According to the Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia, a school may not interfere with a child's indisputable right to guaranteed transportation simply because one of the parents, who is not providing care and education to the child during the transportation, so wishes. The school did not accept such an opinion.

***

Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia (hereinafter: the Ombudsman) received a complaint regarding difficulties in exercising a child's right to organised school transportation, which is supposed to be provided by the Kamnik Centre for Education, Rehabilitation and Training (CIRIUS Kamnik). The complainant has contact with his son based on a temporary court settlement, under which he takes his son to school every other Monday and picks him up from school every other Tuesday. The son is entitled to organised daily transportation from Ljubljana, where he lives with his mother, to CIRIUS Kamnik, in accordance with Article 56 of the Elementary School Act (ZOsn). However, CIRIUS Kamnik did not provide transportation to or from the complainant’s residence, solely because the child’s mother did consent to such an arrangement.

Although the Ombudsman, in accordance with the provision of Article 1 of the Human Rights Ombudsman Act, does not have any powers in relation to the school institution, CIRIUS Kamnik nevertheless communicated its position that, in accordance with the provision of Article 151 of the Family Code, when the parents do not live together and the child is not entrusted to the care and upbringing of both parents, they decide on issues that significantly affect his or her development by mutual agreement and in accordance with the best interests of the child. The parent to whom the child is entrusted for care and upbringing decides on issues of the child's daily life, if this does not interfere with issues that significantly affect the child's development.

The law does not define which issues significantly affect the child's development; such determination can only be made by the court in a specific proceeding. Nevertheless, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, the question of who picks up or drops off the child at school generally does not constitute a matter that significantly impacts the child’s development. Exceptionally, the matter could become significant if one parent believes that the other is transporting the child to or from school in a manner that could endanger the child. According to the Ombudsman, on the days when it is established that the complainant is to pick up or drop off the child at school, he is also entitled to determine how that transportation is carried out. Therefore, in the Ombudsman’s view, in this particular case, the mother did not have the right to co-decide how the child’s transportation to and from school should be carried out on the days when the complainant has scheduled contact.

In the opinion of the Ombudsman, the child’s right to organised transportation under Article 56 of the ZOsn is indisputable. If the child resides at different addresses on different days, this right ensures transportation to both addresses. The Ombudsman also notes that the mentioned temporary court settlement does not stipulate that either parent must personally pick up or drop off the child at school. The settlement merely determines the time of contact, and with it, the transfer of responsibility and rights related to parental care from one parent to the other. The interpretation adopted by CIRIUS Kamnik would also imply that, in the event the complainant is unable to personally pick up the child, a third party would not be permitted to do so on his behalf. This would indirectly constitute an unjustified interference with the complainant’s parental rights and with the right of the child and the complainant to maintain contact—rights that are protected not only by the laws of the Republic of Slovenia, but also by the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

In its response to the Ombudsman, CIRIUS insisted that it would be highly inappropriate to place an educational institution in a position where it must interpret a temporary court settlement differently from the literal meaning of its wording. Therefore, they believe that the dispute must be resolved either by the signatories themselves or by the court. CIRIUS stated that it cannot judge which parent is in the right. CIRIUS also holds the view that the content of the temporary court settlement takes precedence over applicable regulations, as the signatories intended to specifically regulate their rights and obligations in the proceeding. CIRIUS reiterated that it is not an institution responsible for resolving disputes between former partners regarding the rights and obligations related to their minor child.

The Ombudsman further believes that the temporary court settlement does not take precedence over applicable regulations, as its primary purpose is to ensure the best interests of the child. A child is not the subject of contractual arrangements between parents in which the parents may freely assert their own views; rather, the child is an independent bearer of rights who, in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), has the right to have their best interests taken into account above all else in every decision. Thus, the Ombudsman also believes that the matter at hand is not a dispute between parents regarding rights and obligations toward a minor child, but rather a question of ensuring the child’s right to transportation as stipulated in Article 56 of the ZOsn.

The Ombudsman does allow for the possibility that, in addition to the potential risk mentioned above, there may be other reasons that could justify the necessity of a parent personally picking up the child from school. However, in this particular case, the Ombudsman has not been made aware of any such reasons. In the Ombudsman’s view, if this were the case, the temporary court settlement or any relevant court decision would explicitly state that contact is not to occur unless the parent is able to pick up the child in person. The temporary court settlement in this case does not differ in any relevant way from comparable settlements or court decisions, and, as stated, the Ombudsman believes that the wording specifying that the parent picks up the child from school can only be understood as defining the time and place at which direct care for the child transfers from one parent to the other.

The Ombudsman does not have authoritative powers and cannot order compliance with applicable regulations, nor is anyone bound by the Ombudsman’s interpretation of the law. Since the issue was not adequately resolved, the Ombudsman informed the complainant that he may file a report with the Inspectorate of the Republic of Slovenia for Education. If necessary, he may also seek assistance from the Ministry of Education. Given that a temporary court settlement was adopted during judicial proceedings, it is evident that the court process has not yet concluded. The complainant may, of course, raise this issue during the proceedings and propose that the court assess the significance of the fact that the mother, through her actions, effectively prevented the child from exercising his right to school transportation as guaranteed under Article 56 of the ZOsn. Based on the available information, it appears that there are no justified reasons for such prevention.21.4-4/2025