In the opinion of the Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia, it is not consistent with the principle of justice to hold an individual responsible for the mistakes of a public authority or authorities. In the specific case, the competent centre for social work did not want to assume responsibility for the mistake and the Ombudsman could only inform the complainant of the possibility of asserting his views in court proceedings.

***

The Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia (Ombudsman) considered the complaint of a complainant who had been paying child support since 2017, in accordance with the definition in the concluded court settlement. It stated that the complainant was obliged to pay child support in the valorised amount, in accordance with the respective notifications from the competent centre for social work (CSD). The latter notified the complainant in February 2025 that an unexplained system error had occurred at the CSD, due to which notifications on the adjustment of child support had not been issued for years. In the opinion of the CSD, the complainant was obliged to pay child support in higher amounts retroactively, i.e. from 2017 onwards, when the child had become entitled to it, even though the complainant had not received notifications on the adjustment of child support.

In the Ombudsman's opinion, it was indisputable that from 2017 onwards the child was entitled to maintenance in the amount determined by the court settlement and then appropriately adjusted to the consumer price index in the Republic of Slovenia, and also that during this period the maintenance was not adjusted, which actually resulted in the child being deprived. It is true, as stated by the CSD, that both parents were informed of the adjustment of maintenance when the court settlement was concluded, but in the Ombudsman's opinion the greatest responsibility for the failure to provide the required information about the adjustment of maintenance fell on the CSD. The Ombudsman believes that it would be at least inconsistent with the principle of fairness, to which the Ombudsman may refer in accordance with the provision of Article 3 of the Human Rights Ombudsman Act, if the complainant were to bear all responsibility for the CSD's error.

The Ombudsman thus proposed to the CSD that, in relation to the damage caused by their failure to comply with their obligation to issue notifications on the adjustment of maintenance, in accordance with the principles of justice and good administration, they examine all the circumstances of the case and the possibility of a voluntary approach to compensating the child for the damage caused by agreeing with the parents, or especially with the child's mother, on the method of compensating for the damage caused. The CSD did not follow the Ombudsman's proposal.

The Ombudsman informed the complainant that the Ombudsman cannot decide on his obligation to pay maintenance and warned him that the Ombudsman's views are not binding and do not affect the complainant's legal position. The Ombudsman suggested to the complainant that if he and the child's mother fail to find an amicable solution, the mother should pursue her claim through the courts. The complainant will also be able to pursue his objections in the court proceedings, and he may also seek the assistance of a lawyer. 21.2-2/2025