VDSS – VDS00089378

3 February 2026

Lde: Created page with “{{COURTdecisionBOX |Jurisdiction=Slovenia |Court-BG-Color= |Courtlogo=Courts_logo1.png |Court_Abbrevation=VDSS |Court_Original_Name=Višje delovno in socialno sodišče |Court_English_Name=Higher Labor and Social Court |Court_With_Country=VDSS (Slovenia) |Case_Number_Name=VDS00089378 |ECLI=ECLI:SI:VDSS:2025:X.PDP.343.2025 |Original_Source_Name_1=Sodna Praska |Original_Source_Link_1=https://www.sodnapraksa.si/?q=ZVOP&database%5BSOVS%5D=SOVS&database%5BIESP%5D=IESP&data…”

{{COURTdecisionBOX

|Case_Number_Name=VDS00089378
|ECLI=ECLI:SI:VDSS:2025:X.PDP.343.2025

|Original_Source_Name_1=Sodna Praska
|Original_Source_Link_1=https://www.sodnapraksa.si/?q=ZVOP&database%5BSOVS%5D=SOVS&database%5BIESP%5D=IESP&database%5BVDSS%5D=VDSS&database%5BUPRS%5D=UPRS&_submit=i%25C5%25A1%25C4%258Di&order=date&direction=desc&rowsPerPage=20&page=0&id=2015081111486970
|Original_Source_Language_1=Slovenian
|Original_Source_Language__Code_1=SL
|Original_Source_Name_2=
|Original_Source_Link_2=
|Original_Source_Language_2=
|Original_Source_Language__Code_2=

|Date_Decided=26.11.2025
|Date_Published=
|Year=2025

|EU_Law_Name_1=
|EU_Law_Link_1=
|EU_Law_Name_2=
|EU_Law_Link_2=

|Party_Name_1=
|Party_Link_1=
|Party_Name_2=
|Party_Link_2=

|Initial_Contributor=lde
|
}}

A court held that a trade union was not entitled to obtain detailed salary data of public-sector employees through a collective labour dispute. Although public-sector salaries are public by law, access to such information must respect the principle of data minimisation.

== English Summary ==

=== Facts ===
A trade union requested that an employer provide a detailed list of the 200 highest gross salaries paid in April 2024, broken down by salary components, including organisational unit, service, department, and job code. The request was made in the context of a collective labour dispute and was justified by the trade union on the basis of a collective agreement and its role in protecting workers’ interests.

The employer refused to disclose the requested data. The court of first instance rejected the trade union’s request, finding that the disclosure of such personal data lacked a sufficient legal basis, and ordered the trade union to reimburse the employer’s procedural costs.

The trade union appealed, arguing that public-sector salaries are public under national law, which obliges employers to provide trade unions with data necessary for the performance of trade union activities.

=== Holding ===
The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the court of first instance.

First, the court held that the collective agreement relied upon by the trade union does not constitute a law and therefore cannot serve as a legal basis for the disclosure of personal data, as required by Article 6(2) of the Personal Data Protection Act (ZVOP-2), implementing Article 6 and 9 GDPR.

Although public-sector salaries are public under national law, the court clarified that this does not entitle a trade union to obtain individual salary data within a collective labour dispute. Access to such information must be sought before the competent authority, and not before a labour court.

The court additionally found that the national legislation invoked is not sufficiently specific, on its own, to justify the disclosure of detailed personal salary data. In line with the principle of data minimisation under [[Article 5 GDPR#1c|Article 5(1)(c) GDPR]], the trade union would have had to demonstrate concretely why the requested data were necessary for specific trade union activities, which it failed to do. General claims about monitoring compliance with agreements and analysing wage structures were found to be insufficient.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, the first-instance judgment was upheld, and the trade union was ordered to bear the employer’s appeal costs.

== Comment ==
”Share your comments here!”

== Further Resources ==
”Share blogs or news articles here!”

== English Machine Translation of the Decision ==
The decision below is a machine translation of the Slovenian original. Please refer to the Slovenian original for more details.

