Disinheritance of necessary heirs is regulated in Slovenian legislation by the Inheritance Act (hereinafter: ZD).

Article 42 of the ZD specifies the grounds for disinheritance, namely that the testator may disinherit an heir who is entitled to a compulsory share 1. if the heir has committed a serious offense against the testator by violating any legal or moral obligation, 2. if they have intentionally committed a serious criminal offense against the testator or against their spouse, child, adopted child, or parents, and 3. if they have given themselves over to idleness and a dishonest life. It also stipulates that disinheritance may be complete or partial.

The Supreme Court ruling No. II Ips 80/2019 of 6 February 2020 states that disinheritance is a punishment imposed by the testator on his or her potential heir, which is permitted if any of the legal conditions for disinheritance are met. Whether such a reason (namely, the one stated by the testator as the reason for disinheritance) exists is assessed according to the situation as it was at the time when the testator made the will disinheriting the compulsory heir.

The judgment of the Higher Court in Ljubljana, ref. no. I Cp 1531/2018 of 7 November 2028, states that a serious breach of moral obligations is a legal standard that must be met by the court in each individual case, based on an assessment of the circumstances of the specific case. In judicial practice, the position has been taken on several occasions that the severity of the reasons for disinheritance cannot be considered merely as an expression of the testator’s dislike of the heir, but that these reasons must be of such significance and severity that the heir is not entitled to the statutory minimum share. Furthermore, it follows that the reasons for disinheritance must therefore be interpreted narrowly and must constitute serious violations (also) according to the criteria of broader social morality. Serious violations of the heir’s moral duty to the deceased include, in particular, rude behavior, failure to show due respect, failure to provide assistance in case of illness or difficulties, failure to visit, and similar behavior.

The judgment of the Higher Court in Ljubljana, ref. no. II Cp 3204/2007 of 12 March 2008, states that the defendant’s behavior, when he behaved extremely aggressively towards the testator, repeatedly hit her, pulled her hair, disturbing her sleep by banging on the door and breaking into her bedroom, constitutes the concept of ugly behavior, which is grounds for disinheritance.

The Supreme Court ruling No. II Ips 43/2008 of 26 November 2009 states that, based on the findings that the disputed threat may have been made, but only once, that the disputes between the deceased and the defendant had escalated and become heated, with the defendant uttering harsh words against the deceased, and that these disputes were a reflection of the strained relations within the family, to which the deceased himself had contributed, the courts correctly concluded that the alleged reason for disinheritance did not exist.

The ZD also specifies the conditions for the validity of disinheritance. Article 43 of the ZD stipulates that a testator who intends to disinherit an heir must express this in the will in an unambiguous manner, and it is also useful to state the reason for disinheritance. Furthermore, it is stipulated that the reason for disinheritance must be given at the time the will is made, and the reason under point 3 of Article 42 of the ZD must also be given at the time of the testator’s death. If a dispute arises as to the validity of the disinheritance, the validity must be proven by the person invoking the disinheritance.

The decision of the Higher Court in Ljubljana, ref. no. I Cp 1357/2017 of 23 August 2017, states that in the event of a dispute over the validity of disinheritance, the validity must be proven by the person invoking disinheritance, i.e. the person who would receive a share of the disinheritance if it were justified.

The ZD also stipulates the consequences of disinheritance, namely that Article 44 of the ZD stipulates that by disinheritance, the heir loses their inheritance rights to the extent of the disinheritance, while the rights of other persons who may inherit from the deceased are determined as if the disinherited person had died before the deceased.

The judgment of the Higher Court in Ljubljana, ref. no. I Cp 371/2020 of 28 May 2020, states that the disinherited person cannot receive anything from the estate; if they have descendants, the latter inherit their compulsory share on the basis of the right of entry, otherwise the compulsory shares of other compulsory heirs are increased in accordance with the rules on accretion.