THE CLAIM

Zakon o javni rabi slovenščine (ZJRS) is a law most Slovenians don't know exists. It is the "Law on the public use of Slovene".

When a Slovenian finds out what the ZJRS means for a foreigner, from a foreigner, they usually do one of two things.

Some go a bit sad, especially if they are married to one.

Some others, who aren't, seek justifications, perhaps in the belief that laws are just and reasonable.

None of these reasons elicit any thoughts of the type "I want to buy things from that foreigner" or even "All of us want to sell language lessons to that foreigner".

Despite having no knowledge of antecedent language learning provisions which may have existed, the Complainant became entitled to free Slovene classes from 15 July 2008, when the "Decree on the Integration of Aliens" (Uredba o integraciji tujcev (Uradni list RS, št. 65/08, 86/10, 50/11 – ZTuj-2 in 70/12) came into force, under Article 3(2) and, post-Brexit, Article 3(1).

In the event, the Complainant was not availed of any such service for 5210 days, despite repeated attempts. Ptuj finally decided it would be a good idea to look like they were doing it when they heard about this action.

He was not aware of the Decree on his integration until 2022. He was not offered a form by the Upravna Enota, but by chance, in around 2008, found a leaflet there redirecting him to Ljudska Univerza Ptuj.

Neither they nor the leaflet - which was in Slovene - said anything about a form, the classes did not exist, and a translation of the Decree was unlikely to have been available at that time.

He was shrugged off and expected to learn by hanging around in bars answering questions about himself in English.

It became evident non-lingual integration was a very typical, and in the Complainant's orbit universal, outcome for incomers to Slovenia, who arrived, lived with and had children with Slovenians, then continued, separated or divorced, never being able to speak Slovene.

Is this an epigenetic foreign characteristic? To some extent yes, but what else contributes to the aliens' Slovene debility? Coincidence, mass accident?

...Or is it nothing to do with those foreigners at all?

Like the others, the Complainant was, on various levels, not given a chance, expected to learn Slovene from someone somewhere else but not expected to do it, belittled and rejected in his attempts, failed by the system, and then discriminated against for not speaking Slovene by elements both in and outside of the edu-sphere, and language was used as a weapon against him.

Communicating in Slovene is a contest at which they can beat the aliens, including the ones hunting for their elusive free language classes.

The Complainant did "learn about the Constitution" via a different route and concludes ZJRS Articles 14, 17 and 32 are contrary to Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights [48]. They are prima facie discriminatory on the grounds of language by forbidding economic participation.

The language used in everyday business is no business of the government. Slovenia has failed to confront an absurdity of its own making with English, and is conflicted in its internationalism. Slovenia's failure to integrate the alien appears deliberate, the facilities to do so invisible and, the evidence will show, statistically remarkable.

The number excluded from economic participation is a matter of speculation, as no count of those covered by ZJRS is maintained by Slovenia. A generous estimate of 0.022 seconds/week of teacher per pupil is elucidated. Would-be students are dissuaded in their attempts to learn via immersion. Their success rate in or out of the edusphere is close to zero. Slovenia ensures it stays that way.

In the context of the broad aims of ZJRS 13, the Complainant therefore shows the above  conditions demonstrated negligence in the field of (especially spoken) language education facilities and the necessary surrounding communication with incomers on the topic, and its failure to operate in equal measure and counterbalance with the restrictions and sanctions of ZJRS 14 and 32, in the lives of their targets.

The Complainant's UK life expectancy at birth was 70.37 [106]. Mother and aunts died well into their 90s, father managed a 2010 life UK expectancy at birth, dying aged 80. In any event, the Complainant had spent >99.95% of his first 25685 days in the UK and as of 28 October 2022 had spent >99.8% of the subsequent 6389 days in Slovenia.

Excluding savings and sources of income outside of Slovenia, which form part of a stereotyping, romantic vision of rich white visitors fondly imagined by its population, and the possibility of jobs for English speakers, the Poverty-Adjusted Life-Expectancy PALEq= LE (1- qH) where LE is life-expectancy at birth, H is the fraction of poor and parameter q Î[0,1] is the fraction of period utility lost when poor [105] yields a value for the excluded parties, including the Complainant, of 0.

At a 22% poverty headcount (H), with all period utility lost (q=1), the Complainant could have expected to live six years to the age of 54.88 after moving to Slovenia. But if H=33% he would be dead immediately, aged 47.15 years, less in fact than his actual age on arrival (47.33 years).

The exclusion of no one from the economy by ZJRS 14 would demand a 100% language teaching success rate. A 100% success rate faces insurmountable cultural, biological, economic, and facilities barriers. Poverty increases stress, which is life-shortening. ZJRS 14 is an unreasonable discriminatory barrier to economic participation in these circumstances.

The Complainant has been seriously fatigued by the constant difficulties added to life's vicissitudes by Slovenia's secret language, in every little problem: with utilities, with renovations, with issues from the most mundane shopping searches to discussions on archaeological preservation.

The Complainant has never been given a reason why he "refuses" to learn Slovene - as Slovenians have comfortably chosen to view the situation. He was stopped everywhere he went.

"This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers." says ECHR Article 10.

Whomever's fault it might be, it is difficult to impart anything if you don't speak the language you are legally required to impart it in.

