19 March 2025, Centre for Humanities, Science and Research Centre Koper, Slovenia
SUMMARY REPORT
Opening remarks
The event began with a warm welcome from Erazem Bohinc, a researcher at the Science and Research Centre Koper who explained the theme of the event, welcomed the audience and thanked the organisers. He introduced the two speakers: Professor Dr Miro Cerar, Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Ljubljana and former Prime Minister of the Republic of Slovenia, and Dr Benjamin Flander, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Maribor and Senior Research Fellow at the Law Institute of the Science and Research Centre Koper, Slovenia (“the Law Institute”).
Dr Tilen Glavina, Deputy Director of the Science and Research Centre, followed with introductory remarks. He highlighted the importance of addressing issues of inequality among EU Member States, especially in light of the European Union’s structural framework and current geopolitical challenges. He praised the research achievements of the Law Institute, particularly in the context of European projects such as INNOCENT and INCEPT.
Biographical Introductions and opening of the discussion
Mr Bohinc provided detailed professional and academic biographies of both guests. Dr Miro Cerar began his academic career at the Faculty of Law, University of Ljubljana, after completing his legal studies. As a young legal expert, he contributed to the processes of democratisation and independence in Slovenia. Among other accomplishments, he co-authored the Basic Constitutional Charter on the Sovereignty and Independence of the Republic of Slovenia and the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia. In 1999, he earned his PhD with a dissertation titled The (I)rrationality of Modern Law, under the supervision of Professors Marjan Pavčnik and Anton Perenič. In 2008, as a Fulbright Scholar, he spent six months teaching comparative constitutional law at Golden Gate University School of Law in San Francisco and later pursued postdoctoral studies at the University of California, Berkeley. Upon his return to the Faculty of Law in Ljubljana, he served as an external adviser to the National Assembly on constitutional and other legal matters, before entering politics.
From 2014 to 2018, he served as Prime Minister in the twelfth government of the Republic of Slovenia. He is the author and co-author of numerous academic monographs and legal publications. As a legal scholar and public intellectual, he is a committed advocate for the rule of law, constitutional democracy, and the strengthening of legal culture. Between 2011 and 2014, users of the Tax-Fin-Lex portal voted him the most respected legal expert, and he has been ranked among the top ten most influential Slovenian legal experts on the IUS-INFO portal twenty-one times. Last year, Dr Cerar was elected by the faculty’s Senate Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Ljubljana.
Dr Benjamin Flander, the moderator of the discussion, earned his bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees at the Faculty of Law, University of Ljubljana. In 2010, under the supervision of Dr Cerar, he completed his PhD on the topic Postmodernism and the Philosophy of Law. He is the author and co-author of three scholarly monographs and approximately 100 other academic works. His monograph The Crisis of Law: Reflections on Critical Jurisprudence is regarded as a key Slovenian contribution to the field of critical legal theory. His third monograph on electronic evidence in criminal proceedings, co-authored with Professor Anže Erbežnik, was published last year as part of the European project INNOCENT. Dr Flander has been a visiting lecturer at the Faculty of Law, University of La Laguna in Spain, and at the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Novi Sad in Serbia. He also serves as an international supervisor in the doctoral programme in Central European Comparative Law at the Faculty of Law, University of Miskolc, Hungary.
Dr Flander opened the discussion with a personal anecdote, sharing his doctoral journey under the supervision of Dr Cerar. This set a collegial and relaxed tone for the conversation, which then delved into Slovenia’s two-decade journey as an EU Member State with a particular focus on the principle of equality among EU Member States.
Slovenia and 20 Years of EU Membership: Progress and Challenges
Dr Cerar began by highlighting the transformative impact of Slovenia’s EU membership since joining in 2004. He emphasised how striving for EU accession helped Slovenia mature politically, legally, and economically. He credited the EU with providing a framework for democratic development and legal harmonisation, particularly during the critical period following Slovenia’s independence. Joining the EU, Dr Cerar argued, provided Slovenia with a strategic direction post-independence, significantly strengthening its legal and democratic culture. According to Dr Cerar, “After achieving the major goal of becoming a sovereign country, we were suddenly faced with real questions: What now? How do we move forward, especially considering our underdeveloped democratic culture and a general lack of knowledge at the time? The goal of joining the European Union quickly took shape and gave us direction. That period was arguably the most fruitful in terms of developing a democratic and legal mentality in Slovenia. Why? Because in the process of preparing for EU membership, we had to adopt key elements of European law. We had to align our legal and political systems – and our overall functioning – with the values, legal norms, and objectives of the EU.”
