In this case, the Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (the administrator of the claim) failed to consider that the claimant had been granted a disability allowance under the Act on Social Care of Persons with Mental and Physical Impairments (ZDVDTP) [1]. The Ministry therefore rejected the complainant's application, submitted in the probate proceedings, for the State to waive its right to limit inheritance. Following the Ombudsman’s intervention, however, the Ministry changed its position, correctly finding that the disability allowance received by the complainant under the ZDVDTP is a social transfer demonstrating that she requires state assistance for her subsistence. According to the first paragraph of Article 129 of the Inheritance Act (ZD) [2], this constitutes grounds for the state to waive its right to limit inheritance. Thanks to the Ombudsman’s intervention, the decision on the complainant’s application was amended in time to prevent any adverse consequences: she was not required to repay the assistance that had been provided to her late husband.

The complaint submitted to the Ombudsman showed that the Republic of Slovenia, as a participant in probate proceedings before the Local Court in Murska Sobota (case no. D 751/2025), the Republic of Slovenia had lodged a claim totalling €14,960.30 in respect of financial social assistance and income supplement paid to the deceased. The complainant appeared in these proceedings as the deceased’s widow and heir. The Republic of Slovenia proposed that inheritance be limited pursuant to Article 128 of the Inheritance Act. During the probate proceedings, the complainant applied for the Republic of Slovenia to waive its right to limit inheritance. The Republic of Slovenia rejected the application, relying on the first paragraph of Article 129 of the Inheritance Act [3]. They explained that their investigations had revealed that the complainant was not receiving social welfare benefits, which demonstrated that she did not required state assistance for her subsistence. It also noted that her application for financial social assistance had been rejected because her own income exceeded the means-test threshold. However, the Ombudsman stated that the complainant had been entitled to a disability allowance under the ZDVDTP since 1985, and that this allowance was her sole source of subsistence and that its amount equalled the combined amount of financial social assistance and the income supplement.

In correspondence with the State Attorney’s Office of the Republic of Slovenia, which represented the Republic of Slovenia in the probate proceedings, the Ombudsman emphasised that the 1983 ZDVDTP had addressed the needs of adults with mental and physical developmental disabilities [4] and that this group required specific support to enable them to live independently. They must therefore be provided with appropriate protection within the social welfare system, including a minimum level of income security[5]. The two social transfers provided under the ZDVDTP were the disability allowance and the assistance and attendance allowance (Article 3 of the ZDVDTP) [6]. The Ombudsman also noted that point 22 of Decision No. U-I-11/07-45 of 13 December 2007 stated the following in relation to the ZDVDTP: 'The legislative materials relating to the ZDVDTP […] show that it was adopted to implement the constitutional provision under which citizens who were unable to work and lacked the necessary means of subsistence were entitled to assistance from the community to the extent necessary to ensure their social security.' The legislature therefore intended to provide persons with disabilities with protection and support to maintain acquired work and social habits, as well as the material resources necessary to ensure a minimum level of social security.” The right to a disability allowance was intended precisely for this purpose.' [...] The arrangements under the ZDVDTP reflect the special protection afforded to persons with disabilities. However, this does not mean that the social transfers provided under that Act are not intended to secure their minimum subsistence level. Social transfers under the ZDVDTP are intended precisely for cases in which persons with disabilities do not have an adequate income or social transfers on any other basis. Case law further establishes that 'regardless of the beneficiary’s financial situation', the allowance amount is equal to the combined financial social assistance and income supplement applicable to a single adult under social security benefit legislation [7]. The disability allowance under the Social Inclusion of Disabled Persons Act (ZSVI) is also a social right safeguarding beneficiaries’ social security and supporting their equal inclusion in society [8].

In the Ombudsman’s view, participant submission No. N-96/2026, dated 16 February 2026 and rejecting the complainant’s application for a waiver of the right to limit inheritance, did not clarify whether or how the fact that the complainant received a disability allowance under the ZDVDTP had been considered, nor how the above positions had been taken into account. The Ombudsman therefore asked the State Attorney’s Office of the Republic of Slovenia for clarification.

Initially, the State Attorney’s Office informed the Ombudsman that it had forwarded the request to the Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, as the administrator of the claim was competent to decide on procedures concerning waivers of the right to limit inheritance. It subsequently informed the Ombudsman that, at the Ombudsman’s suggestion, the Ministry had reconsidered the complainant’s application and waived the right to limit inheritance in her case. By 17 April 2026, the State Attorney’s Office had filed the corresponding waiver with the Local Court in Murska Sobota.

