc-
tant to “invest”, if there are no precautions in place that would effectively safeguard their 
legal position. On the other hand, employees might be interested in training, but cannot 
afford to pay for it themselves, often turning to their employer for assistance. In such 
cases, employers seek some sort of a guarantee on their investment in the knowledge of 
their employee(s). They are prepared to do so under the condition that a special contract 
is concluded stating that the employee in return is obliged to continue working for them 
for a certain period, otherwise they are required to reimburse (part) of the costs incurred. Even 
though that education and training are generally the precondition for full participation 
in society and subsequent transitions in the labour market, issues may arise.
Firstly, and now the contribution is being presented in the context of this special is-
sue, freedom of movement of workers, as one of the economic freedoms and foundations 
most important values beneficial for the individual and the society as a whole. The Constitutional 
foundation does not relate merely to primary education of children or other educational schemes of 
youth, but also reflects the right to education of workers. See Šetinc Tekavc, Delovno razmerje in 
izobraževanje delavca (2001), pp. 251–252. Končar (1978, p. 178) sees the Constitutional right of 
education as a non-absolute subjective right, from which merely the obligation of the society arises 
to create educational opportunities for its members, especially also for workers, so that the needs and 
development of each individual is attained for him/her to become a valuable member of the society.
7
 Education is perceived, alongside culture, as the key value in strengthening the European identity, 
while also striving for job creation, economic growth, social fairness, and unity. See, for instance, 
European Commission, COM (2017) 673 final, p. 1.
8
 Education is perceived as an instrument aimed towards eliminating poverty, because its synergis-
tic effects influence the increase of productivity. It also improves the realisation of the develop-
mental problems, such as taking account of environment and its requirements, etc. See Svetličič, 
Konkurenčnost gospodarstva in vlaganje v izobraževanje (2006), p. 8.
9
 Felten, Reply to an ad hoc request for comparative analysis (2017), p. 10.

80
Zbornik znanstvenih razprav – LXXX. letnik, 2020 
Perspektive Evropskega stebra socialnih pravic / Pers Pectives on the e uro Pean Pillar of s ocial r ights of the Union, stipulated in Article 45 of the TFEU, may become relevant when pursing 
successful transition in the (cross-border European) labour market, where various re-
strictions in the form of “working obligations” or reimbursement duties, founded in the 
provision or financing of the training or educational programmes (by employers) exist. 
Therefore, it is assessed what kind of constitutional (a)symmetry exists in the framed 
context on the relation of the EPSR and the TFEU or, differently, between a social right 
and an economic freedom in (predominantly) employment relationships.
Since EU law binds first and foremost the Member States, statutory rules or schemes 
that serve as grounds for further contractual arrangements will be relevant. These are typ-
ical for employment relationships, where many aspects are regulated contractually (and 
not always statutorily). A second constitutional (a)symmetry may appear here, in this 
case in the national constitutional setting, which may apply also to statutory schemes. 
National Constitutions may, at least in the case of Slovenia, contain provisions related 
to freedom of work, including also free choice of employment with all its broad conse-
quences. It is questionable if—and under which conditions—financing of one’s educa-
tion or training can be tied to an obligation to work for a certain time in this Member 
State (or for a specific employer) or alternatively be subjected to reimbursement of costs 
of the training or education provided.
The purpose of the contribution is, therefore, to vividly illustrate the selected con-
stitutional aspects by combining legislation with practice, i.e. outlining the regulatory 
provisions and case-law adopted. In the first part of the article, the judgments of the 
Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) are scrutinised and broader comparative 
perspectives (i.e. international and comparative outlook) are described. In the second 
(lengthier) part, regulatory (statutory and contractual) provisions and the national courts 
case-law are presented, where this is done for Slovenia as the author’s home Member 
State (i.e. a national outlook).
3. Illustrative Case-Law of the CJEU
Interestingly, from an EU perspective, it has reportedly
10
 been an ongoing process 
for the European Commission in receiving repeatedly complaints referring to various 
national schemes aiming to provide either education or specialised training and requiring 
the graduates or trainees to work for a certain period in this Member State or alternatively 
to reimburse the costs of training or education. Generally, the complainants perceive this 
obligation as an obstacle to EU free movement of workers’ principles and an infringe-
ment of EU law, more specifically of Article 45 of the TFEU. Up until now, there were 
already some CJEU cases, where the issue of restrictions on the freedom of movement 
for workers was invoked, restrictions meaning that persons were under a certain level of 
10
 Ibid., p. 9.

81
Primož Rataj – Employee’s “Working Obligation” for a Certain Period or Alternative 
Costs’ Reimbursement Resulting from Employer’s Provision of Specific  
training or Financing of Education
“control” of the current employer, and would face sanctions if they refused to continue 
to work for them after the period of training (or education). However, these sanctions 
are not always strictly linked to the reimbursement of costs of training. The idea is not to 
provide a lengthy case-law analysis but to offer some illustrative cases, which will enable 
an outline of relevant findings.
Two of the first cases in this respect were connected with football. In Bosman
11
 case, 
a Belgian professional footballer, employed by RC Liege in Belgium, was employed there 
for two years (1988–1990) and previously trained there. Afterwards, he accepted an 
agreement with a French club US Dunkerque, but according to the transfer rules at the 
time, a compensation fee for training would have to be paid to the prior club, and due 
to doubts to the second club’s solvency, an internationally valid transfer certificate was 
not issued. If he refused to sign with the prior club, RC Liege, who had offered him a 
new professional contract, he would, in the end, face the consequence of a suspension, be 
reclassified as an amateur and be allowed to a transfer without club’s agreement after not 
playing for two seasons. Such level of control of his employer did not result in reimburse-
ment of costs of training, but of loss of income due to inability to play professionally.
When the case was adjudicated by the CJEU in the form of answering preliminary 
questions, the CJEU explained that free movement of workers provisions preclude the 
rules of sporting associations, under which a professional footballer, who is a national of 
one Member State may not, on the expiry of his contract with a club, be employed by a 
club of another Member State unless the latter club has paid to the former club a transfer, 
training, or development fee. Even though the case concerned the sporting activity, as 
a sui generis activity, the fact that it presents an economic activity (for professionals or 
semi-professionals) was sufficient to fall within the ambit of the Treaties since they were 
in gainful employment or provided a remunerated service. Despite the fact that the rules 
at hand governed business relationships between employers (i.e. transfer rules) in a sector 
of (sporting) activity, this did not prevent the CJEU to decide that they nevertheless fell 
within the scope of the EU provisions relating to freedom of movement for workers, since 
their application affected the terms of employment of workers. Moreover, even though 
the rules on freedom of movement for workers typically require that equal treatment in 
the host Member State is ensured in comparison to nationals of that State (i.e. the dis-
criminatory actions in France by their rules would normally be thought of in the concrete 
case), they also prohibit the Member State of origin from hindering the establishment or 
from engaging in gainful employment in another Member State (as in the present case).
The economic freedom of movement for workers is, however, not absolute and rules 
pursuing a legitimate aim compatible with the TFEU could be justified if pressing rea-
11
 Judgment of the Court of 15 December 1995, C-415/93 Union royale belge des sociétés de football 
association ASBL v Jean-Marc Bosman, Royal club liégeois SA v Jean-Marc Bosman and others and 
Union des associations européennes de football (UEFA) v Jean-Marc Bosman, ECLI:EU:C:1995:463.

