On 9 February 2026, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia published its long-awaited decision on the extended producer responsibility (EPR) provisions contained in the Environmental Protection Act (ZVO-2). In its ruling of 22 January 2026, the Court confirmed that the core elements of Slovenia’s EPR governance model — whereby producers collectively fulfil their obligations through a single, producer-owned, non-profit organisation — are compatible with the Slovenian Constitution and with European Union law. In reaching this conclusion, the Court relied in part on the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union, notably Case C-254/23, reinforcing the legal foundation for producer-governed, non-profit producer responsibility organisations (PROs).
While the majority of the contested provisions were upheld, the Court found that certain transitional arrangements lacked sufficient legal clarity and therefore annulled those specific transitional rules. Importantly, however, the decision did not invalidate the single-PRO or non-profit structure itself. The Slovenian legislator has been granted six months to address the identified shortcomings. With parliamentary elections scheduled for March 2026, this period may bring political uncertainty, potentially affecting legislative timelines and priorities. Nevertheless, Slovenia’s EPR community remains cautiously optimistic that the necessary amendments and final transitional provisions will be adopted by the end of the year, ensuring legal certainty and operational continuity.
The ruling provides a clear practical message for policymakers and stakeholders across Europe: producer-governed, non-profit PROs remain a legally supported governance option under both constitutional and EU law. At the same time, reforms to EPR systems — particularly structural or transitional changes — must be designed with precise timelines, predictable legal frameworks and fair treatment of stakeholders to safeguard service continuity and maintain public trust. The Slovenian case therefore stands as an important reference point in the broader European debate on EPR governance and regulatory stability within the circular economy framework.