The process of aligning with EU laws and values served, according to Dr Cerar, as a powerful crash course in Western democratic norms, boosting the rule of law, human rights protections, and economic regulation. Further benefits of EU membership are improved living standards, stronger legal protections, and geopolitical stability. Slovenia has become, in his words, a “respectable European country”, benefiting not only from higher living standards but also from the security and stability provided by the EU’s legal framework—particularly valuable for small states. He acknowledged, however, that in many aspects the EU faces a democratic deficit. He is well aware of the negatives; however, the positives outweigh them. Despite its shortcomings, its problems, and the dilemmas it faces, he believes the European project must continue. There is no better option. It is, by far, the best thing that could have happened to Europe. At the same time, it is essential that we remain aware of its weaknesses, that we speak about them openly and clearly, and that we, as EU citizens, demand improvements from our leaders. Dr Cerar argued that “Right now, Europe is stagnating in many ways on the global stage, and we know that a period of crisis is approaching. This may not be the best moment for reflection – but I hope we use it wisely.”
First-Hand Experience in the European Council
Dr Cerar shared first-hand insights from his time as Prime Minister and a member of the European Council. He described the internal dynamics of EU decision-making, the consensus-based approach, and the complex negotiations behind major decisions. He highlighted moments when Slovenia was able to assert its interests, notably during the migration crisis and a diplomatic dispute involving China and arbitration law. His experiences illustrated the importance of EU membership in providing even small states with a platform to influence international policy, provided they are well prepared and diplomatically agile. According to Dr Cerar, “Even small states can meaningfully shape EU decisions, provided they act strategically and build coalitions. The fact that we Slovenians have our own country – a nation of just two million people – is, on the one hand, a miracle, and on the other, an immense advantage. It means Slovenia has a seat at the table with representatives of all other EU countries, and we sit there as equals. That doesn’t mean we have the same level of power or influence – some countries are undoubtedly stronger – but still, no decisions can be made without Slovenia’s vote. It can directly assert its interests through face-to-face talks and direct exchanges of views, even with the leaders of foreign countries.”
The European Council convenes every three months, along with additional extraordinary meetings, conferences, and summits. According to Dr Cerar, “Practically speaking, the Slovenian Prime Minister meets with counterparts from the other 27 Member States about once a month – sometimes more, sometimes less often. That means you’re sitting at the same table, and you can raise any issue or concern – whether as a formal proposal during the meeting or informally in a hallway conversation. If Slovenia were not an EU Member, it would have to request or even beg for every such meeting, for every bilateral exchange—and then wait for a British, or German foreign minister, or a minister of economy or defence, or even a prime minister, to agree to meet. That could take five, ten months – or longer. And if they don’t consider you particularly interesting, the meeting might never happen. But as an EU Member, Slovenia is there – at the table – with everyone else.”
Dr Cerar shared an interesting example of how the process of taking decisions unanimously works in the Council. When the European Council had to appoint a new President, Donald Tusk, who had already served a successful term, was proposed for reappointment. Everyone supported the extension of his mandate – except for Poland. Considering that all Member States agreed except one, persuasion was needed and, in Dr Cerar’s words, “that takes hours and hours around the table.” The session was interrupted, separate talks were held, and eventually, the head of the Polish government said they might agree but they felt disrespected. According to Dr Cerar, “That’s a very important point for many countries. You must show respect. Even if you know you’ll eventually outvote them, you need to help them save face. That’s a crucial part of diplomacy. We had already learned that in the EU at the time, and I believe it still applies today.” In the end, Poland supported Tusk’s reappointment, even though its ruling party was against him.
“The EU functions through soft coordination and consensus”, argues Dr Cerar. “That’s the only way. Because if you slam your fist on the table or push someone into a corner, you risk the entire process collapsing.” However, he acknowledges that in the long term, this approach may limit the EU’s ability to remain globally competitive. “We’re already seeing that the EU struggles to keep pace with global powers like China, the United States, Russia, and India. Even closer to us, regional powers like Turkey are advancing rapidly. So, the EU must find mechanisms to make its decision-making more effective. And it’s constantly searching for ways to do that. At the moment, there’s a proposal on the table to increase majority voting in the EU Council – meaning more decisions would be made by a qualified majority rather than by unanimity.”