82
Zbornik znanstvenih razprav – LXXX. letnik, 2020 
Perspektive Evropskega stebra socialnih pravic / Pers Pectives on the e uro Pean Pillar of s ocial r ights sons of public interest are present. Even if that were the case, the application of those 
rules would still have to be such as to ensure achievement of the aim in question and not 
go beyond what is necessary for that purpose. In the present case, this was not so. It has 
to be mentioned that the CJEU in Bosman considered the social importance of sport-
ing activities and in particular of football as such in the EU. The aims of maintaining a 
balance between clubs, by preserving a certain degree of equality and uncertainty as to 
results of encouraging the recruitment and training of young players, was accepted as 
legitimate. The prospect of receiving transfer or training fees was indeed likely to encour-
age football clubs to seek new talents and train young players. However, due to it being 
impossible to predict the sporting future of young players and because only a limited 
number of such players go on to play professionally, those fees were by nature contingent 
and uncertain and were in any event unrelated to the actual cost borne by clubs of training 
both future professional players and those who will never play professionally. The pros-
pect of receiving such fees, therefore, could not be either a decisive factor in encouraging 
recruitment and training of young players or an adequate means of financing such activ-
ities, particularly in the case of smaller clubs.
A similar case—with some differences—is the case of Olympique Lyon.
12
 This club 
had entered into an employment contract with Olivier Bernard as a trainee for the period 
of 1997–2000. According to the French Charter of football profession, players between 
the ages of 16 and 22, who were employed as trainees by a professional club under a 
fixed-term contract, had to sign their first professional contract with that club at the end 
of their training if the club required them to do so, or, failing that, be liable for damages 
corresponding to the loss suffered.
Mr Bernard had signed with an English club Newcastle United FC after his training 
employment contract in France ended. He was then sued for damages in the equivalent of 
the remuneration received over one year if he had signed the contract offered by Olympique 
Lyon. The disputed preliminary question mainly focused, again, on whether the need to 
encourage the recruitment and training of young (football) players constituted a justified 
restriction within the meaning of Article 45 of TFEU, i.e. freedom of movement for 
workers. It is indisputably an obstacle to freedom of movement for workers. Still, justifi-
cation could exist within the line of requirements in Bosman, that is, if a legitimate aim 
justified by overriding reasons in the public interest would mean an application of that 
measure in such a way as to ensure achievement of the objective in question and not go 
beyond what is necessary for that purpose, that is—being proportional.
The reasoning of the CJEU is very similar to Bosman and the conclusion the same. 
The scheme in the French Charter did not ensure the attainment of the objective of en-
couraging the recruitment and training of young players—especially important for small 
12
 Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 March 2010, C-325/08 Olympique Lyonnais SASP 
v Olivier Bernard and Newcastle UFC, ECLI:EU:C:2010:143. 

83
Primož Rataj – Employee’s “Working Obligation” for a Certain Period or Alternative 
Costs’ Reimbursement Resulting from Employer’s Provision of Specific  
training or Financing of Education
clubs at the local level—and was disproportional. The main culprit for the decision was 
the fact that the liability was for damages that were based on criteria, which were not 
determined in advance and were calculated in a way, which was unrelated to the actual 
costs of the training.
Interestingly, it was in this case that the broader perspective related to the title of this 
article was highlighted and referenced. The Netherlands Government pointed out, in 
a more general manner, that reasons in the public interest exist related to training ob-
jectives, which could justify rules under which an employer, who provides training to a 
worker, is justified in requiring the worker to remain in his employment or, if he does not 
do so, to claim damages from him. When taking account of the proportionality, it was 
suggested that compensation should fulfil two criteria, namely that the amount to be paid 
must be calculated in relation to the expenditure incurred by the employer in that training 
and that account must be taken of the extent, and for how long, the employer has been able 
to enjoy the benefit of the training.
These observations are crucial, and this is (at least for the first part) confirmed in a 
rather recent case Federspiel.
13
 The case concerned an Italian woman, who pursued from 
1992 to 2000 full-time training as a medical specialist in neurology and psychiatry at the 
University Hospital of Innsbruck in Austria. During this period, she received a study bur-
sary (i.e. scholarship) awarded to her by the Autonomous Province of Bolzano (in Italy). 
This was made possible by provincial legislation, which intended to seek and finance other 
specialist posts (in Italy and Austria) if none were available locally. According to men-
tioned provincial legislation in Italy, she was obliged to work for the public health service 
of the Bolzano province for 5 years over a 10-year period, or to repay 70 per cent of the 
scholarship awarded with statutory interest for failing to honour the contractual obliga-
tion, or proportionally less in the case of partial failure. In 2013, it was established that 
Mrs Federspiel had not practised in that province since qualifying as a specialist and ap-
proximately EUR 120.000 was then claimed from her.
14
 Even though the case concerned 
a “student – future employer” relationship, it, in essence, relates to the same “working ob-
ligation” that is more commonly present in “employee – current employer” relationships.
Differently than in the previous two cases, CJEU did not determine that provision 
stipulating free movement of workers precluded the national legislation in question, but 
instead invoked the outlined exception above. The pursued objective in the public inter-
est, in this case, was to guarantee for the population of that province specialised medical 
assistance of high quality that was balanced and accessible to all while maintaining the 
financial equilibrium of the social security system. The Court recalled that human health 
13
 Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 December 2017, C-419/16 Sabine Simma Federspiel 
v Provincia autonoma di Bolzano and Equitalia Nord SpA, ECLI:EU:C:2017:997.
14
 The 70 per cent of the scholarship amounted to EUR 68.515 and the interest amounted to EUR 
51.418.

84
Zbornik znanstvenih razprav – LXXX. letnik, 2020 
Perspektive Evropskega stebra socialnih pravic / Pers Pectives on the e uro Pean Pillar of s ocial r ights and life rank foremost among the assets and interests protected by the TFEU. Not only 
that the risk of seriously compromising the financial equilibrium of a social security sys-
tem constitutes an overriding reason related to the public interest capable of justifying 
an obstacle to the fundamental freedoms in the TFEU, the grounds of public health are 
also important, with the objective of maintaining sufficient and permanent access to a 
balanced range of high-quality medical treatments and to ensure cost efficiency and pre-
vention (as far as possible) of any wastage of financial, technical, and human resources.
The Court also found measures to be proportionate, meaning that they did not go 
beyond what was necessary. Mrs Federspiel agreed to such obligation, the amount of 
statutory interest was the natural consequence of late payments, the principal payment 
consisted of scholarships awarded to her (i.e. the costs of training as such), the required 
working period was shorter than the training, the obligation was somewhat flexible with-
in a period of 10 years, etc. Moreover, the measure aimed at ensuring that there was a 
sufficient number of specialists, who were bilingual in the province and there had been 
no alternative measures available that would have enabled the province in question to 
recruit the required number of specialists practising in Austrian and Italian language.
To sum up the findings of these cases, on the relation between free movement of 
workers (as economic freedom) and the right to (quality and inclusive) education, train-
ing and life-long learning to maintain and acquire skills that enable persons to participate 
fully in society and manage successfully transition in the labour market (as a social right 
of the EPSR), in the case of a “working obligation” or an alternative reimbursement of 
costs incurred, such schemes’ restrictions can be accepted if they pursue a legitimate aim 
compatible with the TFEU and are justified by overriding reasons in the public interest, 
so long as the application of such measures is to ensure achievement of the objective in 
question and not go beyond what is necessary for that purpose.
The legal standard is, therefore, “stretchy” (which is from a constitutional law per-
spective usually the norm), making it difficult and elusive to generalise since the standard 
is used on a case-by-case basis by weighing the (legal and factual) importance of concrete 
circumstances.
15
15
 It could be interesting to reflect that the accepted restriction on free movement of workers by the 
CJEU temporally coincides with the broader perspective of limiting free movement rights (of EU 
citizens) in the area of social rights (e.g. social security benefits and other social benefits), where the 
case-law changed somewhere in the proximity of year 2011. See an excellent perspective on this 
issue in Thym (ed.), Questioning EU Citizenship: Judges and the Limits of Free Movement 
and Solidarity in the EU (2017). For limited access to social assistance benefits for different 
categories of EU citizens see also the contribution of Luka Mišič in this volume. 

