The Ombudsman was contacted by a complainant who was caring for her disabled mother, and they had been waiting for five months for a decision on whether the mother would be granted the right to a family member caregiver and whether the complainant would be able to become her caregiver. The uncertainty put them in great distress. The Ombudsman found that the delay in issuing the decision occurred because the Social Security Administration did not receive the expert opinion of the ZPIZ disability commission in time, and the latter was delayed due to the large backlog of cases. The latter therefore means that the complainant's case is unfortunately not an isolated one. The ZPIZ informed the Ombudsman that it had already taken measures to eliminate the backlog, i.e. an increased number of cases to be considered by the panels in the following months. In the case in question, the Social Security Administration issued a positive decision. The Ombudsman found that the delay in issuing the decision violated the right to social security and the principle of good administration.

***

The Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia (Ombudsman) considered the complainant of a candidate for a family caregiver, who complained that she and her mother, who had applied for a family caregiver, had been waiting for a decision for five months. The complainant had been caring for her for a year at the time and stated that her mother was in very poor health and that both were additionally burdened by uncertainty regarding the decision on the right.

The Centre for Social Work (CSD), which the Ombudsman asked for clarifications in the case, explained that, in accordance with the Long-Term Care Act (ZDOsk-1), it had transferred the documentation to the Pension and Disability Insurance Institute (ZPIZ) and that it was awaiting an opinion that would show whether the applicant was entitled to a family member caregiver and an opinion that would show whether the candidate for a caregiver was suitable to be her caregiver. The opinion is the basis for the CSD's decision on this right. The CSD, which recognised the complainant's distress, was in regular contact with her and directed her on how to proceed, and it itself urged the ZPIZ twice for its decision.

The Ombudsman then asked the ZPIZ for clarifications in the case and for the general state of affairs in the area of ​​issuing such opinions, which responded that the candidate for a family member's caregiver had recently been sent an invitation for a personal examination (which will take place in the coming days), while the applicant will be assessed in absentia because the submitted medical documentation is sufficient to provide an expert opinion.

Shortly thereafter, the complainant informed the Ombudsman that she had attended a personal examination and that she had received information from the CSD that the decision would be positive. She had also already arranged a meeting with the CSD regarding further procedures. The complainant also said that the decision brought great relief to both her, as she would be able to provide her mother with the necessary care, and to her mother, as she would not have to go to an institution.

The state of such cases at the ZPIZ showed that this was not an isolated case. In September 2024, the ZPIZ provided the Ombudsman with information that in the period from 1 January 2024 to 31 August 2024, it had received 1,285 requests for a family member caregiver, of which 848 requests had been resolved and 437 requests were unresolved. He also explained that the reason for the longer time for processing the request was the extensiveness of the procedure, as two people are always considered and two expert opinions are given. When the disability commission senate determines that a person claiming the right to a family member caregiver is entitled to it, the disability commission provides not only an opinion for the dependent, but also an opinion on whether the candidate for a family member caregiver is capable of being a family member caregiver.

The ZPIZ also explained that the procedures for providing an expert opinion for a family member caregiver may also be longer because, in addition to the application through the CSD for a family member caregiver, the intended dependents also submit applications to the ZPIZ for recognition of the right to an allowance for assistance and care or for an increase in its scope. In these cases, regardless of the fact that the applicant cannot enjoy two comparable rights (Paragraph 3 of Article 11 and Paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 38 of the ZDOsk-1), the expert body provides an expert opinion regarding both the need for assistance and care and the entitlement to long-term care, with the decision on the first right falling within the competence of the ZPIZ, and the second within the competence of the CSD, with the CSD monitoring the comparability of rights ex officio. The decision as to whether the applicant will enjoy the right to assistance and service allowance (further) or whether he will enjoy the right to long-term care, i.e. to a family member caregiver, is left to the applicant or his legal representative or guardian.

With these clarifications, the ZPIZ informed the Ombudsman that it planned to take measures to eliminate the backlog in early September 2024, i.e. an increased number of cases considered by the panels in the next three months.

The Ombudsman considers that, given the nature of the right to a family member carer, it is particularly important that the right is decided on as soon as possible. This enables the timely organisation and implementation of care for a family member in need of assistance, provides support and training to the carer, and prevents additional hardship, problems, and burdens that arise from temporary solutions. Given the six months that were needed to issue the decision, the Ombudsman found a violation of the right to social security and a violation of the principle of good administration in the case at hand. 9.7-21/2024