A complainant approached the Ombudsman with several complaints regarding the decisions of the Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities on the proposal for the cancellation of debt arising from unduly received state scholarships. The Ombudsman found the complaint justified with respect to the ministry's failure to meet decision-making deadlines, as the ministry took almost three years to decide instead of the prescribed two months. The Ombudsman informed the ministry of this violation of the principles of good administration and legal certainty, and called on it to review its claimed active approach to addressing backlogs in this area and to establish a timetable of corrective measures.

***

A complainant accused the Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (MDDSZ) of illegal and absurd practices in handling his request for debt cancellation arising from unjustly received state scholarships. He claimed that the MDDSZ, during the collection process, 'waits' until individuals have sufficient funds to repay the debt, while disregarding Article 222 of the General Administrative Procedure Act (ZUP).

In response to the Ombudsman's inquiry about why it took the MDDSZ almost three years to reach a decision in the matter, the ministry explained that although it strives to comply with the decision deadline set out in Paragraph 1 of Article 222 of ZUP, this was not feasible in this particular case due to the increased volume of debt cancellation cases.

The Ombudsman finds it difficult to accept the explanation that issuing the decision approximately three years after the submission of the complainant's request is merely a result of an increased caseload. It is hard to comprehend that, even after new facts emerged in the procedure – specifically the Ministry of Finance’s refusal to write-off of the debt arising from unjustly received state scholarships – the complainant has still not received a decision from the Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (MDDSZ) after more than two years. Although the complainant was promptly informed of the possibility of reaching an agreement with the Centre for Social Work regarding the deferral or instalment payment of the debt arising from unjustly received public funds, he may subsequently have made decisions that would not have occurred had the authority acted with appropriate promptness.

The Ombudsman is aware of the staffing challenges faced by the Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (MDDSZ) in this area, but (once again) emphasises that these reasons cannot be a permanent excuse for failing to decide within the prescribed time limits. Individuals must be guaranteed that, in their relations with the state, they are not left in unacceptably prolonged uncertainty regarding a decision regarding their rights, obligations, or legally protected interests. Otherwise, this constitutes an infringement of the right to equal protection of rights (Article 22 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia) and a violation of Article 3 of the General Administrative Procedure Act (ZUP), which stipulates that an administrative authority must act without unnecessary delay and must enable parties to effectively exercise their rights. Article 222 of the ZUP further provides that a decision in special ascertainment proceedings must be issued no later than two months from the day the authority has received a complete application. By failing to comply with this deadline, the MDDSZ violated these provisions as well as the principle of good administration and the principle of legal certainty. The case in question once again highlights a systemic problem of indecision in cases of debt write-off under the Act on Exercising Rights from Public Funds.

The Ombudsman also finds it problematic that, in this case, the MDDSZ referred to the fact that an administrative authority does not lose the right to carry out certain procedural actions even after exceeding the indicative deadline, and that a decision to write off a debt in such cases is lawful. In cases of alleged administrative silence, the MDDSZ further refers to the possibility of filing a lawsuit under Paragraph 3 of Article 28 of the Administrative Dispute Act. While the view that a complainant may file a lawsuit due to the authority's silence is legally justified, the Ombudsman considers that, in this context, it undermines institutional accountability and hinders transparent functioning. Expecting individuals to initiate legal proceedings as part of the normal decision-making process of an authority constitutes an undesirable and unacceptable practice. Public authorities are obliged to act in accordance with the law – professionally, efficiently, and transparently – rather than waiting for the initiation of potential legal proceedings. In this respect, the MDDSZ acknowledges that filing a lawsuit is an extreme measure and an unnecessary administrative burden for the complainant, while the Ombudsman adds that a potential lawsuit is also an unnecessary administrative burden for the ministry and the state.

Since a judicial dispute initiated by the petitioner had already been triggered before the competent court, the Ombudsman, in accordance with Article 24 of the ZVarCP, did not comment on the remaining complaints from the submitted petition, except for the allegation of excessively long decision-making by the authority.

The Ombudsman also wanted to report on the positive intention of the MDDSZ, which actively approached the resolution of backlogs in deciding on proposals for debt write-offs due to unjustly received state scholarships, but critically notes that no explanation was received regarding what the asserted approach entails and what timeline it includes. 9.5-11/2025 [1]

[1] Recommendation no. 53 (2024)