Legal Equality, Solidarity, and Differentiated Integration
The heart of the conversation was about the principle of equality among EU Member States. Dr Flander offered a legal overview, noting that the principle is enshrined only once in the EU primary law, namely in Article 4 of the Lisbon Treaty. However, despite its limited explicit mention in EU treaties, the principle of equality among Member States is implemented through other provisions of primary EU law – that is, the founding treaties – as well as secondary legislation, such as directives on equal opportunities and anti-discrimination. Key provisions seem to be those that define the composition of EU institutions and the representation of Member States within them—especially in terms of decision-making processes and the legal rules for adopting decisions. All the key EU institutions, except the European Parliament, are based on this principle of parity. The Parliament, on the other hand, uses a system of regressive proportionality, meaning that larger countries have more Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), but smaller countries get more MEPs per capita.
Regarding the other legislative body, the Council of the European Union, Dr Flander pointed out that it consists of ministers, depending on the policy area being discussed, and that not all decisions require unanimity to be adopted. Since the Lisbon Treaty, a double qualified majority voting system has been introduced. Under this system, a proposal is adopted if two conditions are met: first, at least 55% of the Member States must vote in favour, which currently means at least 15 out of 27; second, those states must represent at least 65% of the total EU population. According to Dr Flander, this mechanism is designed to strike a balance between representing smaller and larger Member States. On the one hand, it ensures smaller countries have a voice; on the other, it reflects the fact that some Member States are ten times larger, economically stronger, or politically more influential. The idea is to incorporate both dimensions into the decision-making process.
Despite being written into the founding treaties, practical deviations from the formal principle of equality among Member States exist, as Dr Flander pointed out, in the form of disparities among countries in terms of their economic development, political influence and through the idea of differentiated integration. Examples of the latter include transitional arrangements for new Members; opt-outs granted to countries like Denmark and Ireland; and variable participation in Schengen and the eurozone. In the founding treaties and in EU secondary law, through regulations, directives, and even bilateral agreements, certain Member States are granted special status or treated differently. Dr Flander observed that differentiated integration is the concept on which the EU is actually built, despite its official commitment to the principle of equality among Member States. Dr Cerar agreed and noted that true equality cannot mean treating unequal states the same way. Instead, flexibility and solidarity are crucial. He argued that the EU is a sui generis structure that must balance legal equality with practical realities.
The Rule of Law and National Identity
The conversation then tackled the complex relationship between the rule of law and national identity. Dr Flander pointed out that some states see uniform rule-of-law enforcement as infringing upon their sovereignty or identity and that their interpretation of the rule of law may differ from that of EU institutions. Dr Cerar responded by reaffirming the rule of law is a non-negotiable pillar of the EU. He warned that judicial independence must be protected at all costs, citing examples from both the EU and the US to illustrate the dangers of political overreach. He stressed that without an independent judiciary, economic development and civil liberties are at risk. He concluded that while national identity is important, it cannot serve as a justification for undermining EU legal standards. Instead, Member States must work within the framework to improve and adapt, contributing constructively to the Union.
Nevertheless, according to Dr Cerar, there are situations where legal exceptions are justified. He pointed to mass migration as an example. Europe may be guided by human rights conventions and principles, but when one is receiving thousands of refugees a day, the reality becomes far more complex. In such situations, one must do something; a different approach is needed. Those countries which are overburdened are compelled to adopt certain laws out of sheer necessity. Slovenia was among the first countries to start addressing this. Poland, for example, amended its asylum laws, making the process of gaining asylum more difficult for applicants. In that context, Dr Cerar understands Poland, Hungary and other countries are in a similar position. In the end, many countries may even agree with some of their positions even though they currently criticise them publicly.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Dr Flander noted the continuing importance of open, informed dialogue on these complex issues. He invited attendees to remain for a short musical performance by a young pianist, Tristan, whose programme, featuring works by Rachmaninov and Chopin, was chosen to symbolise the tensions and harmonies between European and Russian cultural influences. Dr Cerar expressed his gratitude for the invitation and reiterated his belief in the EU as a vital force for peace, development, and legal integrity. He encouraged further research, dialogue, and active citizenship to strengthen the Union from within.
The event succeeded in providing a multifaceted exploration of the (in)equality among EU Member States, grounded in both high-level legal theory and lived political experience. With thoughtful moderation and candid reflections, the conversation between Dr Flander and Dr Cerar offered valuable insights into the future of the European Union and Slovenia’s place within it.