The Ombudsman found the complaint substantiated. When deciding on the merits of the complainant’s application for a waiver of the right to limit inheritance, the facts had been established prematurely and substantive law had been applied incorrectly. This could result in violations of the human rights and fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia [9] and other international instruments, including:

- the right to equal protection of rights under Article 22 of the Constitution because the decision failed to consider that the purpose of the ZDVDTP is to provide material resources for a minimum level of social security. Therefore, it should have been recognised that the person required state assistance for the same purpose as recipients of financial social assistance;

- the right to social security under Article 50 of the Constitution was also violated, as the allowance under the ZDVDTP — and subsequently under the ZSVI — gives effect to the constitutional right to social security of persons unable to work. Its amount is legally set at the combined amount of financial social assistance and the income supplement. If the State denies in probate proceedings that this benefit reflects social hardship, it directly interferes with the heir’s minimum subsistence level and, consequently, with their social security;

- the right of persons with disabilities to special protection under Article 52 of the Constitution imposes a positive duty on the state to protect persons with disabilities. Disregarding the fact that the allowance is intended to promote equal participation in society[10] constitutes a failure to fulfil this duty. Rather than facilitating the inclusion of persons with disabilities by recognising their right to inherit, the state creates further social exclusion by imposing a financial burden through limitations on inheritance;

- the right to private property and inheritance is enshrined in Article 33 of the Constitution; however, a limitation of inheritance is permissible under Article 128 of the Inheritance Act only if it is proportionate. Where the heir is socially vulnerable, as evidenced by their ZDVDTP or ZSVI status, their right to inherit takes precedence over the state's interest in recovering the funds. Refusing to waive the right to limit inheritance on the basis of incorrect information constitutes unjustified interference with the right to property;

- the prohibition of discrimination under Articles 14 of the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights because distinguishing between recipients of conventional social transfers (such as financial social assistance) and recipients of an allowance under the ZDVDTP — by denying the latter protection against the limitation of inheritance — constitutes indirect discrimination on the grounds of disability;

- the right to live independently and be included in the community under Article 19 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD),[11] which requires states to enable persons with disabilities to participate fully in and be included in the community. If, in probate proceedings, the state limits inheritance and thereby deprives a person receiving an allowance under the ZDVDTP of assets without considering whether those assets are essential to their social inclusion, this directly jeopardises that person’s social position. Assets from the estate might enable them to live with greater dignity, adapt their home or pay for support services — costs that the ZDVDTP allowance does not fully cover;

- the right to an adequate standard of living and social protection is enshrined in Article 28 of the CRPD. The Convention expressly provides that states recognise the right of persons with disabilities to social protection, without discrimination. The position of an heir not receiving a social transfer indicating a need for assistance directly contradicts the purpose of the ZDVDTP, which is to protect persons who are unable to support themselves because of a disability. Failure to take this into account breaches the state’s obligation to ensure an adequate standard of living for the most vulnerable people due to their personal circumstances.

The Ombudsman’s intervention was successful. After examining the circumstances highlighted by the ombudsman, the Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, acting as administrator of the claim, reconsidered the applicant’s case and changed its position. The Ministry correctly found that the disability allowance received under the ZDVDTP is a social transfer demonstrating that the complainant requires state assistance for her subsistence. This constitutes grounds for the State to waive its right to limit inheritance. The decision was amended in time to prevent any adverse consequences, meaning that the complainant was not required to repay the assistance received by her late husband.

The Ombudsman expects that its intervention in this case, together with the new decision correctly recognising the nature of entitlement to a disability allowance under the ZDVDTP, will affect other similar cases too. This should promote correct decision-making and observance of the relevant case law in other inheritance limitation waiver procedures, thereby contributing to greater legal certainty. 15.0-3/2026

[1] Official Gazette of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia, No. 41/83; Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, Nos. 114/06 – ZUTPG, 122/07 – Constitutional Court Decision, 61/10 – ZSVarPre, 40/11 – ZSVarPre-A and 30/18 – ZSVI.

[2] Official Gazette of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia, Nos. 15/76 and 23/78; Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, Nos. 13/94 – ZN, 40/94 – Constitutional Court Decision, 117/00 – Constitutional Court Decision, 67/01, 83/01 – OZ, 73/04 – ZN-C, 31/13 – Constitutional Court Decision, 63/16 and 102/24.

[3] This provision stipulates that the Republic of Slovenia may waive its right to reimbursement of assistance if the deceased’s heirs, spouse or children are themselves in need of assistance.

[4] In 2019, it was replaced by the Social Inclusion of Disabled Persons Act (ZSVI; Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, Nos. 30/18, 196/21 – ZDOsk, 206/21 – ZDUPŠOP, 84/23 – ZDOsk-1 and 60/24 – Constitutional Court Decision).

[5] See or compare the draft Act on the Payment of Unpaid Disability Allowances (ZINNI), EVA 2021-2611-0043; https://imss.dz-rs.si/IMiS/Imi....

[6] Compare point 21 of Decision No. U-I-11/07-45 of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia of 13 December 2007.

[7] See Judgment No. Psp 304/2022 of the Higher Labour and Social Court of 1 March 2023.

[8] Compare Order No. II U 212/2022-3 of the Administrative Court of the Republic of Slovenia of 24 August 2022.

[9] Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, Nos. 33/91-I, 42/97 – UZS68, 66/00 – UZ80, 24/03 – UZ3a, 47, 68, 69/04 – UZ14, 69/04 – UZ43, 69/04 – UZ50, 68/06 – UZ121, 140, 143, 47/13 – UZ148, 47/13 – UZ90, 97, 99, 75/16 – UZ70a, 92/21 – UZ62a and 98/25 – UZ74a.

[10] See Order No. II U 212/2022-3 of the Administrative Court of the Republic of Slovenia, dated 24 August 2022.

[11] Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia – International Treaties, No. 10/08.