Merely receiving a report of abuse is not sufficient to reassess eligibility for personal assistance
According to the Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia, it is contrary to the provisions of the Personal Assistance Act (ZOA) when the procedure of re-evaluation of eligibility for personal assistance is carried out under Paragraph 3 of Article 22a of the ZOA, if the user's... more
Deficient explanation of ZPIZ decisions
Following the intervention of the Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia (Ombudsman), the second-instance decision of the Pension and Disability Insurance Institute of Slovenia (ZPIZ) was “roughly” issued within the four-month statutory term, while the four-month statutory... more
Is it really necessary to provide evidence with an expert in the procedures for obtaining rights from disability insurance?
Varuh meni, da bi Zavod za pokojninsko in invalidsko zavarovanje v ugotovitvenih postopkih, v katerih je to mogoče, namesto dokaza z izvedenskim organom lahko izvedel dokaz z izvedeno pričo ali drugim dokaznim sredstvom ter tako skrajšal čas odločanja o pravicah iz invalidskega... more
Unacceptably long waiting periods for an orthodontist examination
While using the zVEM portal, a complainant whose daughter had an appointment to be examined by an orthodontist accidentally discovered a few months before an examination that her daughter's referral for an orthodontist examination had been cancelled, about which she was not informed. The... more
Unacceptably lengthy decision-making procedures
According to the Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia, the principle of good governance from Article 3 of the Human Rights Ombudsman Act is violated when the appeals body needs almost ten months to make a decision on an individual's appeal, even if this period includes the four months... more
Back 