85
Primož Rataj – Employee’s “Working Obligation” for a Certain Period or Alternative 
Costs’ Reimbursement Resulting from Employer’s Provision of Specific  
training or Financing of Education
4. Broader Comparative Perspectives
It has been stressed in the first part, dealing with some CJEU cases, that in a more 
general manner, there are reasons in the public interest related to training objectives, 
which could justify rules under which an employer, who provides training to an employ-
ee, is justified in requiring the employee to remain in his employment or, if he does not 
do so, to claim reimbursement (or damages) from him.
In identifying such reasons, Slovenia is no exception in comparison to other Member 
States. Throughout the EU, the Member States have adopted various approaches, found-
ed by their historical and cultural development. While some Member States provide for 
specific statutory legislation on educational schemes that include the “working obliga-
tion”, predominantly regarding employees in the public sector (for instance, to soldiers 
or army members, border guards, prison officers, judges, and prosecutors or medical 
practitioners), other Member States regulate this phenomenon with private agreements. 
These can be concluded within the limits that are set out in the legal framework for such 
private agreements, or by applying general principles of civil law (for instance, through a 
“fairness test” or a “penalty clause test”).
16
Observing this phenomenon in essentially all Member States is nothing spectacular, 
as the law regulates societal relations and these are (very) similar in the region. Since 
positive legal (national) rules apply within domestic borders, the legal differences are 
most often more of a technical nature (for instance, the different maximum periods for 
which such “working obligation” can be agreed upon). What seems to be interesting is 
that Slovenia, as a small Member State, has nevertheless made use of the majority of 
these various approaches adopted abroad, and has some sort of a hybrid model, where 
statutory legislation and private agreements are foreseen, the latter generally regulated 
in the Slovenian Employment Relationships Act (hereinafter the Labour Act)
17
 and to 
some extent in collective agreements, where in practice civil law rules (and principles) are 
applied in their assessment. This finding also makes the Slovenian model relevant, since, 
even though it is coming from a national perspective, other EU citizens may find it in-
teresting when attempting to compare their own system more broadly, in a comparative 
setting. On the grounds of these reasons, Slovenian national provisions and case-law are 
looked at in more detail in the following segments of this contribution.
16
 Felten, Reply to an ad hoc request for comparative analysis (2017), p. 11. For a detailed overview, 
see p. 11ff.
17
 Employment Relationships Act (ZDR-1), Official Gazette of RS, No. 21/13, last amended in 2019.

86
Zbornik znanstvenih razprav – LXXX. letnik, 2020 
Perspektive Evropskega stebra socialnih pravic / Pers Pectives on the e uro Pean Pillar of s ocial r ights 5. National (Slovenian) Constitutional Dimension
Before proceeding to more detailed statutory provisions, fundamentally, another con-
stitutional dimension of this “working obligation” phenomenon exists; however, this 
time in the sphere of national constitutional provisions. Obligation to work (or be em-
ployed) at an employer, even after the provision of training or financing of the education 
by this employer had been finished, under the threat that the (proportional) costs of it 
are to be reimbursed otherwise is in essence primarily a restriction on the freedom of 
work (and its element of free choice of employment), which is, at least in the Slovenian 
Constitution, placed in the chapter regarding fundamental human rights and freedoms 
as being one of them in Article 49.
18
 This may concern predominantly employees, but 
also students who are receiving a company scholarship during studies.
19
Moreover, by being or remaining employed by a particular employer for a speci-
fied period, freedom of an economic initiative stipulated in Article 74 of the Slovenian 
Constitution, is limited. Not only that an employee is then subject to the statutory pro-
hibition of competitive activity in Article 39 of the Labour Act, it is also difficult to be 
self-employed and conduct one’s own business on top of remaining employed.
20
Since there are no explicit constitutional restrictions foreseen in relation to freedom 
of work, the general rule contained in Article 15 of the Slovenian Constitution, which 
allows the restriction of fundamental rights and freedoms by the rights or freedoms of 
others, is nevertheless applicable. In this regard, the financing of one’s (i.e. employee’s 
or student’s) education by an employer is safeguarded by his right to private property in 
Articles 33 and 67, which stipulate that a statute regulates the acquisition and enjoyment 
18
 Article 49 of the Slovenian Constitution states that freedom to work is ensured (by prohibiting 
forced work), that everyone is free to choose their employment and that each working place is 
accessible to everyone under the same conditions. For more information about the development of 
these elements in connection with international labour law, see Končar, in: Kaučič, Nova ustavna 
ureditev Slovenije (1992), pp. 83–84. Interestingly, sedes materiae of other social and economic 
rights or freedoms related to labour law are in the chapter Economic and Social Relations, following 
the chapter on fundamental rights.
19
 A scholarship contract, where a student is obliged to remain in employment for a defined period after 
obtaining his or her degree is not rare and is similar to a contract of education. These contracts are of-
ten standardised, although the definition of a future post is crucial to determine whether the scholar-
ship holder (i.e. future employer) has fulfilled his or her contractual obligation or not. If the employer 
then wishes to conclude an employment contract under different conditions (for example for a lower 
pay or a fix-term employment contract), the student is free from having to accept this proposal and 
free from having to reimburse the costs of received scholarship. See Šetinc T ekavc, Delovno razmerje 
in izobraževanje delavca (2001), pp. 260–261. This could a simile apply also to contract of education, 
when a different post is foreseen after the completion of an education or a training programme.
20
 This is, however, not prohibited, and in Slovenian regulatory regime, treated exceptionally, at least 
in the fields of social security and income taxation.

87
Primož Rataj – Employee’s “Working Obligation” for a Certain Period or Alternative 
Costs’ Reimbursement Resulting from Employer’s Provision of Specific  
training or Financing of Education
of property in such a way that also its economic function is ensured, which essentially 
means that the employer’s financial “investment” in the knowledge of an employee ought 
to pay (financial, economic) results by the work performed thereafter. In this sense, 
where fundamental human rights and freedoms clash, the proportionality should be 
sought and achieved.
6. Slovenian Statutory Legislation
6.1. The Labour Act and the Obligations Code
In the legal framework of this constitutional dimension, the Slovenian legislature en-
acted several statutes containing applicable rules for employees undergoing education or 
training programmes, and a multitude of contractual relations have taken place. First of 
all, some limits (or prohibitions) to a “working obligation” need to be highlighted. The 
Slovenian Labour Act regulates the training or education of employees in Articles 170 
and 171, and it can be perceived as an employee’s duty and a right
21
 simultaneously, the 
intent of which is to preserve and enhance the competences for performing contractually 
agreed work, to maintain employment, and to improve the notion of employability. The 
duration and the process of education or training and mutual rights and obligations be-
tween employee and employer ought to be addressed in a special contract of education 
(Slovenian pogodba o izobraževanju)
22
 or a collective agreement. However, when the needs 
of a working process so dictate, or if education or training makes it possible that dismiss-
al on the grounds of incompetence or business reasons can be avoided, the employer is 
obliged to ensure such training or education.
23
 Since this is his obligation, the financial 
21
 It can be understood that, when an employee wishes to take up education or training in his own 
interest, this is his right. However, when an employee is referred to training by an employer due to 
requirements of the working process, this is his or her duty. See Teršek, Medved, Pravica delavcev 
do dodatnega izobraževanja praksi (2018), p. V.
22
 Often, such contract of education stipulates parties, type, duration, and the process of education 
or training, in whose interest the education or training is undertaken, costs of education (such as 
tuition, transport costs) and/or their reimbursement, obligation to work and the determination of 
working time or absence from work and compensation of pay, rights and obligations of an employee 
after completion of education or training, reimbursement duties if obligations are not fulfilled, etc. 
See Pisnik, Izobraževanja delavcev na delovnem mestu (2018), p. 18; Scotegagna - Kavčnik, Pogodba 
o izobraževanju (2018), p. 24; Korpič - Horvat, Pogodba o izobraževanju med delavcem in deloda-
jalcem (2006), p. 24; and Korpič - Horvat, Izobraževanje, pravica in dolžnost delavca (2007), p. 44.
23
 Furthermore, it is the duty of an employer to ensure that employees are trained to perform their 
work safely. This obligation relates to various moments, either when concluding an employment 
relationship, before reassignment to a different post, before new technology is introduced or when 
other changes take place that could result in a change of safety at work. See Article 38 of the 
Slovenian Health and Safety at Work Act (ZVZD-1), Official Gazette of RS, No. 43/11.

