The Human Rights Ombudsman (Ombudsman) has stated, in relation to interventions in cash social assistance benefits implemented on the basis of the so-called Šutar Act, that he had already warned during the legislative process that this law involves extensive and substantively sensitive interventions in human rights, which should be considered with greater care, through expert and public debate and with a clear assessment of their effects on individuals and communities. We have particularly emphasized the importance of the principles of the rule of law, legal certainty, proportionality of measures, and respect for human dignity, including in the field of social security. 

The Ombudsman has already received several initiatives and calls from individuals from different parts of Slovenia regarding interventions in cash social assistance. Immediately after becoming familiar with the individual, very different cases from practice, the Ombudsman contacted the Ministry of Labor, Family, Social Affairs, and Equal Opportunities and requested clarification regarding the implementation of the law and the safeguards provided for beneficiaries. Under the Human Rights Ombudsman Act, he is required to conduct proceedings impartially and, in all cases, to obtain the views of all parties concerned.

Based on what is known so far, the Ombudsman considers that (apart from certain systemic issues) the important question is the implementation of the law in practice, as the information indicates that the second paragraph of Article 8 of the Act on Urgent Measures to Ensure Public Safety. This expressly stipulates that the FURS, which issues a decision on the enforcement of social assistance benefits, must notify the local social work center, which then assesses whether the circumstances require that the social assistance be paid to the beneficiary in kind, as it is crucial to prevent any life-threatening hardship for individuals.

Based on the responses from the FURS that have been made public so far, the Ombudsman understands that the FURS did not have information about which debtors are recipients of cash social assistance, nor which social work center is locally competent in each case. This raises the serious question of how the implementation of the law was planned in the first place, as the statements indicate that the legal provisions could not be enforced in practice. The Ombudsman does not yet know why this situation arose, and this will also be the subject of further consideration.

The FURS also reports that it has notified the competent ministry of the lists of decisions issued. How the latter dealt with this is one of the questions that the Ombudsman asked the MDDSZ in its inquiry.

The Ombudsman emphasizes that it is unacceptable to wait until after the law has come into force to consider how to ensure adequate information and cooperation between the competent authorities in the future. When drafting and adopting legislation, it should be clear in advance how the law will be implemented, who will have the necessary information, and how effective safeguards will be ensured to protect individuals and families. Considering these issues only after the law has come into force represents a serious departure from the principles of the rule of law and legal certainty.

The establishment of new legislation requires comprehensive consideration of all possible life situations and, above all, an assessment of whether the objective pursued can be achieved by more balanced and proportionate measures that do not interfere with the very essence of the right to social security. The measures must not only be normatively defined, but also actually feasible and coordinated between all competent authorities.

At the same time, the question of the possible retroactive application of the law arises, which requires particularly careful and thorough consideration. The Ombudsman emphasizes that, even when implementing existing legislation, all authorities are obliged to act in accordance with the Constitution and the fundamental principles of human rights protection. Interference with the right to social security must not be automatic, but must be based on an individual assessment of the specific situation of the individual and his or her family, with the actual participation of social work centers and consistent consideration of the minimum subsistence level.

The purpose of social legislation must remain the protection of the most vulnerable, as this is the very foundation of the welfare state. Those who abuse the system must be sanctioned, but not in a way that simultaneously affects people in the most difficult social situations or jeopardizes basic living conditions. Children are a particularly protected group, and measures that result in them bearing the consequences of adults' actions raise serious questions of proportionality, the protection of human dignity, and the right to social security. Punishment must not have collective effects and must not affect those who are not responsible for the violation.