The Constitutional Court of the republic of Slovenija has received a petition by the human rights ombudsman to review the public sector wage system act, which ombudsman dr. Zdenka Cebasek - Travnik suggests is unfair to the top officials in her office.

The court said on Thursday it would review the contested articles, but would not stay their implementation pending a final decision in the case.

Ombudsman argues that the officials in the ombudsman's office are placed in inadequate wage brackets.

Moreover, she believes the law makes unjustified distinction between officials in the judiciary, who are eligible for various bonuses, and other public office holders, who can only get the bonus for years of service.

She also challenges the provision that allows for an up to 5% decrease in salary under the new wage system for officials other than judges, prosecutors and state defenders, whose fixed salaries remain intact.

The government included this provision after the Constitutional Court ruled in December 2006 that performance-based pay and wage cuts for judges were unconstitutional because they would undermine the independence of the judiciary.

Still, judges say the ruling has not been fully implemented, demanding further changes to the law. They have given the government to do so until the end of June, or else they will go on strike.

While the public sector wage system introduces no changes to the judges' fixed salaries, the bonus for years of service was cut from 0.5% to 0.3% and promotion bonuses were curbed.

In her petition, the ombudsman also argues the law allows unequal treatment within her office because of the provision under which the official hired after the enforcement of the law can get a lower salary.

As a result the ombudsman deputies appointed after 1 January 2008, when the law became effective, would get lower salaries than the ones who assumed the office before that date.
Ombudsman believes the deterioration of the ombudsman's office in the hierarchy of public office holders' wages will reduce the office's authority and undermine the ombudsman's position towards other state bodies and consequently people's trust.