88
Zbornik znanstvenih razprav – LXXX. letnik, 2020 
Perspektive Evropskega stebra socialnih pravic / Pers Pectives on the e uro Pean Pillar of s ocial r ights burden of such training or an education programme is on the employer,
24
 meaning that 
no additional obligations with regard to financing can be placed on the employee and effec-
tively prohibiting a “working obligation” provision in the form of continued performance 
of work for this employer. This rule relates merely to one segment of financed education 
or training programmes undertaken by the employees and paid by the employers.
In other cases, a contrario, financing of such a programme by an employer would 
mean incurrence of a “debt” by the employee, which should be “repaid” by continuing 
to work for an employer for some time afterwards. This is applicable to a higher degree 
when the interest is solely or predominantly in the employee’s domain. An education of 
an employee in his or her own interest can be something that is not related to the work-
ing process, and the employer might not even (have to) know about it. An example of 
this is learning new foreign languages, which is usually merely a manner in which one’s 
leisure time is spent and has no connection to the employer. Only when an employer 
finances such education or a training programme, they wish to ensure that their finan-
cial assistance is “insured” and this can be seen as completely ordinary.
25
 Whether the 
employer will do so, depends on his understanding of the content of the relevant educa-
tion or training programme. Even though he cannot prevent employees from educating 
themselves (since this is their constitutional right), he is not obliged to its financing.
An employer will likely only do so either to assist an employee or when such training 
or education programme is to some extent beneficial for the company as well. The latter 
case is likely prevalent, and it has to be kept in mind that generally, new knowledge or 
title or vocational competence attained by an employee is an investment in the employee 
himself or herself, which will (almost always) positively correlate to a more quality pro-
vision of work due to new experiences, etc.
26
 Furthermore, an employer has to be aware 
that only a technically and technologically educated employee can contribute to im-
proved business results in a highly competitive market. This can simultaneously benefit 
the employees as well, as they can improve their chances of remaining employed, being 
promoted and/or ease and improve their respective workloads.
27
24
 See Article 170 of the Slovenian Employment Relationships Act, especially Paragraphs 1 and 2.
25
 See Šetinc Tekavc, Delovno razmerje in izobraževanje delavca (2001), p. 255; and Pisnik, 
Izobraževanje delavcev na delovnem mestu (2018), pp. 18–19.
26
 See Pisnik, Izobraževanje delavcev na delovnem mestu (2018), pp. 18-19.
27
 See T eršek, Medved, Pravica delavcev do dodatnega izobraževanja (2018), p. II; Bardutzky, Pogodba 
o izobraževanju (2005), p. 20. This is one of the reasons why employees are usually very interested 
to continue their education or training programmes to further improve their professional compe-
tences. See Šetinc Tekavc, Delovno razmerje in izobraževanje delavca (2001), p. 261. Due to bene-
ficial factors for both employment relationship parties, costs of education or training programmes is 
sometimes also shared financially between both parties (without express determination of a further 
working obligation phenomenon). See Korpič - Horvat, Pogodba o izobraževanju med delavcem in 
delodajalcem (2006), p. 23.

89
Primož Rataj – Employee’s “Working Obligation” for a Certain Period or Alternative 
Costs’ Reimbursement Resulting from Employer’s Provision of Specific  
training or Financing of Education
From a theoretical labour law perspective, there could be no legal issues if an employer 
obliges himself to finance training or education programmes with no additional reim-
bursement duties for the employee if the employment relationship ceases to exist. The 
contractual arrangements can always be more favourable for an employee in comparison 
with statutory provisions; merely the opposite is (generally) prohibited. Labour law is in 
part ius cogens as it intends to safeguard the subordinate position of the employee in an 
employment relationship, therefore limiting the autonomy of the parties. In other words, 
only when training or education-related contractual arrangements would be dispropor-
tionate to the detriment of the employee, would this be problematic. However, the answer 
to the question whether the contract of education in Slovenia is really a special contract 
of labour law is not uniform. Korpič - Horvat sees it as such, noting that it is mentioned 
expressly in the Labour Act (which regulates employment relationships), even though that 
rules of civil law apply sensibly (i.e. in a manner that takes into account protective func-
tion of labour law).
28
 Šetinc Tekavc, differently, sees it first-hand as a civil law contract. 
Even though an employer is a superior party in a contractual employment relationship, 
neither the Labour Act nor collective agreements do not entail specific safeguarding pro-
visions that would guard employees from the conclusion of such contracts that would be 
different to their interest.
29
 In the currently applicable Labour Act, the contract of educa-
tion is (still) seen solely as a measure for determining more precise rights and obligations.
Irrespectively of the stance that is taken in answering this dilemma, it is presumed 
that most of the time, the proportionality between an employer and an employee is so-
ught in contractual relations. When assessing this proportionality, a plethora of factors 
may be relevant.
30
 Illustratively, a Slovenian Supreme Court case can be referenced here, 
where these factors are clearly outlined. The case VIII Ips 320/2010
31
 concerned a female 
employee, who was absent from work for 16 months (consisting of periods of study, 
sickness and leave) to prepare for the Slovenian (legal) bar exam. She received full pay 
in the meantime without having an obligation to work and was then obliged to remain 
employed at the same employer for a subsequent period of 5 years, or having the duty 
to reimburse the proportional amount of costs borne by the employer during the study 
period if she decided to leave. She invoked the argument that the “working obligation” 
period can be proportional only if it is of the same duration as the duration of the study, 
i.e. 16 months in the relevant case, taking as grounds for analogy Slovenian State Legal 
Exam Act,
32
 where such a ratio is established (but for different kinds of cases, outli-
28
 Korpič - Horvat, Izobraževanje, pravica in dolžnost delavca (2007), p. 43.
29
 See Šetinc Tekavc, Delovno razmerje in izobraževanje delavca (2001), p. 253.
30
 One of them, perhaps the most important one, is to whom does such training or education benefit 
the most and has the interest in pursuing it.
31
 Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia, No. VIII Ips 320/2010 of 3 April 2012.
32
 State Legal Exam Act (ZPDI), Official Gazette of RS, No. 83/03, last amended in 2012.

90
Zbornik znanstvenih razprav – LXXX. letnik, 2020 
Perspektive Evropskega stebra socialnih pravic / Pers Pectives on the e uro Pean Pillar of s ocial r ights ned a tad later). On the other hand, the employer argued that such temporal equality 
did not equate financial equality, where her productiveness would have had to improve 
substantially (by 100 per cent), so that the costs incurred for education (in the interest 
of the employee in the concrete case) would have been returned in the same period. The 
employer argued that his calculations established a period of 5 years during which costs 
would be “returned” from an investment perspective.
In its judgment, the Supreme Court upheld this line of reasoning. It clearly stated 
that the duration of a “working obligation” is not the only criterion that has to be taken into 
account when deciding on a case-by-case basis. When the permissible period, for which an 
employee has to remain in employment (or he bears the obligation to reimburse the costs 
of education), is being determined, it is also important to consider the costs of such educa-
tion,
33
 facts as to whether the employee has to fully or partly work while undergoing education, 
in whose interest the education is undertaken, etc. The Court stressed that looking at these 
agreements from a civil law perspective is not incorrect.
34
 In this regard, the civil principle 
of equivalence of obligations
35
 is the principle to be applied, and in the Slovenian court 
case-law, this is assessed through financial estimations – i.e. what is the required period 
of employment after undergoing education that the wages and other benefits paid based 
on an employment relationship will off-set or balance the payment (i.e. investment) of 
education or training by the employer.
This case-law was later reaffirmed by another judgment of the Slovenian Higher Labour 
and Social Court,
36
 where the Court decided that a “working obligation” (or the reimbur-
33
 For instance, training or education can be relatively short and very expensive, such as in the case of 
pilots or soldiers. On the other hand, training or education can be lengthy and rather inexpensive, 
for instance by taking up learning of a foreign language.
34
 This judgment of the Supreme Court deviated from and changed the judicial practice of two 
previously adjudicated cases by the Slovenian Higher Labour and Social Court (Pdp 1164/2009 
of 11 March 2010 and Pdp 1033/2005 of 15 February 2007). In those two previous cases, the 
Court argued that a provision of a contract of education is void, due to it being contrary to the 
Constitution’s Article 49 guaranteeing freedom to work. In those two cases, contractual provision 
imposed an obligation to remain in employment for the duration, which was more than four times 
(5 years versus 13 months of education) or three times as long as duration of education, respectively. 
35
 Contained in Article 8 of the Obligations Code (OZ), Official Gazette of RS, No. 97/07, last 
amended in 2018.
36
 Judgment of the Higher Labour and Social Court  Pdp 393/2013 of 18 July 2013. Although focus-
ing more on performance of obligations reflecting specifics of some contracts of education, mention 
can be made of some newer court cases, that is Judgment of the Higher Labour and Social Court 
Pdp 406/2017 of 17 August 2017, Judgment of the Higher Labour and Social Court Pdp 166/2017 
of 24 August 2017, Judgment of the Higher Court in Ljubljana  I Cp 2300/2017 of 17 January 
2018, and Judgment of the Higher Labour and Social Court Pdp 963/2017 of 12 April 2018.

