Recording job interviews in Slovenia: Article 214 of ZEKom-2, Criminal Code Article 137 and the Information Commissioner

Recording a job interview with a candidate in Slovenia needs the candidate's prior consent. Article 214(6) of the Electronic Communications Act (ZEKom-2) bars even the people on a call from recording and storing it without the other participants' prior agreement where recording is not usual and they cannot expect it, which describes an interview. The Criminal Code adds an offense for recording another person's confidential statement in order to misuse it, the GDPR governs the recording and the transcript, and the Information Commissioner says candidates' data may be processed only where the Employment Relationships Act allows it. This is the position as of November 2026.

This page adds Slovenia to our country series alongside Croatia, Austria and Italy. It is for recruiters, agency consultants and hiring managers who interview candidates located in Slovenia by video or phone, including from the US. Quotations from Slovenian sources are our translations.

Slovenia's rules at a glance

Is it legal to record a job interview in Slovenia?

Yes, with the candidate's prior consent. Slovenia's electronic communications law speaks directly to recording by the people on the call. Article 214 of the Electronic Communications Act (ZEKom-2) protects the confidentiality of communications. Paragraph 5 prohibits listening to, intercepting, recording, storing or passing on communications by third parties who are not participants, without the users' consent. Paragraph 6 then reaches the participants themselves: "recording and storing communications without the prior consent of the participants is also prohibited to users where the communication is one in which such processing is not usual and which the participants, by its nature, do not expect and cannot anticipate."

Paragraph 7 allows recording "within lawful business practice" to provide evidence of a commercial transaction or other business communication, "provided that the parties are informed in advance of the recording, its purpose and how long the recording will be kept," and the recording must be deleted "at the latest by the end of the period in which the transaction can lawfully be challenged." Paragraph 8 adds that the notice "must be given through the same kind of medium and in the same form as the recorded communication." The Information Commissioner, discussing that exception in an August 2025 opinion, read the retention rule to mean that only business communications leading to a contract or a change in a business relationship can be recorded on that footing. Whether an interview fits that exception is doubtful, and it would still require advance notice of the purpose and retention period, so the safe course is prior consent, asked for out loud at the start of the call, not only in an email.

The Criminal Code sits behind these rules. Article 137(1) punishes anyone who without authorization eavesdrops on, or audio-records, "a conversation or statement not intended for them" using special devices, or passes it on to a third person. Article 137(2) covers participants: the same penalty applies to whoever "audio-records a confidential statement of another intended for them, without that person's consent, with the intention of misusing the statement," or plays it to a third person. The penalty is a fine or up to one year in prison; paragraph 1 offenses are prosecuted on the victim's motion and paragraph 2 offenses by private action. For video interviews, Article 138 adds an offense for unauthorized image recording of a person without consent that significantly intrudes on their privacy. Behind all of it, Article 37 of the Constitution guarantees "the privacy of correspondence and other means of communication," and Article 38 guarantees the protection of personal data.

What does the Information Commissioner say about recording job interviews?

The Commissioner has answered the question directly. In a November 2022 opinion on recording interviews in a public-sector competition, where the employer planned to record only with candidates' prior written consent and delete the audio when the procedure ended, it said:

• Recording is an interference. Because "an individual's voice (and with video recording also their image) always tells more than a written record of their words," recording "is an interference with privacy and the protection of personal data" that is allowed only on an appropriate legal basis.
• The basis comes from employment law. Processing candidates' data, "including recording job interviews," is in principle allowed only if a law provides for it or it is necessary for rights and obligations arising from or connected with employment, under Article 48 of the Employment Relationships Act (ZDR-1), whose paragraph 4 extends the article to candidates.
• Consent is weak. In the public sector, consent "most probably does not come into consideration" because of the imbalance of power: "a candidate would find it very hard to prove that they were not hired only because they refused to have the interview recorded."
• Candidates must be told. Whatever the basis, candidates must receive the Article 13 GDPR information: who controls the recording, its purposes, the legal basis, who will use it, how long it will be kept, their rights and the right to complain to the Commissioner.

A July 2025 opinion applied the same reasoning to employers generally: because candidates and employees are the weaker party, consent "comes into consideration in practice only exceptionally, and if the individual can genuinely refuse it without any consequences for the employment relationship." That leaves two layers for a private employer or agency: the candidate's prior agreement to the recording, which ZEKom-2 requires, and a documented GDPR basis for keeping and using it, such as legitimate interests (see legitimate interest in recruitment). Offer a real alternative, such as handwritten notes, so a refusal costs the candidate nothing.

What may you ask a candidate in Slovenia?

