According to the Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia, the Education Inspectorate of the Republic of Slovenia cannnot determine that a school is not obliged to make adjustments for a child with special needs when these adjustments are explicitly defined in documents outlining the necessary accommodations. Nor can it conclude that a child who has been officially granted the status of a child with special needs is, in fact, not such a child. Following the receipt of this opinion, the Inspectorate decided to carry out additional inspection procedures.

***

The Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia (the Ombudsman) reviewed a complaint regarding difficulties in enforcing a child's rights at a primary school (OŠ). The child was frequently subjected to unannounced testing by one of the teachers, despite the fact that the child’s Individualised Education Programme (IEP) explicitly states that testing and assessment must be scheduled and agreed upon in advance (if necessary, during the first lessons of the day). In addition, the school took disciplinary action against the child, but the parents received no explanation of what the child had actually done wrong or which rules were allegedly violated. Furthermore, the disciplinary procedure did not involve the committee that, according to the School's Rules of Conduct, is supposed to assess the appropriateness of procedures and disciplinary measures for students with special needs. The complainant attempted to resolve both issues within the school, but was unsuccessful. Attempts to seek redress through the Education Inspectorate of the Republic of Slovenia (IRSŠ) also proved unsuccessful. 

The Ombudsman obtained several explanations from the IRSŠ regarding the case. The IRSŠ explained that, in accordance with the Rules on Knowledge Assessment and Student Advancement in Primary Schools, knowledge assessments do not need to be announced, while grading (formal evaluation) must be announced. However, in the Ombudsman’s view, the IRSŠ failed to consider the provision of Article 5, Paragraph 2 of the same rulebook, which stipulates that for a student with special needs, the organisation, implementation, and technical aspects of assessments and grading may be adjusted through an IEP. Since, in this case, the girl's IEP explicitly required both assessments and grading to be announced in advance, the Ombudsman concluded that unannounced assessments represent a violation of rights protected under Articles 4, 7, and 11 of the Placement of Children with Special Needs Act (ZUOPP-1). The IRSŠ did not adequately address or respond to this allegation of a rights violation. 

Furthermore, regarding the disciplinary action taken by the school, the IRSŠ argued that there was no need to involve a three-member committee, as Chapter 8 of the school’s Rules of Conduct states that such a committee is required only for more serious offences. Since the identified infraction was considered minor, no committee needed to be formed. However, the Ombudsman pointed out that this is a general rule applicable to all students, whereas for students with special needs, Chapter 7 of the school’s Rules of Conduct establishes an exception: a three-member committee must always be involved, regardless of the severity of the offence. The committee is responsible for assessing the appropriateness of the procedures and disciplinary measures applied to students with special needs. 

Article 12 of the Primary School Act (ZOsn) defines pupils with special needs as those who require adapted implementation of primary school programmes with additional professional assistance, adapted primary school programmes, or special education programmes. These pupils are, according to the type and degree of impairment, obstacle, or disorder, defined in the legislation governing the placement of children with special needs. 

Article 12.a of the ZOsn stipulates that pupils with learning difficulties are those who, without adjustments in teaching methods and forms of instruction, have difficulty achieving the required learning standards. 

Article 2 of the ZUOPP-1 defines children with special needs as children with intellectual disabilities; blind or visually impaired children, or children with visual function impairments; deaf or hard-of-hearing children; children with speech and language disorders; physically impaired children; chronically ill children; children with specific learning difficulties; children with autism spectrum disorders; and children with emotional and behavioural disorders, who require adapted implementation of education programmes with additional professional assistance, adapted education programme, or special education programmes. 

The ZUOPP-1 does not contain provisions relating to children with learning difficulties as defined in Article 12.a of theZOsn. 

In the case of the specific child, the National Education Institute of the Republic of Slovenia (ZRSŠ) issued a decision on placement in an education programme with adapted implementation and additional professional assistance. The decision was issued based on the provisions of the ZUOPP-1, taking into account the Rules on the Organisation and Work of Placement Committees for Children with Special Needs, the Rules on the Criteria for Defining the Type and Degree of Impairments or Disorders in Children with Special Needs, and the Rules on Additional Professional and Physical Assistance for Children with Special Needs. All the above-mentioned regulations were adopted after 1 September 2012, the date on which the Amendments to the Primary School Act (ZOsn-H) came into force, which introduced Article 12.a into the ZOsn. 