91
Primož Rataj – Employee’s “Working Obligation” for a Certain Period or Alternative 
Costs’ Reimbursement Resulting from Employer’s Provision of Specific  
training or Financing of Education
sement of costs of education) lasting 10 years
37
 (which was twice as long as the duration of 
education)
38
 in an employment relationship was not contrary to the notion of freedom of 
work as guaranteed by the Slovenian Constitution, because it did not prohibit the person 
from resigning and taking employment elsewhere. It simply meant that in such a case 
an employee was required to reimburse the costs of education and this was, according to 
case-law, not considered as being forced labour, which is prohibited (in Slovenia, without 
exceptions). It was clearly stated that such a contractual provision is not void unless it is 
treated as a usurious contract provision (for which a requirement is not only disproportion 
but also exploitation of distress, poverty, inexperience, recklessness, or dependence).
39
6.2. State Legal Exam Act
In Slovenia, contractual arrangements related to education or training programme(s) 
of employees financed by employers are not regulated merely by the Constitution, the 
Labour Act and the Obligations Code. Several other statutes relate to this phenomenon. 
One of these statutes is the above-mentioned State Legal Exam Act, which has led to se-
veral case-law decisions. It regulates a “working obligation” of a trainee after the comple-
tion of the state legal exam (as a uniform exam for future advocates, judges, prosecutors, 
notaries, etc.). Article 11(a) of the State Legal Exam Act states that a trainee, who has 
performed judicial training as an employee at a court, at a State’s prosecutor’s office, or 
a State’s attorney’s office, has to conclude an employment relationship after passing the 
state legal exam for a suitable post at a court, State prosecutor’s office, or State attorney’s 
office. It has to be concluded for the same duration or for a shorter period as that of the 
training and is determined by the Ministry of Justice in its call. The trainee is free from 
his or her obligation if such a call is not made within 30 days after the completion of the 
37
 The contractual provision regarding obligation to remain in employment for 10 years or reimburse 
the costs of education was not determined to be void also in another judgment of the Higher 
Labour and Social Court, Pdp 139/2012 of 6 September 2012. The claimant was a medical special-
ist registrar whose specialisation lasted for 4 years (hence, the ratio was 10 to 4).
38
 Such provisions were sometimes concluded contractually in practice already in the 1990s and were 
not perceived as troublesome in older literature. See for instance Plešnik, Obveznosti po pogodbi o 
izobraževanju (1998), p. 26.
39
 If the contract of education is not assessed as a usurious contract, disproportionality between con-
tractual obligations could be grounds for annulment due to an impermissible threat, a mistake or 
due to deceit. In some cases, the institute of clear disproportion regulated in Article 118 of the 
Slovenian Obligations Code could be invoked. An annulment of a contract would be possible if a 
party did not know and was not obliged to know the true value at the time; however, if the other par-
ty offered to supplement towards the true value, the contract would remain in force. Concretely, this 
would result in a modification of a working obligation period. Such a period should be “reasonable”. 
See Scotegagna - Kavčnik, Pogodba o izobraževanju, pp. 24–25; Korpič - Horvat, Izobraževanje, 
pravica in dolžnost delavca (2007), p. 45; and Korpič - Horvat, Dobri zgledi vlečejo (2005), p. 50.

92
Zbornik znanstvenih razprav – LXXX. letnik, 2020 
Perspektive Evropskega stebra socialnih pravic / Pers Pectives on the e uro Pean Pillar of s ocial r ights state legal exam. If the trainee refuses to conclude an employment contract when such a 
call is made, he or she is obliged to reimburse the costs of training, which is the sum of 
gross wages received during the duration of the training.
This statutory provision has already been invoked by individuals as incompatible 
with the Slovenian Constitution. For instance, in the judgment of the Higher Labour 
and Social Court Pdp 850/2008 of 13 January 2009, the Court opined that a judicial 
trainee was obliged to reimburse the sum of net wages received during the training beca-
use the trainee refused to conclude an employment contract after the completion of such 
training. Obligation to reimburse the sum of net wages (and not gross as is stipulated 
by the State Legal Exam Act) was because the concluded contract for the duration of 
training stipulated an obligation of reimbursement of “net” wages. In a subsequent case, 
in the Higher Labour and Social Court judgment Pdp 764/2012 of 26 September 2012, 
the Court decided that a judicial trainee was obliged to reimburse the sum of gross wages 
received during the training because the trainee refused to conclude an employment 
contract after the completion of the training. The Court relied on Article 11(a) of the 
State Legal Exam Act, which in its view determines more precisely the balance of con-
stitutional provisions (stated above). Not long before this decision, the Decision of the 
Slovenian Constitutional Court,
40
 with proceedings initiated in 2010 and decision ren-
dered in March 2012, assessed the constitutionality of the statutory provision of Article 
11(a) the State Legal Exam Act.
The Constitutional Court firstly emphasised that the judicial traineeship is carried 
out according to a special programme, in a lengthy, particular and demanding manner; 
therefore being very different from training in other sectors. Moreover, such programme 
is intended to train someone for the performance of professions in the field of the ju-
diciary (i.e. judge, attorney, prosecutor, and notary). Therefore, it is legitimately treated 
differently than traineeship in general by the Labour Act. Moreover, judiciary trainees 
are trained for taking a State legal (bar) examination by attending court sessions and 
hearings, drafting judgments and other judicial documents, accepting the minutes of the 
parties’ files and drafting minutes. These tasks are aimed at acquiring special knowled-
ge, and the Constitutional Court saw the judicial traineeship as being fundamentally 
educational since the task of trainees is primarily their own training for the passing of 
the exam. Regarding the constitutionality of Article 11(a) of the State Legal Exam Act 
and its (in)compatibility with the Constitution’s Article 49 regulating freedom to work 
(especially its aspect of free choice of employment), the majority decision was that the 
first is compatible with the second.
41
40
 Decision of the Slovenian Constitutional Court U-I-174/10-11, Up-944/10-7 of 1 March 2012.
41
 It might be interesting to mention that the voting was 6 versus 3. One of the three judges against 
this decision was also judge Etelka Korpič - Horvat, who predominantly focuses on and is expert in 
labour law.

93
Primož Rataj – Employee’s “Working Obligation” for a Certain Period or Alternative 
Costs’ Reimbursement Resulting from Employer’s Provision of Specific  
training or Financing of Education
The reasoning was that such an obligation (based on the State Legal Exam Act) is 
inserted and agreed upon in an employment contract, which means that it is not solely 
imposed, but agreed upon between the parties. It also can not be treated as forced labour 
or it being absolute, since a facultative substitute option of reimbursing the costs of tra-
ining exists. It is also temporally limited up to the duration of the traineeship. From an 
overall perspective, the Court saw the contractual obligations of both parties as evenly 
distributed and in line with the principle of equivalence of obligations, as one of the key 
principles of the Slovenian Obligations Code. Moreover, this notion was seen as suppor-
ted by the fact that employment for the period of traineeship in the judiciary in Slovenia 
is only one of the options available, other two being voluntary traineeship or traineeship 
at court, where the trainee is already employed elsewhere (for instance, at an attorney’s 
office). In the latter two cases, no payment for employment is received and, consequen-
tly, no working or reimbursement obligations exist afterwards.
The decision can be critically assessed, since the applicable statutory provision requi-
res the reimbursement in the sum of gross wages, although the employee does not receive 
them in full since social security contributions and income tax are deducted from them. 
Due to spatial restrictions, a list of arguments as to why this is problematic is left out 
and perhaps an opportunity for a separate contribution elsewhere. What can be said 
very briefly is that fundamentally, from fairness or an equivalence standpoint, it is unjust 
that a trainee is obliged to pay more than what he or she receives. It is questionable 
whether the Court had overlooked this, since the grounds for a constitutional appeal 
and an initiative was made by an applicant, who in the concrete case had the duty to 
reimburse the net wages (and is perhaps linked to the aforementioned case of the Higher 
Labour and Social Court Pdp 850/2008 of 13 January 2009). There is also no use of the 
word “gross” (Slovenian bruto) in the decision. Another provocative speculative thought 
could be made. It is often said that the legal arena might not always be about the law 
and justice but is often faced with reality factors. It could be questionable whether the 
Constitutional Court, as part of the judiciary as such, would really turn their back on 
(regular) judiciary when assessing the (un)constitutionality of a statute, which enables 
the judiciary to handpick the (likely best) candidates, who have passed the State legal 
(bar) exam, and obliges them to remain in the judiciary for (up to) two years.
It could be argued that the proportionality aspect that has been developed in the 
case-law of the CJEU and the Slovenian Supreme Court is still slightly, but incorrectly, 
overlooked. Several illustrative examples could be mentioned, either on a contractual case 
basis
42
 or as statutory proposals. Only the latter is relevant within this subsection and is, 
42
 For instance, a one-year training period valued in the range of EUR 5.000 as grounds for a 10-year 
working obligation at the employer. See Scortegagna-Kavčnik, 2018, pp. 24–25. Moreover, the cost 
of education higher than EUR 400 could be grounds for a working obligation period of at least 2 
years. See Teršek, Medved, Pravica delavcev do dodatnega izobraževanja (2018), pp. VII–VIII. It 