Article 28 of ZDR-1 lets an employer require from a candidate "only proof that they meet the conditions for the job," and forbids asking for "data on family or marital status, pregnancy, family planning or other data not directly related to the employment relationship." Article 29(2) says a candidate "is not obliged to answer questions that are not directly related to the employment relationship." If a candidate volunteers such details, leave them out of the notes and the scorecard. After the decision, Article 30 requires written notice to candidates who were not selected within eight days, and the return of their documents on request; under Article 200(5), a rejected candidate who believes the choice was discriminatory has 30 days from that notice to go to the labor court.

How long can you keep recordings and transcripts?

The Commissioner has a settled view on selection files. In opinions from February 2026 and November 2023 it separates two kinds of documents. Proof that candidates supplied is kept at least until the deadline for challenging the decision passes, then returned or destroyed. Documentation created in the selection procedure, such as invitations to interviews, tests and the minutes of the procedure, shows the procedure was run properly, so where no legal remedy was filed it "makes sense as a rule to keep it for five years from the day of the selection decision," unless special rules say otherwise. The final assessment belongs to the employer.

A recording is not on that list, and audio carries more than minutes do. A defensible approach is to treat written interview notes as part of the selection file, keep audio only as long as you need it to write accurate notes or to meet the 30-day challenge window, document the choice, and delete on schedule. Keeping a recording for future vacancies is a new purpose: tell the candidate and ask. Our retention policy template gives the structure.

Can candidates get the recording?

Yes. Article 38 of the Constitution gives everyone the right to see the personal data collected about them, and Article 15 GDPR gives the candidate a copy of their personal data, including a recording or transcript, within one month under Article 12(3), extendable only where the GDPR allows. Keep recordings, transcripts and interviewer notes findable by candidate; our candidate data access requests guide has a workflow.

What if you interview a candidate in Slovenia from the US?

An employer or agency established in the EU is covered by the GDPR under Article 3(1); a US company with no EU establishment is covered only where Article 3(2) applies. Get the candidate's agreement either way: the Slovenian rules protect the call at the candidate's end, and your own state's law governs your side; see two-party consent states. A recording or transcript sent to a US vendor needs a transfer basis under Chapter V of the GDPR, such as the Commission's adequacy decision for the EU-US Data Privacy Framework (certified recipients only) or standard contractual clauses.

Can you use AI note takers or transcription?

Yes, on the same footing as a recording. ZVOP-2 does not regulate audio recording expressly, the Commissioner noted in 2025, so the GDPR does the work. In an October 2026 opinion on apps that turn speech into text, it said a transcript or minutes produced this way are personal data that need their own Article 6 basis, that everyone whose data is captured must get the Article 13 and 14 information before processing starts, that the roles of the organization and the app provider must be set out, with an Article 28 contract where the provider is a processor, and that an impact assessment is in any case advisable. Its 2024 opinion on live transcription in video meetings adds: check the tool's settings and tell participants how the transcript will be used. Treat live transcription like recording under ZEKom-2 and ask first. A tool that scores or ranks candidates is likely to be high-risk under the EU AI Act. Interview Signal, for example, captures audio on the interviewer's own computer with no bot joining the call, shows a read-aloud consent line with a one-click pause, and does not retain audio after transcription; the transcript is still personal data under the rules above.

A consent line for interviews in Slovenia

Preden začneva: želel(a) bi [posneti najin pogovor / uporabiti
program, ki pogovor sproti pretvarja v besedilo], da bi natančno
zabeležil(a) vaše odgovore. [Posnetek / Zapis] bomo uporabili samo
za ta izbirni postopek, posredovali ga bomo samo [stranki / vodji,
ki zaposluje] in ga izbrisali [rok] po koncu postopka. Ali se
strinjate? Lahko odklonite ali me kadar koli prosite, da snemanje
ustavim. To ne bo vplivalo na vašo prijavo.

(Before we start: I'd like to [record our conversation / use software
that turns the conversation into text as we talk] so I capture your
answers accurately. We'll use the [recording / text] only for this
selection procedure, pass it only to [the client / the hiring
manager] and delete it [period] after the procedure ends. Do you
agree? You can say no or ask me to stop the recording at any time.
It won't affect your application.)

Saying it on the call matches Article 214(8), and naming the purpose and retention period matches what paragraph 7 expects of any announced recording. Put the same information, with the Article 13 details, in the invitation and your candidate privacy notice. More wording is in the interview recording consent script.

Checklist before you record interviews in Slovenia

• Candidate asked on the call before recording or live transcription starts, and the yes noted.
• A note-taking alternative offered, so refusing has no consequence.
• GDPR basis documented; Article 13 notice in the invitation, naming any client who receives the recording.
• No questions on family, marital status, pregnancy or family planning; volunteered details left out of notes.
• Rejection notices sent within eight days; selection file kept under a stated retention rule, audio deleted sooner.
• Speech-to-text vendor contract under Article 28, impact assessment considered, EU AI Act duties checked.
• US vendors certified under the Data Privacy Framework or covered by standard contractual clauses.

Interviewing elsewhere in the region? Compare Croatia, Austria and Hungary.