Based on the above, the Ombudsman concluded that the IRSŠ had no grounds to determine that the child in question was merely a child with learning difficulties. The expert opinion clearly indicates that the child is placed as a child with autistic spectrum disorder – specifically, with mild impairments in social interaction and communication, as well as mild difficulties in behaviour, specific interests, and activities. Due to deficits in visual-motor coordination, organisation, and sequential thinking, which differ significantly from the child’s above-average abilities in long-term memory recall, conceptual thinking, general knowledge, and reasoning, the child is also classified as a child with specific learning difficulties. In addition, due to motor skill challenges, the child is placed as a child with a mild physical impairment. All of these characteristics are fully consistent with the definition of a child with special needs under Article 2 of the ZUOPP-1. Moreover, the child has been officially placed by the ZRSŠ into an education programme with adapted implementation and additional professional assistance, which corresponds precisely to the definition of a child with special needs under Article 12 of the ZOsn. According to the Ombudsman, the decision issued by ZRSŠ, based on expert findings, is fully binding on the school—both in terms of its content and the formal recognition of the child’s special needs status. However, this placement decision is not restrictive in the sense that the child cannot also be provided with additional forms of support. In this regard, the school's internal expert team may identify a need for further adaptations in the learning process. A child with special needs can therefore also be treated as a child with learning difficulties, if such treatment facilitates better integration into the school program. Nevertheless, all safeguards must still apply – including those established by the school itself through its internal policies – for children with special needs. The Ombudsman thus found the school’s conduct to be inappropriate, as it failed to comply with its own obligation to involve the three-member committee when addressing the behaviour of a child with special needs. The IRSŠ also acted inappropriately by failing to recognise this violation during its inspection. 

During its review of the complaint, the Ombudsman also identified inconsistencies between the school’s Rules of Conduct and its Educational Plan. Given that the in the introduction of the Educational Plan it is explicitly stated that it is the fundamental document for the school’s educational work, the Ombudsman concluded that in the event of a conflict between the provisions of the Educational Plan and other internal regulations, the Educational Plan must take precedence. Consequently, the measure applied in this case cannot be considered a disciplinary measure, as it involved restitution, which the Educational Plan explicitly defines as not being a disciplinary measure. Furthermore, according to the Educational Plan, restitution is only permissible in cases where actual damage has occurred, and the restitution must be meaningfully related to the damage caused. The core principle of restitution, as defined in the school’s internal regulations, is that it must be a solution proposed and offered by the person who caused the damage – it cannot be imposed by a teacher. The Ombudsman detailed this and other identified irregularities in a formal recommendation sent to both the Education Inspectorate (IRSŠ) and the school, outlining all the shortcomings in the school’s disciplinary procedures in this case. 

In this case, the Ombudsman did not examine the child’s behaviour that led to disciplinary action, nor did it assess whether the disciplinary measure itself was appropriate. However, it clearly identified shortcomings in how the matter was handled by both the school and the IRSŠ. Specifically, the Ombudsman found that the school and IRSŠ failed to recognize the deficiencies in the school’s internal regulations, which were in some parts explicitly contradictory and, in other areas, unclear or poorly worded. Additionally, a disciplinary measure was imposed on a child with special needs through a procedure that was in direct violation of the school’s own internal rules (namely the failure to involve a three-member committee). 

The IRSŠ informed the Ombudsman that the school has been included in its regular inspection schedule, with a focus on evaluating the school’s functioning in the areas of discipline and/or assessment, in the interest of the public. IRSŠ also committed to carrying out a new inspection by a different inspector, who would review the entire case and, if necessary, take appropriate measures concerning both the school and internal processes within IRSŠ itself. Following the Ombudsman’s recommendation, the IRSŠ immediately contacted the school again and found that the school had already convened a working group to review and evaluate the Rules of Conduct and the Educational Plan, with the goal of improving, clarifying, and ensuring the quality of the provisions in these internal documents. 19.1-6/2025