94
Zbornik znanstvenih razprav – LXXX. letnik, 2020 
Perspektive Evropskega stebra socialnih pravic / Pers Pectives on the e uro Pean Pillar of s ocial r ights therefore, outlined in more detail. In autumn of 2017, the Slovenian Ministry of Justice 
had the idea to amend the State Legal Exam Act and accommodate the exam accordin-
gly. With relevance to the topic of this contribution, the obligation of the (employed) 
candidate after the examination was to be changed.
43
The current statutory obligation to remain employed for the same period as the tra-
ining lasted, where the period to contact the candidate is 30 days after the successful 
completion of the exam, was proposed to be changed in the following manner. The 
period for contacting the candidate was to be extended to one year, and the “working 
obligation” was proposed to last for the period of (a minimum of) four years, i.e. at least 
twice as long as before.
44
 Not only was the temporal dimension now possibly disproporti-
onate, but a one-year period is also vastly too long. Being obliged contractually to accept 
proposals offered in a short timeframe (of 30 days) after the exam’s completion is rational 
and less problematic. However, a year is a long period and a person could find a new job 
in the meantime, move closer to the place of work, buy real-estate or conclude a rent 
agreement for a longer fix-term period, have a child and conclude a day-care agreement 
with a kindergarten, etc. Having the capacity to one-sidedly influence the multitude of 
various elements of one’s life-style for a lengthy period, leaving him or her in doubt as to 
which choices to make, essentially altering their life after the completion (in most cases) 
of their last exam ever to be undertaken, is not proportionate. In this respect, it seems 
positive that the statute has not yet been amended (to the detriment of trainees).
6.3. Other Relevant Statutory Acts
In the preceding few paragraphs, significant attention was given to the Slovenian 
State Legal Exam Act for various reasons, among them also due to the existence of the 
case-law. However, the State Legal Exam Act is not the only statute in Slovenia stipula-
ting a “working obligation” or a reimbursement duty. Another important statute is the 
Medical Practitioners Act,
45
 which contains a special provision in Article 25(4). It states:
“A specialist registrar,[
46
] who, after the conclusion of a specialist training, refuses 
to conclude an employment relationship for the same period as was the duration 
of the specialist training at a public medical institution for the provision of health 
is questionable whether any proportionality exists in such cases between rights and obligations of 
both parties from the financial perspective and enshrined in the principle of equivalent obligations.
43
 The text of the statutory proposal from 19
th
 October 2017 was also sent to the Faculty of Law, 
University of Ljubljana, in order to receive comments on it, since this is one of the faculties to 
whom this statute is related.
44
 Ibid., see Article 23. The reimbursement duty of payment of all gross wages received during the 
training remained in the proposal.
45
 Medical Practitioners Act (ZZdrS) Official Gazette of RS, No. 72/2006, last amended in 2018.
46
 A medical doctor receiving advanced training in a specialist field of medicine.

95
Primož Rataj – Employee’s “Working Obligation” for a Certain Period or Alternative 
Costs’ Reimbursement Resulting from Employer’s Provision of Specific  
training or Financing of Education
services in the region, for which the specialist training was performed, shall reim-
burse all the costs incurred regarding the specialist training, except for the wages 
and other types of income from the employment relationship.”
The reimbursement here does not relate to wages, but to other costs incurred regar-
ding specialist training, for instance, used training material, mentoring costs, etc. The im-
portance of the statute is notable in Slovenian public healthcare system since the medical 
doctor’s trade union has voiced wishes in the previous few years to raise their wages stating 
that they are comparatively lower than in other (western) Member States. This provision 
is one aspect of why Slovenia has been, to a larger extent, able to retain its medical do-
ctors in the public system, although some already make use of freedom of movement and 
pay-off the reimbursement amount on the grounds of higher pay in other Member States.
Another important statute is also the Civil Servants Act.
47
 According to Article 101 
titled “Education in the Interest of an Employer”, a civil servant has the right to candida-
cy for a referral to education for attainment of additional knowledge or the level of edu-
cation in the interest of an employer. The selection and referral are made with an internal 
tender if sufficient financial resources exist. In the case of a referral, an agreement is con-
cluded between the civil servant and the head of a public department. This civil servant 
has to remain in an employment relationship for the same amount of time, as was the 
duration of education. If this is not the case, the employer has the right to demand the 
reimbursement of a proportional amount of costs incurred for the education provided. 
This provision has not been problematic in the case-law, at least through research carried 
out by analysing publicly accessible judgments (of regular appeal and revision courts and 
the Constitutional Court case-law). Nevertheless, it is questionable whether the division 
of duties is proportional here since the attainment of additional knowledge or the level 
of education is in the “interest of an employer”. When a civil servant is a candidate for an 
education programme, obviously, he or she expects benefits from it, but overall, only the 
temporal perspective is followed here. According to the previously highlighted Supreme 
Court judgment, several other factors should be considered in assessing the parties’ duti-
es in light of the principle of equivalent obligations (i.e. in whose interest the education 
is, its costs, the added value of such education for work performed afterwards, work 
carried out full-time or part-time during the education process, etc.). Obviously, it is 
easier to regulate one phenomenon with a uniform provision. However, the legal reality 
is that all cases should not be “gathered and thrown in the same basket” since various mi-
nor factual circumstances can often completely change the outcome. Since the publicly 
accessible case-law is non-existent on the issue, there is no need to discuss it any further.
48
47
 Public Employees Act (ZJU), Official Gazette of RS, No. 63/2007, last amended in 2012.
48
 Diverging opinions exist as to what happens if a civil servant resigns and is then re-employed in a 
different State institution. Some do not see this as a problem since they are still employed by the 

96
Zbornik znanstvenih razprav – LXXX. letnik, 2020 
Perspektive Evropskega stebra socialnih pravic / Pers Pectives on the e uro Pean Pillar of s ocial r ights From a Slovenian statutory perspective, two more acts regulate the idea of imposing 
a “working obligation” or a reimbursement duty after the training or education had 
been completed. They both relate to armed forces in the area of defence. The first is the 
Defence Act,
49
 which stipulates in Article 90 that persons, who have concluded a scho-
larship agreement with the Ministry of Defence, shall perform army service training after 
their educational training in line with the legislation. Once the education and army ser-
vice training had been completed, they shall conclude an employment contract with the 
Ministry of Defence and this establishes them as members of the permanent compositi-
on of the Slovenian army. If they refuse to enter into the above-mentioned employment 
relationship, they have to reimburse all income received during and for educational and 
army service training. If such an employment contract is concluded, Article 93 of the 
Defence Act further regulates the rights and obligations of parties during the validity of 
the employment contract. According to Article 93(2) of the Defence Act, a member of 
the permanent composition of the army may resign, but has to reimburse a proportional 
amount of costs of the basic army vocational training if the resignation is done before 
the lapse of 10 years since that employment contract has been agreed upon. The pro-
portional amount of costs is determined by calculating the costs of basic army training 
for the period of 10 years (as if the employment contract has been concluded for such a 
timeframe) and subtracting the amount of time that a person has already been employed 
as a member of the permanent composition of the army. The reimbursement of the costs 
of training shall not apply to cases in which resignation is a consequence of valid health 
reasons for the employee.
The second statute relating to armed forces is the Service in the Slovenian Armed 
Forces Act,
50
 which contains a provision on referral to education or vocational training in 
Article 57. An army person
51
 can be ordered to attend educational or vocational training 
that can last for more than a full year. Rights and obligations of an army person for the 
duration of the training are defined in an agreement if the training lasts for more than 
30 days or if its costs are higher than the last average monthly wage in Slovenia accor-
ding to official statistical data. An army person that has concluded such an agreement 
shall remain in an employment relationship in army service for at least twice as long as 
Republic of Slovenia. See Bardutzky, Pogodba o izobraževanju (2005), pp. 20–21, for more about 
the particularities in the public sector tied to contract of education.
49
 Defence Act (ZObr), Official Gazette of RS, No. 103/2004, last amended in 2015.
50
 Service in the Slovenian Armed Forces Act (ZSSloV), Official Gazette of RS, No. 68/2007, last 
amended in 2008.
51
 According to Article 3(1)(2) of the Service in the Slovenian Armed Forces Act, an army person is a 
person who, as a soldier, junior officer, officer or an army employee, professionally performs army 
service or a soldier during the period of army service or a member of the reserve composition, if he 
or she is called up for army service.

