Property relations between spouses are regulated in Slovenian law by the Family Code (hereinafter: DZ).

The first paragraph of Article 64 of the DZ stipulates that spouses may conclude between themselves all legal transactions that they may also conclude with other persons and, on this basis, establish rights and obligations. The second paragraph of that article stipulates that contracts concerning property rights and obligations concluded between spouses must be concluded in the form of a notarial protocol. The third paragraph of that article stipulates that, notwithstanding the provision of the second paragraph, it is not necessary to conclude a contract in the form of a notarial protocol for ordinary minor gifts that are proportionate to the donor’s financial situation, unless otherwise provided by law for the disposal of such property.

Similarly, agreements on the settlement of property relations between unmarried partners must also be concluded in the form of a notarial protocol. This follows from Article 47 of the Notary Public Act, the first paragraph of which stipulates, inter alia, that agreements on the settlement of property relations between spouses and unmarried partners must be concluded in the form of a notarial protocol, as well as from case law, namely from the judgment and decision of the Supreme Court, ref. no. II Ips 219/2007 of 1 October 2009 (which states that legal transactions between common-law partners must also be concluded in the form of a notarial protocol in order to be valid) and the judgment of the Higher Court in Ljubljana, ref. no. I Cp 1610/2019 of 4 December 2019 (which states that contracts governing property relations between spouses/unmarried partners must be concluded in the form of a notarial protocol). If legal transactions between spouses and extramarital partners are not concluded in the form of a notarial protocol, they are null and void.

In the decision of the Supreme Court, ref. no. II Ips 249/2018 of 19 December 2019, it was decided and clarified that a notarial record represents the strictest form of contract conclusion, which is why the purpose for which the legislator prescribed such strictness must be taken into account when interpreting this condition for the validity of the contract. In the case of contracts between spouses and extramarital partners, this is undoubtedly their special family, social, and emotional situation and the specific context in which spouses conclude property transactions with each other. Due to the complexity, sensitivity, and multi-layered nature of these relationships, which far exceed simple business decisions based primarily on economic considerations characteristic of the vast majority of other property law contracts, the legislator has prescribed the strictest form, which protects the contracting parties from ill-considered and hasty decisions that may have long-term and fateful consequences for the property situation and thus also for the life of one or both contracting parties. It follows from the case law cited above that the court dealt with the question of whether the agreement concluded in 2011 by the litigants, who were still married at the time, and which they called an agreement on the temporary settlement of relations regarding joint property, concluded in the form of a notarial protocol. The court stated that all agreements on the settlement of property relations between spouses are null and void if they are not concluded in the form of a notarial protocol. An agreement on the division of joint property, whereby spouses permanently dispose of a significant, if not the most significant, part of their property, must be concluded in the form of a notarial protocol. However, an agreement that is temporary and provisional in nature and regulates property relations only until they are finally settled does not, as a rule, have a significant and decisive impact on the property status of the spouses and, as a rule, does not make a fateful and irreversible decision about the future and issues that significantly affect the future life of the parties. Such an agreement is not subject to the strict form of a notarial protocol.

The Supreme Court ruling No. II Ips 967/2007 of 17 June 2010 further states that spouses may enter into various legal transactions with each other, such as purchase, exchange, loan, and gift agreements, but all of these (may) relate (only) to the separate property of each of them. They cannot dispose of undetermined shares in the joint property during their lifetime. In the case law cited, the plaintiff requested the court to rule that the defendant was obliged to pay her a certain amount representing the value of a personal car, which she had given her in 1995 upon the birth of their third child. The court ruled that the car, purchased during the marriage (to meet the needs of the family) with funds obtained through a loan that the plaintiff repaid from his salary, was joint property and could not be considered a gift from one spouse to the other.