If an individual is denied the right to public benefits because, in determining the individual's or family's ability to support themselves, account is taken of resources that are clearly not available to the family, this would, in the Ombudsman's view, constitute an infringement of Article 50 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia. The Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (MDDSZ) issued a decision confirming this in the procedure for deciding on an appeal. 

* * *

The Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia (the Ombudsman) took note of a complaint against a decision of the centre for social work, which concerned various issues relating to the funds confiscated at the same address where the complainant resides. After the confiscation, the centre for social work counted the confiscated funds in such a way that they did not entitle the complainant to public benefits.

The Ombudsman explained to the complainant that the MDDSZ would have to decide on the complaint and that the Ombudsman could not interfere in the decision-making procedure. However, the Ombudsman has asked the MDDSZ for a principled position on the assumption that an individual or a family with an underage child should be able to support themselves with resources that are clearly and indisputably not available to the family, as they have been seized by the police.

The Ombudsman stressed to the MDDSZ that he is not getting involved in the question of whose funds were confiscated or in the correctness of the factual findings and the compliance of the decision and the decision-making with the applicable regulations.

The MDDSZ did not initially take a principled position as requested by the Ombudsman. After insisting on a reply, the Ombudsman received an explanation that only the resources available to the family are taken into account when determining the individual's or family's ability to support themselves. This means that resources that are not available to the family should not be considered when determining the family's ability to support itself. The Ombudsman was informed by the MDDSZ that the specific appeal had been upheld, the contested decision had been annulled, and the family was entitled to social transfer rights.

The Ombudsman specifically points out that the time taken to resolve the complaint was significantly shorter than what the Ombudsman usually perceives, which is of course very welcome, especially if it shows that there has been significant progress in the resolution of legal remedies, where the Ombudsman has been pointing to serious backlogs for many years. However, the Ombudsman will continue to pay attention to the time component of case handling.

Furthermore, the Ombudsman welcomes the fact that the competent authority, in the process of applying the remedy, has remedied the interference with rights that occurred when the centre for social work issued an incorrect decision. The Ombudsman therefore considers the complaint to be well-founded in this respect. While the Ombudsman cannot assess the impact of the Ombudsman's intervention on the handling of the case, it was certainly useful that the case was brought to the Ombudsman's attention. 9.5-22/2023