The case: Applicant vs. Kapitalska družba (Company limited by shares)

In the question whether bodies are liable to consider the opinion of the accessory intervener and to protect its benefits in a procedure, the Administrative court took a position that accessory interveners need to be given a chance to execute their rights during the procedure, however, the body is liable to represent and protect only its own interests, or public interest, and not the interests of accessory interveners. Thus, the Administrative court, in the administrative procedure between Kapitalska družbe pokojninskega in invalidskega zavarovanja, d.d. vs. the Commissioner's decision No. 0900-248/2006/18 of May 21, 2007, brought a verdict Ref. No. U 1151/2007-15 of Feb 25, 2009: »The plaintiff (i.e. KAD, author's note) in the appeal also notes that other private subjects, i.e. Zvon dva holding, finančna družba d.d. and Hit d.d., have the right to protect their business secrets. In the contested decision, the defendant (i.e. the Commissioner, author's note) defined the meaning of the subject of a business secret and concluded that inspection of documents can not be considered as a business secret according to Par 1, Art. 39 of ZGD-1. The plaintiff also notes that it is necessary to consider the rights of other private subjects, but also noted that both institutions, i.e. Zvon dva holding, finančna družba d.d., as well as Hit, hoteli, igralnice, turizem d.d. Nova Gorica, were called to declare whether the data in this case represented a business secret. As can be seen from case documentation, the former institution did not respond to the defendant's call, while the other did, however, as the defendant stated, the company Hit, hoteli, igralnice, turizem d.d. Nova Gorica did not describe in what way a significant damage could be made if the requested information was disclosed. As it arises from the administrative procedure, both, Zvon dva holding, finančno družbo, d.d., as well as Hit, hoteli, igralnice, turizem d.d. Nova Gorica were called to participate by the defendant. In this way both were given a chance to protect their rights in this procedure. The question whether the documents which the plaintiff had  to submit represented a business secret had been explained by the defendant and a harm test was carried out. All individual elements which could have impact on the protection of a business secret were substantiated. The court, in order to avoid repetition, made reference to the position of the defendant: the allegations of the complainant in the lawsuit cannot infringe on the position of the defendant. Also, the plaintiff cannot succeed with its allegations about the status of the state in this matter, where the state is the only share holder. The court entirely supports the opinion of the defendant on the meaning of the provisions of ZJF and emphasizes that the Republic of Slovenia was the only founder and the only share holder in this matter, therefore, such equity investment of a state represent a public sphere.«