<pre>
VDSS Judgment X Pdp 343/2025JedroSince the proposer based his proposal for the provision of data on the Collective Agreement, which does not have the nature of a law, but is a collective agreement, the provision of the requested data on this basis is not justified. The first paragraph of Article 38 of the ZSPJS stipulates that salaries in the public sector are public, whereby the public is accessible to data on the job, title or function, basic salaries, bonuses and part of the salary for work performance, except for the bonus for length of service. The sixth paragraph of this article stipulates that, regardless of the provision of the first paragraph of this article, individual data on the amount of the total gross salary of each public employee and each official are accessible to the public in accordance with the procedure regulated by the Access to Public Information Act (ZDIJZ), without reduction for any deductions from enforcement, credits or other personal obligations. However, the aforementioned legal provisions do not grant a trade union in a collective labor dispute the right to obtain the requested data. The proposer cannot request access to public information in a collective labour dispute. A different procedure and a different competent authority (and, in relation to legal remedies, a different court) are prescribed for this. Since the proposer did not request the number of all employees of the opposing participant at all from the opposing participant in the request for the provision of data submitted on 19 June 2024 before the collective labour dispute, the latter did not give rise to the submission of the proposal in this part, and therefore the proposer must reimburse the opposing participant for the costs also in relation to this part of the proposal. Ruling I. The appeal is dismissed and the judgment of the court of first instance is confirmed. II. The proposer is obliged to pay the opposing participant the costs of the appeal procedure in the amount of EUR 746.64 within 8 days. Reasoning I. The Court of First Instance rejected the proposal that the opposing party is obliged to provide the proposer with a detailed list of names of the 200 highest gross salaries calculated by the opposing party for the month of April 2024 by salary items, without seniority allowance, indicating the unit, service and department and the job code (point I of the operative part). It also decided that the proposer is obliged to reimburse the opposing party for the costs of the procedure in the amount of EUR 2,094.84 together with statutory default interest (point II of the operative part). 2. The proposer appeals against the judgment on all grounds of appeal. He proposes to amend the judgment so that the motion is granted in full or its annulment and the case is returned to the court of first instance for a new trial. He states that the court of first instance overlooked that the legal basis for providing the requested data is primarily Article 48 of the ZSTSPJS, on the basis of which the requested data is public and accessible to the public, and the method of communicating it is regulated by the Collective Agreement. Since the requested data is public, the court of first instance should consider that Article 203 of the ZDR-1 is sufficiently specific to constitute a sufficient basis for providing the requested data, and therefore it is not obliged to justify why it needs this data to carry out trade union activities. In addition, the conclusion of the court of first instance that its statements regarding the necessity of the requested data are general is erroneous. Since the court did not conduct evidence at all in this regard (it rejected the evidentiary motion to hear the legal representative of the applicant), it thereby committed a fundamental violation of the provisions of civil procedure. It also appeals against the decision on the costs of the procedure. Since the opposing party was late by not completing part of the proposal on time, it means that it gave rise to the submission of the proposal, and therefore the opposing party is obliged to reimburse the costs of the procedure that relate to the proposal in the part that the opposing party completed after the submission of the proposal (regarding the number of employees at the opposing party). It reports the costs of the procedure.3. In its response to the appeal, the opposing party refutes the appeal allegations with reasons and proposes that the appellate court dismiss the appeal as unfounded. It announces the costs of the response.4. The appeal is unfounded.5. The court of first instance assessed the applicant’s proposal that the opposing party provide it with personal data (a detailed list of the 200 highest gross salaries for the month of April 2024). The second paragraph of Article 6 of the Personal Data Protection Act (ZVOP-2) stipulates, among other things, that the processing of personal data is lawful only if the processing of personal data, the types of personal data to be processed, the categories of individuals to whom these personal data refer, the purpose of their processing and the period for storing personal data or the period for regularly reviewing the need for storage are determined by law. Since the applicant based his proposal for the provision of data on the Collective Agreement,1 which does not have the nature of a law, but is a collective agreement, the court of first instance correctly assessed that the provision of the requested data on this basis was not justified.6. In the complaint, the proposer unfoundedly refers to the Act on the Common Foundations of the Public Sector Wage System (ZSTSPJS), claiming that it determines the legal basis for the provision of the requested data. The provision of Article 48 of the ZSTSPJS, to which the proposer refers, is in no way relevant in the case at hand. The contested period for the provision of personal data refers to the time before the entry into force of the ZSTSPJS, which applies from 1 January 2025 onwards, therefore, when assessing the merits of the proposal, the previously valid Act on the Public Sector Wage System (ZSPJS) must be taken into account. This Act, in the first paragraph of Article 38, stipulates that salaries in the public sector are public, whereby information on the job, title or function, on basic salaries, on bonuses and the part of the salary for work performance, except for the bonus for length of service, is accessible to the public. The sixth paragraph of this article stipulates that, notwithstanding the provision of the first paragraph of this article, individual data on the total gross salary of each public servant and each official, without reduction for any deductions from enforcement, credits or other personal obligations, shall be accessible to the public in accordance with the procedure regulated by the Access to Public Information Act (ZDIJZ). 