The intent element is a legal threshold, which draws a distinction between a copyright infringement as a criminal act (intent existing, Article 159 of the Criminal Code) and a copyright infringement as a misdemeanour (intent not existing, Article 184(1) of the Copyright Act). The term "substantial material gain" is defined as five average monthly net salaries (Article 126(13)2 of the Criminal Code), i.e. an income amounting to a total of approximately US$2 720.

Slovenia's response to question 24 of the Checklist of Issues on Enforcement indicates that the goods infringing the trademark shall be confiscated on an obligatory basis.

The answer to this question is given in Slovenia's response to question 24 of the Checklist of Issues on Enforcement.

The analysis covers civil cases, commercial disputes and criminal cases where the legal action, motion and/or indictment were filed in the period from 1 January 1996 until 31 December 1997. Thus the data on judgments do not cover the cases filed before 1996, although the respective judgments were pronounced in 1996 and/or 1997. Regarding the cases filed in 1996 and 1997, the analysis, however, excludes the judgments passed after 31 December 1997. Accordingly, the analysis in question cannot provide a definite answer to the question about the final result of all proceedings dealt with in the courts. This will only be possible upon completion of all these proceedings. Hence, the analysis in question could only yield an "interim result" with reference to the situation as of 31 December 1997. Number of civil cases and commercial disputes In the years 1996 and 1997 District Courts in the Republic of Slovenia received altogether 143 legal actions in the field of intellectual property, whereof 140 suits referring to violation of intellectual property right, one suit to patent nullity and two suits to trademark cancellation. Further details on legal actions arising out of violation of intellectual property rights are as follows: - Violation of copyright and related rights 97 - Patent violation 9 - Trademark violation 14 - Industrial design violation 1 - Violation of geographical indications – - Trade name protection 8 - Unfair competition 11 - Violation of business secrecy – - Total 140 Number of requests for temporary orders (and other security measures) Among the cases referred to in Chapter 2 there were 24 cases subject to the request of a temporary order. Further details on requests for security measures are as follows: - Request for prohibition of further violation 16 - Request for requisition of objects of violation 3 - Other types of security measures (security of evidence etc.) 5 In the period in question there were 21 independent requests for security measures (excluding simultaneously filed legal actions) submitted to County Courts. Further details on requests for security measures are as follows: - Request for prohibition of further violation 18 - Request for inventory of objects of violation 4 - Request for custody of objects of violation 3 - Request for requisition of objects of violation 5 - Other types of security measures (security of evidence etc.) 3 Accordingly, in the years 1996 and 1997 there were altogether 45 requests for temporary orders submitted to the courts in the Republic of Slovenia. Further details on requests for security measures are as follows: - Request for prohibition of further violation 34 - Request for inventory of objects of violation 4 - Request for custody of objects of violation 3 - Request for requisition of objects of violation 8 - Other types of security measures (security of evidence etc.) 8 In certain cases there were simultaneous requests for several security measures. Therefore the sum of individual types of requests exceeds the total number of cases. The total number of cases relating to the violation of intellectual property rights is 164 (140 suits before District Courts and 24 independent requests for security measures before County Courts). However, the actual number of violations brought before Courts ranges between 140 and 164. As a matter of fact, in some cases the same violation is first a matter of independent request for security measures and subsequently a matter of legal action. Result of civil proceedings and commercial disputes Out of 140 proceedings started in 1996 and 1997 as a result of legal actions referring to violation of intellectual property rights there were 34 legal actions completed at the first instance court by 31 December 1997. Further details are as follows: - Request for legal action partly or full approved 16 - Judicial settlement 4 - Judgment based on recognition 2 - Withdrawal of legal action 8 - Rejection of legal action 2 - Refusal of request for legal action 2 In 22 cases where the defendant was imposed an obligation (under judgment, under judgment based on recognition or under judicial settlement) the sanctions were as follows: - Final prohibition of further violation 2 - Indemnity 18 - Other ? The reason for the low number of prohibitions and a high number of indemnities probably lies in the fact that most of the civil proceedings only concerned indemnities (almost only copyright disputes) because it was preceded by a previously issued and considered temporary prohibition of violation. In the cases at the first instance completed with a judgment, which imposed on the defendant the payment of indemnity, the sum of all such imposed amounts totals SIT 7 494 070.00 (principal without interest). The statistics cover only the cases which were completed at the first instance by 31 December 1997. Accordingly, it involves only the disputes that were completed relatively quickly (in less than two years or even within a few months upon filing of the legal action). On these grounds it could be presumed that such statistical data may predominantly cover rather simple cases and those with a lower value in dispute. Due to the short time interval between filing of legal actions and the last considered date of the judgment some more real analysis of results of civil proceedings and commercial disputes will only be possible upon completion of the remaining 75.71% of proceedings (which are not necessarily comparable by value of dispute and sanctions with those which could already be included in the analysis). Out of the 140 civil cases and commercial disputes filed in 1996 and 1997 there are two cases completed with a final judgment of the Court of Appeal. The number of finally completed cases shall also include at least those which have been completed through judicial settlement. The result of the proceedings at the second instance is not real for the same reasons as applicable to the cases completed at the first instance (short interval between filing of the legal action and the judgment of the Court of Appeal). Results of interlocutory proceedings Out of 45 requests for issue of a temporary order and/or any other interlocutory measure filed in 1996 and 1997, Slovene Courts passed their judgments by 31 December 1997 in 41 cases. By 31 December 1997, there were in total 24 final decisions on requests for interlocutory measures (i.e. completed proceeding against debtor's objection at the first instance as well as the proceeding at the second instance relating to the appeal of one of the parties). First instance judgments on requests for interlocutory measures (out of 41 cases): - Issue of temporary order regarding the prohibition of violation and/or requisition of the objects of violation 33 - Issue of decision on security of evidence 1 - Refusal of request 7 Subsequent treatment of temporary orders: - Temporary order remaining in force as final 22 - Abrogation of the order relating to the debtor's objection or appeal 9 - Absence of judgment by 31 December 1997 2 Out of 41 requests for issue of a temporary order issued in 1996 and 1997 and already final as of 31 December 1997, the figures were as follows: - Temporary orders issued at the first instance 33 (80.5%) - Temporary orders issued as final 22 (53.7%) Differently from the results of civil proceedings and commercial disputes, the data on security measures may be much more real. Since the decision-making about temporary orders is much faster, the analysis of a large majority of requests for judgments (in particular at the first instance) may already be known. Criminal proceedings As the analysis is supposed to cover only the period when the TRIPS Agreement was already in force in Slovenia (i.e. after 1 January 1996) and because it is supposed to cover only judicial proceedings and the corresponding results by 31 December 1997, the data on criminal proceedings will be applicable only with much restriction. As a matter of fact, a regular criminal proceeding is first preceded by denunciation, follows request for investigation (public prosecutor), investigations and only then the indictment. The date concerning the number of persons in the Republic of Slovenia which are treated as suspects or accused persons in these pre-criminal phases are not available to criminal courts. The same applies to possible requisitions of objects of the reproached criminal act imposed before the requests for legal actions have been filed. On these grounds it is only possible to ascertain that in the relevant period there were eight indictments filed with reference to the criminal acts reproached pursuant to Articles 158, 159, 238/1 and 309/3 of the Penal Code. No judgment has been passed in any of the criminal cases. The data on results of criminal proceedings related to the acts committed before 1 January 1996, however, do not fit into this analysis.

