Today, February 13, 2026, the Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia (Ombudsman) submitted a request to the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia for an assessment of the constitutionality of Article 8 of the Emergency Measures for Ensuring Public Safety Act (ZNUZJV) and proposed its temporary suspension and priority consideration of the matter.

Human Rights Ombudsman Dr. Simona Drenik Bavdek emphasizes: "The state's concern for the safety of its citizens is undoubtedly necessary and essential, but the state must do so in a manner consistent with the constitution and human rights standards. Article 8 of the ZNUZJV and related provisions interfere with financial social assistance in a way that raises many concerns about their constitutionality." 

The Ombudsman received several initiatives from various parts of Slovenia from people who found themselves in dire straits due to enforcement proceedings against financial social assistance and extraordinary financial social assistance, which for many are the only or main source of livelihood. He also became familiar with many cases while monitoring and addressing the issue. These are elderly people, single-parent families, families with several children, disabled or handicapped persons, chronically ill persons, individuals with mental health problems, homeless persons, and people without a social network. What they have in common is their dependence on social transfers to meet their basic needs. "The case of an elderly man who is unable to pay his living expenses after enforcement, or the case of a single mother who is unable to work due to health problems and whose minor daughters are also affected by the consequences of enforcement, are not cases of evading obligations, but situations where interference with social benefits is a direct blow to the basic living conditions of people who are already on the social margins," emphasizes Ombudsman Dr. Simona Drenik Bavdek. She added that these are cases that the proposer and the legislator did not seem to have in mind when drafting the law.

The Ombudsman emphasizes that any interference with social welfare benefits must be strictly limited and constitutionally permissible. "There are serious doubts as to whether this regulation is constitutional. When enforcement means that an individual or family may be left homeless, unable to pay for heating, or without food, it is no longer just a matter of debt recovery, but becomes a matter of human dignity," emphasized Human Rights Ombudsman Dr. Simona Drenik Bavdek when submitting the request to the Constitutional Court. Based on the findings to date, the Ombudsman is obliged to take action in accordance with its powers, and under the Constitutional Court Act, it has a privileged position to file a request to initiate proceedings to assess the constitutionality and legality of a regulation if it considers that the regulation or general act impermissibly interferes with human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Constitutional Court will decide on the constitutionality of the regulation.

Furthermore, General Comment No. 19 of the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights – the international body responsible for monitoring the implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights – it follows that national ombudsmen or national human rights institutions are entitled to address violations of the right to social security under Article 9 of the Covenant. Since the Ombudsman has the status of both a national ombudsman and a Slovenian national human rights institution, his current action is not only permissible but also entirely justified.

The Ombudsman emphasizes that the legislator has not presented any empirical analyses or expert opinions to suggest that the withdrawal of social assistance will actually improve public safety. On the contrary, he warns that taking away the minimum subsistence level from the most socially vulnerable could lead to deeper poverty, social exclusion, and even an increased risk of further violations.

For many years, the Ombudsman has recommended that a mandatory assessment of the impact on human rights and fundamental freedoms be carried out before laws are adopted. In this specific case, no such assessment was carried out, and the law was adopted quickly, without a thorough analysis of the social consequences and human rights implications. Therefore, the Ombudsman considers it necessary for the Constitutional Court to assess its constitutionality as soon as possible. The response to the Ombudsman's findings will have long-term consequences for the understanding of the welfare state and the protection of the most vulnerable in our society.

The Ombudsman considers that the conditions are also met for a temporary suspension of the implementation of the disputed provision until the Constitutional Court reaches a final decision. Further implementation of Article 8 of the Act could cause new consequences that would be difficult to remedy for individuals and families who are on the brink of survival. "Suspension does not harm anyone, but allows measures to be designed in a manner consistent with the Constitution. Only measures that are consistent with the Constitution can have long-term positive effects," emphasizes Ombudsman Dr. Simona Drenik Bavdek. By interfering with the principle of the social state, the state is reneging on its own obligation to provide people with the minimum conditions for a dignified life.

By interfering with the principle of the welfare state, the state is reneging on its own obligation to provide people with the minimum conditions for a dignified life, and by interfering with the right to social security, it is undermining the foundations of social security. "Cash social assistance is a fundamental right under the social welfare system and represents the last resort for individuals and families who cannot ensure their own survival. If the state first determines that these people need assistance and then takes it away through enforcement, its purpose of ensuring a minimum standard of living is effectively nullified," emphasizes Ombudsman Dr. Simona Drenik Bavdek.

The retroactive effects of the provision raise additional constitutional concerns. The regulation also allows for intervention in relation to offenses committed before the law came into force. It also has disproportionate consequences, which for members of the Roma community may also constitute indirect discrimination. It also establishes a presumption that a beneficiary with multiple unpaid fines is abusing the system, without allowing them to challenge this presumption or explain the circumstances of their situation.

Human Rights Ombudsman Dr. Simona Drenik Bavdek also draws attention to the rights of children: "Minors are not responsible for their parents' debts, but they are directly affected by the measure, as it does not contain sufficient safeguards to put the interests of children first."

"Regardless of the outcome of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, the most important thing for the Ombudsman is that the extremely important issues and dilemmas outlined above will be clarified before the highest body of the judicial branch of government for the protection of constitutionality and human rights or fundamental freedoms. And that should be in the common interest of us all," added Human Rights Ombudsman Dr. Simona Drenik Bavdek.