97
Primož Rataj – Employee’s “Working Obligation” for a Certain Period or Alternative 
Costs’ Reimbursement Resulting from Employer’s Provision of Specific  
training or Financing of Education
the duration of the educational or vocational training provided.
52
 In the case of an early 
resignation by the employee, he or she has to reimburse the proportional amount of the 
costs of the training provided and other income received during the period of training.
7. Collective Agreements as Sources of Regulatory Labour  
Law Provisions
It is interesting that such “working obligation” is not stipulated only by the statutes as 
one of the sources of the labour law rules in Slovenia. These are, to some extent, regulated 
also in three sectoral collective agreement(s).
The first example concerns the Collective Agreement for the Sector of Education in 
Slovenia,
53
 which entails a smaller subsection regarding education (Slovenian izobraže-
vanje) in the interest of an employee. According to Article 55(a) of the collective agree-
ment, the institution at which an employee is employed shall allow the employee to pur-
sue additional education knowledge in line with its abilities. Article 58 further states that 
an employee who is sent to an education programme by an institution (i.e. the employer) 
is obliged to remain employed in this institution for the same period as was the duration 
of the education programme. There are no additional provisions with respect to reimbur-
sement of costs of education or wages or anything of such kind.
The second example is the Collective Agreement for Research Activities,
54
 which 
stipulates in Article 39 that an employee who was sent to undertake an education or 
training programme must remain at the institute (i.e. the employer) on its demand for 
a period that is twice as long as the duration of the education or training but not longer 
than 8 years.
55
The last example is the Collective Agreement on the Slovenian Banking Sector.
56
 
According to Article 113, an education, training, or vocational training contract is to con-
52
 This does not apply when a special agreement is not concluded, i.e. if the training is shorter than 
30 days or costs less than the amount of last average monthly wage in Slovenia according to official 
statistical data.
53
 Collective Agreement for the Education Sector in the Republic of Slovenia, Official Gazette of RS, 
No. 52/1994, last amended in 2018.
54
 Collective Agreement for Research Activities, Official Gazette of RS, No. 45/92, last amended in 
2018.
55
 A “working obligation” in the duration that was twice as long as the duration of an education or a 
training programme was very common in the past, more specifically somewhere up until the new 
millennium. This was also accepted in the case-law at the time. See Šetinc T ekavc, Delovno razmerje 
in izobraževanje delavca (2001), pp. 257–258. The relevant collective agreement was adopted in 
1992.
56
 Collective agreement on the Slovenian banking sector, Official Gazette of RS, No. 5/11, last 
amended in 2018.

98
Zbornik znanstvenih razprav – LXXX. letnik, 2020 
Perspektive Evropskega stebra socialnih pravic / Pers Pectives on the e uro Pean Pillar of s ocial r ights tain a period when the employee is obliged to remain to perform work for the employer 
after completing his or her education, training, or vocational training programme. This 
period is dependent on the amount of employer’s expenses for the programme, which 
includes, in addition to direct costs, also wage compensations and other expenses.
There is also plenty of collective agreements (in total 24 out of 26 sectoral agree-
ments in the private sector) that contain provisions regarding education or training of 
employees, but the majority of them from a more general perspective without an express 
“working obligation” provision foreseen.
57
8. Concluding Thoughts
From a national perspective, it cannot be overlooked that statutes expressly regulating 
the “working obligation” phenomenon tie employees with an obligation to continue 
working for their employer after an education or training programme has ended to its 
duration. This is a reflection of the legal thought from a few decades ago where it was 
common to have the “working obligation” for the duration that was twice as long as the 
training lasted.
The legal reality, however, is not uniform and straightforward. Education or training 
programmes can be very different, meaning that they can be short and expensive or 
lengthy and inexpensive. Moreover, it may vary who the main beneficiary of the tra-
ining is since this often benefits both parties of an employment relationship. Whether the 
employee works in full or in part during the training period can also be relevant. In the 
last decade, changes in the Slovenian case-law can be observed, most importantly from 
the judgment of the Slovenian Supreme Court VIII Ips 320/2012, where these factors 
were outlined, and the idea that the duration of a “working obligation” is not the only cri-
terion that has to be taken into account when deciding on a particular case was stressed.
Whether these statutory provisions are, in the currently applicable legal framework, 
proportionally built around the principle of equivalence of obligations, as one of the key 
principles of the Slovenian Obligations Code, is questionable. Even if they were to be 
accepted as constitutional, where by default neither employment contract party has an 
advantage over the other in a national constitutional setting, it is questionable how an 
assessment of these schemes would in cross-border settings fare before the CJEU where 
the workers’ freedom of movement is the general rule and rights of others (i.e. employers 
in the public sector), established through the prism of public interest, the exception.
57
 For a lengthy, precise, up-to-date and multi-faceted analysis see Franca, Med teorijo in prakso: 
vsebine izobraževanja in usposabljanja v kolektivnih pogodbah dejavnosti (2018), pp. 618–626. 
Nevertheless, the “working obligation” was not the subject of her analysis.

99
Primož Rataj – Employee’s “Working Obligation” for a Certain Period or Alternative 
Costs’ Reimbursement Resulting from Employer’s Provision of Specific  
training or Financing of Education
References
Bardutzky, Samo: Pogodba o izobraževanju, Pravna praksa, (2005) 46, pp. 20–21.
European Commission: Communication from the Commission to the European 
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and 
the Committee of the Regions: Strengthening European identity through 
Education and Culture, COM (2017) 673 final, Strasbourg, 14. 11. 2017.
European Commission: European Pillar of Social Rights booklet. Available at: https://
ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/social-summit-european 
-pillarsocial-rights-booklet_en (3 October 2019).
Felten, Elias: Reply to an ad hoc request for comparative analysis: Working obligation 
for a certain time period in the Member State providing specific training or 
financing the education and alternative costs’ reimbursement duty for the per-
son concerned, FreSsco Comparative Ad Hoc Report, European Commission, 
June 2017.
Franca, Valentina: Med teorijo in prakso: vsebine izobraževanja in usposabljanja v kolek-
tivnih pogodbah dejavnosti, Delavci in delodajalci, 18 (2018) 4, pp. 609–628.
Končar, Polonca: Pravica, obveznost in odgovornost delavcev do izobraževanja, Zbornik  
znanstvenih razprav, 37 (1978), pp. 167–179.
Končar, Polonca: Ustavne določbe o človekovih pravicah in temeljnih svoboščinah, v: 
Igor Kaučič (ur.), Nova ustavna ureditev Slovenije: zbornik razprav, 
Uradni list Republike Slovenije, Ljubljana 1992, pp. 83–84.
Korpič - Horvat, Etelka: Pogodba o izobraževanju med delavcem in delodajalcem, HRM: 
strokovna revija za ravnanje z ljudmi pri delu, 4 (2006) 12, pp. 8–20.
Korpič - Horvat, Etelka, in: Dobri zgledi vlečejo: vsaka sprememba naj bo korak naprej, 
journal, Portorož (2005), pp. 43–58.
Korpič - Horvat, Etelka: Izobraževanje, pravica in dolžnost delavca: učeča se družba zah-
teva novo pravno ureditev izobraževanja, HRM: strokovna revija za ravnanje z 
ljudmi pri delu, 5 (2007) 18, pp. 42–47.
Pisnik, Suzana: Izobraževanje delavcev na delovnem mestu, Pravna praksa, (2018) 2, pp. 
18–19.
Plešnik, Taja: Obveznosti po pogodbi o izobraževanju, Pravna praksa, (1998) 2, p. 26.
Scotegagna Kavčnik, Nina: Pogodba o izobraževanju, Pravna praksa, (2018) 11, pp. 
24–25.
Svetličič, Marjan: Konkurenčnost gospodarstva in vlaganje v izobraževanje, HRM: 
strokovna revija za ravnanje z ljudmi pri delu, 4 (2006) 12, pp. 8–20.