Please see the answer to follow-up question 1 from the United States above.

The proceedings leading to a decision on the merits of the case, as stipulated in Article 55 of the TRIPS Agreement, are of judicial nature.

No.

There is no explicit specification of the term; however, the Copyright and Related Rights Act has the provision that customs authorities must promptly inform all parties involved about the application. The same applies in the case that suspension of the release into free circulation is sought under the judicial procedure at the court.

The terms stipulated in the TRIPS Agreement are directly applicable.

If the procedure is initiated at the court, a fee which currently is not more than SIT 15 300 (approximately US$120) has to be paid. No fee is required in cases involving copyright piracy, if the procedure is initiated directly with the customs authorities in accordance with Article 173 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act.

The answer to this question is given in Slovenia's response to question 12 of the Checklist of Issues on Enforcement.

No such specific procedure is foreseen.

Public authorities are liable for damages, caused by their officials to third parties in the administration or in connection with the administration of their duties, under the general rules on damages (Code of Obligations, Article 172).

Please see the reply to question 8 above.

Please see the reply to question 8 above.

Yes.

In order to ensure protection of confidential information brought forward as evidence, the court may decide to exclude the public from the court hearings. The judge is obliged to warn all parties that they have to respect the confidential nature of any relevant information which they receive in such hearings (Code of Civil Procedure, Articles 307-310).

No specific procedures are prescribed in respect of Articles 51 and 52 of the TRIPS Agreement, and general rules of the Code of Execution are applied.

Please see the reply to question 13 above.

The court decides on the amount of security under the rule of reason.