The complainant informed the Ombudsman that, in the context of exercising the right to child allowance, she had filed an application for legal remedy against the decision of the competent centre for social work in September 2022. A legal remedy has not yet been decided. The Ombudsman believes that the right to a decision within a reasonable time is violated if the legal remedy is not decided within months in the administrative procedure. The Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities has been aware of the problem for years and is actively working to solve it.

* * * 

The Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia (Ombudsman) was informed by the complainant that in the context of enforcing the right to child allowance in September 2022, she had filed an application for legal remedy against the decision of the competent centre for social work. A legal remedy has not yet been decided.

The Ombudsman obtained an explanation from the Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (MDDSZ) that they are constantly trying to resolve as many complaints as possible, and due to the constant influx of new complaints, as well as all of the other issues that need to be solved in the social field, it is an extremely demanding task.

Due to the purpose of these rights (providing means for basic survival or means to cover the costs of durable consumer goods for persons who can no longer influence their social situation through work), complaints concerning monetary social assistance and income support are resolved on a priority basis. The criterion for prioritising the resolution of complaints concerning monetary social assistance and income support derives from the very purpose of the rights. Other complaints are resolved in the order in which they arrived at the Ministry. They warn that the speed of resolution also depends on the specifics of each case.

At the Ministry, they have intensively set about eliminating the backlog. As part of the adopted government project to increase the scope of work for the purpose of eliminating backlogs, it is expected that backlogs will at least be significantly reduced, if not eliminated, and complaints will be resolved within the time limits provided by the legislation.

The Ombudsman accepts the aforementioned explanations, but also points out that he has been receiving similar answers for the past decade. Regardless of the possible objective causes that give rise to such lengthy decision-making, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, such duration of proceedings is inadmissible and represents an interference with the individual's right to a decision within a reasonable time.

Therefore, the Ombudsman considered the initiative to be well-founded, and he could only additionally inform the complainant that, in accordance with the provisions of Article 28 of the Act on Administrative Disputes, the client may initiate an administrative dispute before the court, as if her appeal had been rejected, if the authority of the second instance fails to issue a decision on the client's appeal against the decision of the first instance within two months or within a shorter period specified by a special regulation, and if even upon a new request, it is not issued within a further seven days. 21.2-2/2023