7. Therefore, what the applicant states in the complaint is true, that salaries in the public sector are public. However, the aforementioned legal provisions do not grant a trade union in a collective labour dispute the right to obtain the requested data. They only stipulate that these shall be forwarded to the ministry responsible for the public sector salary system, the competent local community body and the Agency for Public Legal Records and Services (second to fourth paragraphs of Article 38 of the ZSPJS) and that these data shall be accessible to the public in accordance with the procedure regulated by the ZDIJZ (sixth paragraph of Article 38 of the ZSPJS). This determines the parties liable (which also includes a public institution) and regulates the procedure that allows everyone free access to information of a public nature (including the trade union). The Information Commissioner has the authority to make appeal decisions, against whose decision an administrative dispute is possible. The proposer cannot therefore request access to information of a public nature in a collective labour dispute. A different procedure and another competent authority are prescribed for this (and, in relation to legal remedies, another court).8. In a collective labour dispute, the labour court is competent to decide on the competences of the trade union in relation to employment relationships (Article 6 of the Labour and Social Courts Act – ZDSS-1). The Labour Relations Act (ZDR-1) stipulates in Article 203 that the employer must provide the trade union with the conditions for the rapid and efficient performance of trade union activities in accordance with the regulations that protect the rights and interests of workers, and that the trade union must be given access to the data necessary for the performance of trade union activities. The Court of First Instance correctly concluded that this provision, in view of the aforementioned second paragraph of Article 6 of the ZVOP-2, is not sufficiently specific to constitute a sufficient basis for obtaining the requested personal data. The proposal could be justified on this basis only if, in accordance with the principle of data minimization2 (point c of the first paragraph of Article 5 of the General Regulation3), the proposer provided specific statements showing why he urgently needed the data to carry out a certain trade union activity, which he did not do.9. The Court of First Instance correctly concluded that the proposer’s statements regarding the necessity of the requested data were entirely general, since they did not indicate how a list of names of the 200 highest gross salaries calculated for the month of April 2024 (out of 4,000 employees) would help the proposer to verify the implementation of concluded contracts, enable the protection of the interests of its members and conduct a comprehensive analysis of the structure of the wage bill and its distribution. In accordance with Article 203 of the ZDR-1 and taking into account the aforementioned principle of processing the minimum amount of personal data, the proposer should have specifically justified why he needs this in carrying out trade union activities, which he did not do. Therefore, the appeal alleging violations of the rules of civil procedure is also unfounded, because the court of first instance did not hear the legal representative of the proposer regarding the necessity of the requested data. A defective basis for the claim cannot be replaced by the presentation of evidence (the first paragraph of Article 7 and Article 212 of the Civil Procedure Act – ZPP).10. The appeal against the decision on the costs of the procedure is also unfounded. The proposer withdrew the proposal for the provision of data on the number of all employees of the opposing participant immediately after the opposing participant completed this part of the proposal by filing a response to the proposal. In accordance with the first paragraph of Article 158 of the ZPP, the proposer could be entitled to reimbursement of costs in connection with this part of the proposal. However, the rule in the first paragraph of Article 158 of the Civil Procedure Code has an exception, namely if the defendant or the opposing party has not given cause for the action or motion (Article 157 of the Civil Procedure Code). The court’s assessment of whether the opposing party has given cause for the motion or not depends on the circumstances of the individual case. Even if the opposing party is in default of fulfilling its obligations, this does not necessarily mean that judicial intervention is necessary.It is assessed whether, based on the actions of the opposing party before the collective labour dispute, the applicant could conclude that judicial intervention would be necessary to protect his legal interests. The court of first instance correctly considered that since the applicant did not request the number of all employees of the opposing party before the collective labour dispute in the request for the provision of data dated 19 June 2024, the latter did not give rise to the application in this part, and therefore the applicant must reimburse the costs to the opposing party also in relation to this part of the application.11. Since the court of appeal established that neither the grounds of appeal nor the grounds of appeal that the court of appeal monitors ex officio (second paragraph of Article 350 of the ZPP) were provided, it dismissed the appeal as unfounded and confirmed the judgment of the court of first instance (Article 353 of the ZPP).12. The proposer shall bear the costs of the appeal himself, since he was unsuccessful in his appeal, and at the same time he is obliged to pay the opposing party the costs of the response to the appeal (the first paragraph of Article 165 in connection with the first paragraph of Article 154 of the ZPP). The Court of Appeal took into account that the first-instance court had assessed the dispute with 800 points. According to the Lawyers’ Tariff, the opposing party is entitled to reimbursement of 1,000 points for the response to the appeal and 20 points for material costs, which, considering the value of a lawyer’s point (0.60 EUR) and 22% VAT, amounts to 746.64 EUR.—————————-1 Collective agreement of …, Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. …2 Personal data are adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary in relation to the purposes for which they are processed.3 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC.Union:Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC Article 5, 5/1, 5/1-c. ZVOP-2 Article 6, 6/2. ZSPJS Article 38, 38/1, 38/2, 38/3, 38/4, 38/6. ZSTSPJS Article 48. ZDSS-1 Article 6. ZDR-1 Article 203. ZPP Article 7, 7/1, 157, 158, 158/1, 212Associated documents:**Cases in which the court adopted the same substantive position on procedural or substantive issues. Date of last modification:12.12.2025
</pre>