100
Zbornik znanstvenih razprav – LXXX. letnik, 2020 
Perspektive Evropskega stebra socialnih pravic / Pers Pectives on the e uro Pean Pillar of s ocial r ights Šetinc Tekavc, Martina: Delovno razmerje in izobraževanje delavca, Podjetje in delo, 27 
(2001) 2, pp. 251–263.
Teršek, Andraž, Medved, Jernej: Pravica delavcev do dodatnega izobraževanja – v teoriji 
in praksi, Pravna praksa, (2018) 5, supplement, p. VIII.
Thym, Daniel (ed.): Questioning EU Citizenship: Judges and the Limits of Free 
Movement in the EU, Bloomsbury, Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, 
Oregon, 2017.

162
Zbornik znanstvenih razprav – LXXX. letnik, 2020 
Perspektive Evropskega stebra socialnih pravic / Pers Pectives on the e uro Pean Pillar of s ocial r ights UDK: 349.2:331.108.45
 330.322.3
Zbornik znanstvenih razprav 
Perspektive Evropskega stebra socialnih pravic 
LXXX. letnik, 2020, strani 77–100
Primož Rataj
Delavčeva obveznost nadaljnje zaposlitve za določeno obdobje ali povrnitev 
stroškov, povezanih z delodajalčevim financiranjem usposabljanja ali izobraževanja
Avtor obravnava razmerje med pravicami in obveznostmi strank v delovnem razmerju, 
ki so odraz financiranja izobraževanja oziroma usposabljanja zaposlenih s strani deloda-
jalca. Delodajalci tipično želijo vlagati v razvoj in/ali nadgradnjo sposobnosti delavcev, 
pri čemer iščejo varovalne mehanizme za uživanje sadov pridobitve novih znanj, kar 
se pogosto izkaže s pogodbeno obveznostjo delavcev, da morajo biti še določen čas 
zaposleni pri delodajalcu ali pa povrniti stroške izobraževanja oziroma del teh stroškov 
(tako imenovana delovna obveznost). Ustavni (a)simetriji sta tako lahko dvojni. V okviru 
prava EU se (v okviru konteksta) presoja, koliko je pravica do izobrazbe, usposabljanja 
in vseživljenjskega učenja, z namenom ohranitve ali pridobitve znanj, ki posameznikom 
(delavcem) omogoča polno vključenost v družbo in uspešen prehod na trgu dela (kot 
socialna pravica) (ne)združljiva z (ekonomsko) svobodo gibanja delavcev. Z vidika nacio-
nalne ustavne ureditve pa so presojane meje med omejevanjem svobodne izbire zapos-
litve (kot socialne svoboščine) in varstvom delodajalčeve (ekonomske) pravice do zasebne 
lastnine. V luči prava EU je ideja s primeri Sodišča EU ponazoriti, da je ekonomska 
svoboda gibanja delavcev splošno pravilo in so izjeme le redko sprejete. T o je pomembno, 
saj so primerjalnopravno pravzaprav v vseh državah članicah v taki ali drugačni obliki 
predvidene možnosti za pojav »delovne obveznosti«. Ta problematika je v Sloveniji po-
drobneje urejena na različne načine, ki se pojavljajo tudi primerjalnopravno, natančneje 
pa je to urejeno v področnih zakonih, na primer ZPDI, ZZdrS, ZObr in ZSSlov (v 
vsakem nekoliko drugače), in tudi v nekaj kolektivnih pogodbah na ravni dejavnosti. Ni 
mogoče spregledati dejstva, da se »delovna obveznost« v večini teh virov povezuje (zgolj) 
z obdobjem programa izobraževanja ali usposabljanja. V zadnjem desetletju je v Sloveniji 
mogoče opaziti razvoj v sodni praksi Vrhovnega sodišča, ki je presojalo pogodbene (in ne 
zakonske) določbe. Jasno je poudarjeno, da so taki pogodbeni dogovori lahko presojani 
v luči civilnopravnih pravil, kjer je ključno načelo enake vrednosti dajatev. V tem smislu 
so pravice in obveznosti obeh strank pravzaprav presojane skozi finančno prizmo, kar 
pomeni, da »delovna obveznost« lahko traja (le) tako dolgo, da se »naložba« delodajalca 
njemu (finančno) povrne. Pri tem je treba poleg dolžine programa izobraževanja ali us-

163
Sinopsisi
posabljanja upoštevati tudi strošek izobraževanja, ali je zaposleni v tem času opravljal 
delo (polni ali krajši delovni čas), v čigavem interesu je bilo izobraževanje itd. Vprašanje 
je, koliko so zakonska pravila v Sloveniji skladna z argumentacijo in obrazložitvijo 
Vrhovnega sodišča. Poleg tega, tudi če bi bile zakonske določbe ocenjene kot ustavno 
skladne, je vprašanje, ali bi enako oceno (z vidika prava EU) sprejelo Sodišče EU, ki bi 
delavčevo svobodo gibanja dojemalo kot splošno pravilo ter pravice drugih (razumljeno 
kot javni interes) kot izjemo, ki jo je treba razlagati ozko.
Ključne besede: izobraževanje, usposabljanje, obveznost nadaljnje zaposlitve, povrnitev 
stroškov, sorazmernost.

Synopses
173
UDC: 349.2:331.108.45
 330.322.3
Zbornik znanstvenih razprav 
Perspectives on the European Pillar of Social Rights 
V olume LXXX, 2020, pp. 77–100
Primož Rataj
Employee’s “Working Obligation” for a Certain Period or Alternative Costs’ 
Reimbursement Resulting from Employer’s Provision of Specific Training or 
Financing of Education
The author focuses on the interplay between rights and obligations of the parties in 
the employment relationship stemming from provision and financing of educational 
or training programmes for employees. In contemporary labour law, employers wish to 
invest in their employees while seeking safeguards to recoup the benefits, often resulting 
in obliging the employees to continue working for them for a certain period or otherwise 
be required to reimburse (part of) the costs incurred (hereinafter “working obligation”). 
Constitutional (a)symmetries can in this case be two-fold. In the ambit of EU law, it is 
assessed (within the framed context) to what extent is the right to education, training, 
and life-long learning to maintain and acquire skills that enable them to participate fully 
in society and manage successfully transitions in the labour market (as a social right) 
(in)compatible with the (economic) freedom of movement for workers. From a nation-
al constitutional law perspective, boundaries between the restriction of free choice of 
employment (as a social freedom) and the protection of employer’s (economic) right to 
property are assessed. Within the EU law framework, the idea is to show, through vividly 
illustrated CJEU cases, that economic freedom of movement for workers is the general 
rule and exceptions are rarely accepted. This is important, as comparatively, practically all 
Member States provide for some form of a legal framework towards the existence of the 
“working obligation” phenomenon. The framed topic in Slovenia is regulated through 
more or less all pathways that can be identified comparatively, which can be observed 
in several specific statutes—the State Legal Exam Act, the Medical Practitioners Act, the 
Civil Servants Act, the Defence Act and the Slovenian Armed Forces Act (each with their 
own specifics), and also in some sectoral collective agreements. It cannot be overlooked 
that majority of these tie employees with an obligation to continue working for their 
employer after an education or training programme has concluded (only) in relation 
to its duration. In the last decade, changes in the Slovenian case-law can be observed, 
most importantly from judgment(s) of the Slovenian Supreme Court, which assessed 
contractual (and not statutory) provisions. It is clearly stressed that such contractual 

174
Zbornik znanstvenih razprav – V olume LXXX, 2020, Social Security Law
arrangements may be examined from a civil law perspective where the key principle of 
equivalence of obligations is relevant. In this sense, rights and obligations of both parties 
are (to be) assessed from a financial point of view, meaning that the “working obligation” 
should only last so long that the employer’s “investment” is recouped. Alongside dura-
tion of the training, it is important to also consider the costs of such education, whether 
the employee has to fully or partly work while undergoing education, in whose interest 
the education is undertaken, etc. It is questionable to what extent are Slovenian statutory 
rules still in symmetry with the argumentation and reasoning provided by the Supreme 
Court. Furthermore, even if they were to be accepted as constitutional, it is question-
able how assessment of these provisions would fare before the CJEU where the workers’ 
freedom of movement is the general rule and rights of others (seen as public interest) the 
exception that needs to be understood restrictively.
Keywords: education, training, work obligation, reimbursement of costs, proportion-
ality.