The evidence will show that besides Slovenia's teaching invisibility, language inability in the unintegrated alien intersects with physiological trajectories, making the ZJRS a discrimination based on race, nationality, age and gender, besides the innate ineducability Slovenians perceive as universal.

The use of English is part of the guaranteed right to freedom of expression.

Using English in no special way threatens interests of national security, territorial integrity, or public safety. Are certain languages, e.g. Bosnian, Serbian and German, accused of this?

English speaking does not cause disorder or crime, or diminish the protection of Slovenia's health or morals. This is a bit of a joke, under the prevailing local conditions.

English will not damage the reputation or the rights of others more than Slovene or any other language, nor prevent the disclosure of information received in confidence; how a language could disturb the authority or impartiality of the judiciary lacks explanation, but inability is hardly likely to be to the advantage of the Complainant, or anybody else: see Vizgirda v. Slovenia. [46]

As Slovenians can use 100% English in their 100% autochthonous business meetings with 0% risk of prosecution, ZJRS 14 conjures an unfair advantage for themselves over immigrants.

Nor are ZJRS 14 and 32 compatible with Articles 20, 21 or 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2016/C 202/02). In this the Complainant relies on Costa v ENEL case 6/64. [45]

ZJRS 14 and 32 are further contrary to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights articles 2, 3, 24 and 27.

ZJRS 14 and 32 are further contrary to the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities articles 2.1, 2.2, 4.2, 4.4, 4.5 and 5.1.

ZJRS 14 and 32 are also contrary to the UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education 1960 articles 1, 3, 4a, 4b, 4d, 5a, and 9.

ZJRS 14 and 32 are additionally inimical to the non-treaty Helsinki Final Act 1975 1(a) VII, and 4, and corresponding views of the Concluding Document of Vienna 1986.

ZJRS 14 also negates and fails to juxtapose with the rights granted under Articles 14, 61 and 62 of the Constitution of Slovenia.

Slovenia ratified the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages on 4 October 2000 but does not consider English to be a minority language.

Slovenia has made promoting Slovene legally obligatory but in practice this has been interpreted as referring to artistic endeavours among the autochthonous population, and not the feeding machinery of language instruction, which the Complainant found delivers a thin gruel.

The Complainant argues that Slovenia's precise legal arrangements, combined with a neglect to realise its own obligations to itself i.e. ZJRS 13, amount to a deceitful and disingenuous discriminatory act, and do not provide the requisite equal opportunities for non-autochthonous residents, or others wishing to establish business activity in the country.

Instead, in concert with Slovenia's de facto refusal to teach its language, these laws and administrative procedures exert a silent but deadly force over the non-Slovene-speaking population, and constitute a variety of office eugenics with no possible humane outcome for Slovenia's unwanted guests.

Compensation is claimed for living under Slovenia's tragically misguided systemic legal discrimination, for long-term trauma from a legally unjustifiable economic and social marginalization, and for total exclusion of a group whose language Slovenia has paradoxically made central to its notion of educational achievement.

The claim is made individually and collectively against the Republic of Slovenia, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, Zavod republike Slovenije za zaposlovanje (ZRSZ, the Slovenian Employment Service) Ptuj, and Ljudska Univerza Ptuj.

Additionally against RS alone, Complainant asserts an ECHR Article 8 violation, via the neglect of equal language provision, in the unequal and discriminatory provision of time limits for responses to official documents (usually 15 days).

In areas such as social security, decisions with utilities and other suppliers, and Court decisions, it is impossible to translate at reasonable expense in the time available, denying the equal opportunity of appeal.

The substance of this inequality is that the Complainant must exert considerable effort and requires a higher level of technology to understand the document, but only has the same amount of time.

Slovenia's pet foreigner wears out his friendships to achieve understanding at an economic rate, is thus denied privacy, is frequently denied a satisfactory outcome and told not to worry, and frequently should worry.

As a consequence of the ban on foreigners earning any money, the Complainant was forced to parade his various domestic woes in the village square, whose random occupants are not a translation bureau, and who are more interested in getting you drunk and finding out everything else about you, than the intricacies of your gas bills.

Such exposure in Ptuj inevitably leads to the diminuition of the status and reputation of the mendicant, further reducing his chances of economic success, if that is possible.

Of course the remedy for this sensation of being peeled is not only different time limits or instant free translation services, which merely address the symptoms. For we don't say to maths students, "Don't worry about understanding sums...here's a calculator..."

The underlying cause is that Slovene is not taught properly or at all. Slovenia's efforts have been and remain truly feeble and pathetic, but its fundamental attribution error is confident and strong.

(Note: Slovenians have no idea what a "fundamental attribution error" is, and translated into Slovene these words mean nothing).

As shown by evidence from 1941 to the present - much of it produced by the State itself - this is "not a language barrier, but a language fortress" [67,80] albeit a selfishly absorbent one.

Where language discrimination in these circumstances is also a discrimination by nationality, race, gender or age, the passages referring to both forms are concurrent in the rights legislation referred to herein.

If you're wondering why coming top in Europe at English hasn't transformed the Slovenian economy Hong Kong-style this claim, without really needing to, looks at the situation on the ground, and offers some pointers.

A nihče ne »toži Slovenije, ker govori slovensko«, kot lahko boste sčasoma slišali trditi kakšen nepazljivi rasistični tepec.