To Recognize or Not to Recognize? The Concept and Recognition of Minorities in Slovenia in Light of International MonitoringNagy, Noémi (Avtor) ethnic communities in Slovenialegal recognitionautochthonyUN treaty bodiesAdvisory Committee of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National MinoritiesDespite Slovenia’s ethnically heterogeneous landscape, the Constitution recognizes only two groups as “autochthonous national communities”: the Hungarians and the Italians. Whereas the Roma also enjoy some constitutional protection, the most numerous ex-Yugoslav ethnic groups, also known as “new communities” (Albanians, Bosniaks, Croats, Macedonians, Montenegrins, and Serbs), received legal recognition only recently. Neither the “new communities” nor the German-speaking population, however, benefit from the protection of the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities – regardless of the former’s substantial numbers and the latter’s historic presence on the territory of the State. This paper first gives a detailed overview of Slovenia’s legislation related to the concept of minorities and then evaluates it in light of the monitoring materials of the Advisory Committee of the Framework Convention, as well as those of the UN treaty bodies. The aim of the paper is to assess whether the Slovenian system is in conformity with the international obligations of the State, at least from a conceptual point of view. Based on a thorough analysis of some 30 documents adopted by international monitoring bodies, the answer seems to be negative, which may come as a surprise when contrasted with the strong international reputation of the Slovenian system of minority protection. This paper demonstrates that Slovenia has been adamantly and repeatedly criticized for retaining the undefined and confusing concept of “autochthony”; for adopting a restrictive approach to the recognition and provision of special protection for different ethnic groups; for making unjustified and arbitrary distinctions between “autochthonous” and “non-autochthonous” Roma communities; and for the fact that it has still not managed to definitively resolve the issue of the “erased”.20252026-03-09 11:32:33Neznano28063UDK: 323.15(497.4)DOI: 10.69070/2026_11COBISS_ID: 270935811OceCobissID: 264592387sl