A complainant contacted the Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia (Ombudsman) because of a lengthy decision-making process and rejection of a request to cancel debt in the amount of almost EUR 900. The Ombudsman concluded that the Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (MDDSZ) without justifiable reason took four years to decide on the complainant's request for debt cancellation, which violated the principle of good governance and the principle of the rule of law from Article 2 of the Constitution.

* * *

A complainant contacted the Ombudsman because of a lengthy decision-making process and rejection of a request for debt cancellation in the amount of almost EUR 900. From the correspondence between the Centre for Social Work in Šmarje pri Jelšah (now a unit of the Centre for Social Work in Celje), the Centre for Social Work in Celje (CSD Celje) and the attached documentation of the complainant, it emerged that the application for a partial cancellation of the debt arose from an unjustified state scholarship submitted to the MDDSZ on 5.1.2018, and it was decided four years later, on 5.1.2022.

The complainant stated that he had not received the decision of the Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (MDDSZ) nor had he been informed about it. He only found out about it in April 2022, when CSD Celje sent him a reminder before the tax enforcement. At CSD Celje, they explained to the complainant that the decision had been served on him on the basis of Article 96 of the General Administrative Procedure Act (GAP) using the institution of fictitious service. The complainant emphasised that during the entire process he was in contact with CSD Šmarje pri Jelšah and CSD Celje, which were aware of his contact information. However, he had changed his permanent residence a lot after the deadline within which the MDDSZ was obliged to make a decision.

The Ombudsman addressed an inquiry to the MDDSZ with a request that it respond to the allegations of the complainant. The MDDSZ replied that it had received the complainant's application for debt cancellation on 5 January 2018. It began considering the application on 24 December 2021 and decided on it on 5 January 2022. It obtained information from the central population register that the complainant's address was unknown, therefore the decision on debt write-off was served on him on the basis of the third paragraph of Article 96 of the ZUP. In November 2022, it received a complaint about the debt cancellation procedure.

The MDDSZ explained that the increase in the number of debt cancellation applications and other procedures is the result of new legislation that was adopted in 2012 (Exercise of Rights from Public Funds Act – ZUPJS), when the number of debt write-off procedures increased significantly, which is also a consequence of the new system, and major problems have arisen due to the frequent changes to the aforementioned regulation. As social legislation solves social hardship, pressures on social rights have increased, which is why the MDDSZ prioritised solving complaints about individual rights from public funds. Based on the above, applications for debt cancellation according to individual rights were dealt with, but on a secondary basis. The current management of the MDDSZ, however, should take a more intensive approach to solving the problem.[1]

The Ombudsman considered the complaint justified.

Failure to comply with the instruction deadlines is a violation of the principle of good governance, which requires the public administration to be open, transparent, responsible, responsive, successful, efficient, ethical, and fair, as well as the principle of the rule of law from Article 2 of the Constitution, which requires the state to be based on the rules prescribed in the constitution and laws, and on independent courts that ensure judicial review of concrete cases. An unreasonably long duration of a procedure may also represent a violation of the right to equal protection of rights from Article 22 of the Constitution[2] and the right to an (effective) legal remedy from Article 25 of the Constitution.

Article 222 of the ZUP stipulates that when the administrative authority starts the procedure at the request of the client or ex officio, if this is in the interest of the client, and no special confirmation procedure is required before the decision, it must issue a decision and serve it to the client as soon as possible, but at the latest within one month from the day on which it received a completed application for the initiation of the procedure, or from the day on which the procedure was initiated ex officio. In other cases, when the procedure is initiated at the request of the client or ex officio, if this is in the interest of the client, the competent authority must issue a decision and serve it to the client within two months at the latest. Article 256 of the ZUP stipulates that the decision on the appeal must be issued and served to the party as soon as possible, but no later than within two months from the day the authority received the completed appeal. If the complaint is incomplete and the complainant completes it upon request, the deadline for issuing a decision begins when the authority receives the supplement to the complaint.

From the statements of the MDDSZ as well as the statements of the complainant, it unequivocally emerged that the MDDSZ took four years to decide on the request for debt cancellation. According to the complainant, the MDDSZ is also delaying the decision on his appeal. The Ombudsman did not follow the reasons with which MDDSZ excuses its delays. With the exception of the Act on Amendments and Supplements to the Exercise of Rights from Public Funds Act (ZUPJS-F), it was the MDDSZ that proposed that changes to the ZUPJS.[3] In the case of the proposed changes, the MDDSZ should also foresee the impact of these changes on the management time of the procedures for which they are responsible. The Ombudsman also believes that the priority resolution of certain cases does not allow other cases to be decided in inadmissibly long periods.

Based on the above, the Ombudsman took the position that, in the case of the complainant, the principle of good governance and the rule of law from Article 2 of the Constitution were violated without justifiable reason due to the lengthy decision-making process of the MDDSZ. However, the Ombudsman did not find a violation of Articles 22 and 25 of the Constitution in the specific case. This could only happen if, at the time of the decision on the complainant's request after the delay of the instruction deadline, there was a change in the legislation, which would put the complainant in a worse position than those who submitted the application for debt cancellation at the same time as him and if their application was decided on time according to more favourable legislation, or if an untimely decision on the complainant's request or complaint would also mean the loss of the right. The Ombudsman did not identify these circumstances.

The Ombudsman also adds that it was the complainant's duty to notify the MDDSZ of the change of permanent residence, but he believes that the possibility of such complications is much greater in long-term decisions about the rights of individuals, as individuals are fallible, forgetful, and some are also careless. in our opinion, the MDDSZ is also morally and ethically responsible for the complication in serving the decision to the complainant.

The Ombudsman informed the MDDSZ about the identified violations and asked it to decide on the complainant's complaint, if it has not yet been decided, as soon as possible. The Ombudsman will continue to monitor the problem pointed out by the complainant in the future. 9.5-37/2022

[1] In this regard, the Ombudsman refers to the example: Multi-year decision-making on debt cancellation. Available at: X

[2] See for example: decision of the Consitutional Court of the RS, no. Up-304/01, of 20.5.2004, and Up-10/03-16, of 10.7.2003.

[3] See: bit.ly/40plXeT.