The Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia (Ombudsman) has considered several complaints regarding the failure to provide school transport in accordance with the provisions of Article 56 of the Primary School Act (ZOsn) and has drawn the attention of the competent Ministry of Education (MVI) to several problems.

On 4 July 2025, the National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia adopted an amendment to the ZOsn, which introduces some changes to the provision of Article 56. The new regulation, among other things, specifies that the primary school must agree on the method of transport with the local community, meaning that parents have been removed from the agreement on the method of transport.

Furthermore, it is now valid that the right to free transport is ensured by organised transport. If it cannot be ensured or is not economical, parents may be reimbursed the cost of a monthly ticket for public transport. Exceptionally, when there is no organised or public transport, parents may be reimbursed the cost of the mileage for transport costs on the shortest public road in accordance with the regulations applicable to civil servants in the state administration. This represents a departure from the previous regulation, which in all cases required the provision of organised transport, which also included public transport.

Another novelty is that the local community can, through its acts, determine in more detail the method of organising transport and reimbursement of transport costs to ensure the right of a student to free transport.

In the opinion of the Ombudsman, the new regulation under Article 56 of the ZOsn violates the existing rights of all children who have already been included in primary school and who, under the new regulation, will no longer be provided with free transport to school, but parents will only be entitled to reimbursement of costs, unless the parents wish to drive their children to school themselves. At the same time, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, municipalities are now allowed to regulate the right to organised transport in very different ways, which could lead to unequal treatment of children in completely comparable situations.

The Ombudsman believes that although the provision of Article 56 of the ZOsn still formally guarantees the right to free transport of children to primary school, it actually abolishes this right and replaces it with the right to reimbursement of the costs of transporting a child to school, which the local community can satisfy by organising the transport of children to school, whether by dedicated school transport or by general public transport.

The new law stipulates that parents are reimbursed for transport costs if organised transport cannot be provided or is not economically viable. Given that the law, contrary to proposals made by the Ombudsman in the past, does not even state in any case when it should be considered that organised transport cannot be provided, in the Ombudsman's opinion the new regulation leaves the local community free to decide whether to organise school transport or not. From the point of view of economy, as defined by the law, it is obvious that the reimbursement of transport costs is implicitly encouraged, except in cases where it is more advantageous – cheaper – for the municipality to arrange transport itself in an organised manner. The law also allows municipalities to regulate the issue in more detail with their own acts, which means that it is very likely that pupils in comparable situations will be treated differently depending on the municipality in which they live. Some will be provided with free transport, while others will not. The Ombudsman believes that reimbursement of costs to parents does not guarantee free transportation, except in cases where the parents voluntarily consent to it. The new regulation does not give parents the opportunity to express their opinion on this, or even removes them from the group of stakeholders who agree on the organisation of transport. The law does not provide an answer on how to deal with cases where parents may not have a personal vehicle, a driving licence, or work obligations that prevent them from driving their child to and from school at times that are at least approximately acceptable in relation to the start or end of the child's lessons. In addition, questions are raised about what to do in cases where, due to the absence of provided transport, the child may not go to school at all, because this will be objectively impossible.

The Ombudsman has in the past addressed problems where individual municipalities did not provide certain children with the then indisputable legal right to free school transport. In the Ombudsman's opinion, some circumstances were easier to identify as objective and others less so. In the Ombudsman's opinion, however, it is not appropriate to seek or find a solution to the problems that arose in a legal amendment that effectively stipulates that a municipality is obliged to provide transport only if it is convenient for it to do so.

The MVI responded to the Ombudsman's position by explaining that municipalities face extremely diverse situations when organising transport – both in terms of distances and traffic accessibility, as well as the availability of public transport, demographic characteristics, and the cost-effectiveness of individual solutions. Due to these local specificities, it is not possible to prescribe a single transport model that would suit all municipalities; this could even worsen access to school in some environments. Therefore, the solution was deliberately designed to allow local communities several different ways of providing free transport – organised transport, use of public transport, or reimbursement of costs, when this is objectively most feasible. Such flexibility enables more effective implementation of the right to transport in all situations, especially where only one type of solution is not possible or would be disproportionately burdensome. The MVI emphasises that the law does not reduce children's rights in any way, but rather implements them in practice in a manner that is feasible, safe, and adapted to actual needs. The explanation does not provide reasons that would persuade the Ombudsman to change its position.

Additionally, according to the MVI's position, the provision of Article 56 of the ZOsn specifies that in cases where parents themselves provide transportation, the costs of four daily trips are reimbursed (two arrivals and two departures – transporting the child to school and the driver's departure home, and the driver's arrival at school and transporting the child home). The Ombudsman welcomes such a position, although it believes that this does not actually follow from the law, at least not clearly and unambiguously. The MVI has undertaken to further clarify this interpretation to municipalities so that there will be no different interpretations in practice.

Through further consideration of the complaints, the Ombudsman will monitor the implementation of the legal regulation in practice, which will be the best indicator of whether the legal change has actually reduced children's rights or improved their situation.19.1-16/2025