The Ombudsman found a violation of the principle of good administration due to the lengthy decision-making process of the Pension and Disability Insurance Institute of Slovenia on the complainant's request for recognition of the right to assistance and care allowance. Such delays also constitute an interference with the right to social security.

***

The Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia (Ombudsman) was contacted by a complainant complaining about the lengthy decision-making process of the Pension and Disability Insurance Institute of Slovenia (Institute) regarding the right to assistance and care allowance.

The Ombudsman contacted the Institute for clarification in the case and found that, on the basis of the submitted request for recognition of the right to assistance and service allowance, a personal examination of the insured person was ordered, which was only carried out four months after the application was submitted. On the day of the personal examination, the insured person (the complainant) also submitted a request for recognition of the right to disability allowance for physical impairment. The opinion given by the medical expert of the First-Level Disability Commission was submitted for review to the Second-Level Disability Commission for review in accordance with the provisions of Article 175 of the Pension and Disability Insurance Act (ZPIZ-2) and Article 48 of the Rules on the Organisation and Manner of Operation of Expert Bodies of the Pension and Disability Insurance Institute of Slovenia. The medical expert of the Second-Level Disability Commission reviewed the collected documentation and scheduled a hearing at the Senate of the Second-Level Disability Commission. When the complainant contacted the Ombudsman with a complaint about the lengthy procedure, the case was awaiting a hearing in the senate, the date of the scheduled hearing had already been set at that time, but it cannot be ignored that by then time had passed. The Institute assured the Ombudsman that an expert opinion would also be provided on the day of the hearing, on the basis of which appropriate decisions on both rights would then be issued as soon as possible. The Ombudsman continued to monitor the case and was thus informed that the latter had also been implemented.

In the case under consideration, the Ombudsman found a violation of the principle of good administration. Article 179, Paragraph 1 of the ZPIZ-2 provides that if an expert opinion is required to determine rights or in an appeal procedure, the competent body of the Institute must issue a decision no later than four months from the date of initiation of the procedure. After four months, the complainant was only personally examined by a medical expert of the First-Level Disability Commission. The entire procedure was then further prolonged by the circumstance that the expert opinion was submitted for review. Seven months thus passed from the filing of the request for recognition of the right to assistance and care allowance to the issuance of the decision. The Ombudsman has repeatedly warned that timely decision-making is crucial for ensuring legal certainty and trust in public institutions and that delays in issuing decisions on rights under pension and disability insurance may worsen the social security of insured persons, especially those who are already in a difficult financial or social situation, which is unacceptable. The Ombudsman once again called on the Institute to make decisions within the statutory deadlines. 9.2-12/2024