The complainant was left without partial disability compensation for nearly six months due to the inaction of their employer, the Ministry of the Interior (MNZ), the Police, and the Pension and Disability Insurance Institute, nor did he even receive an advance on the partial compensation. The Ombudsman determined that the work of the authorities violated the right to social security and principles of good administration.

* * *

A public employee employed at the Police under the scope of the Ministry of the Interior (Employer) turned to the Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia (Ombudsman) with a complaint. He stated that the Pension and Disability Insurance Institute of the Republic of Slovenia (ZPIZ) issued him a decision granting him a category III disability in May 2023 with the right to part-time work. He entered into a new employment contract with the Employer under the provisions of the decision by ZPIZ for part-time work. The complainant turned to the Ombudsman because ZPIZ failed to issue the decision on determining the amount of the partial compensation until January 2024, nor did the complainant receive the advance of the partial compensation.

The Ombudsman first turned to ZPIZ for clarifications regarding the complaint. The latter informed the Ombudsman that the complainant's Employer was told at the end of July 2023 that the decision on the recognition of the disability had become final a few days before and enforceable and requested that he submit the employment contract for part-time work to ZPIZ, which was signed after the disability occurred, along with a copy of the insured person's employment records. ZPIZ stated they only received the requested documents from the Employer towards the end of November 2023. As per the rules governing the register of insured persons, the documentation was then forwarded to the auditor of the register on the same day to verify the correctness of the submitted salary data and the salary compensation for each calendar year in cooperation with the Employer. The Employer was asked via e-mail to communicate the date of the first absence from work in 2019 and verify the accuracy of their recapitulation forms from 2020 onward.

In its reply to the Ombudsman, ZPIZ stated that they justifiably expected the Employer, who is a state authority, to submit a correction of the data or an answer to their request as soon as possible, which is why no writ for the payment of the advance of the partial compensation was issued. ZPIZ then ordered the latter at the beginning of January 2024 when the complainant sent them a courtesy copy of the complaint they sent to the Ombudsman. Then, the necessary data for determining the partial compensation was rechecked to see if it was already available. As it was determined that ZPIZ still lacks the information, an order as per Article 180 of the Pension and Disability Insurance Act (ZPIZ-2) was issued for the partial compensation to be paid out in advance from the date of the conclusion of the new employment contract onwards. The Employer (Ministry of the Interior and the Police) was then asked again to forward the necessary information, for which ZPIZ received a partial answer that day on the first day of absence from work but only received the recapitulation forms after a month and a half following another request. After receiving the information, the appropriate correction of the initially submitted data was performed in the registry. The decision to determine the partial compensation was issued on the same day.

In light of the acquired clarifications from ZPIZ, the Ombudsman followed up on the subject matter with the Employer. Namely, based on the statements by ZPIZ, the Ombudsman determined that the process of determining the amount of partial compensation was too slow and took too long. It was evident that the blame did not lay exclusively with ZPIZ but also with the Ministry and the Police.

The Ombudsman waited for the Ministry's answer for nearly three months and received it only after the third urging and a warning of obstructing the work of the Ombudsman. The Ministry confirmed the statements made by ZPIZ on the procedural delays. After checking similar procedures, MNZ could not identify any specific reason for the delays and stated that similar procedures were carried out without undue delay and that the subject matter at hand is an isolated case of inconsistency in MNZ's operations.

MNZ agreed with the Ombudsman's determination that the decision-making process on determining the partial compensation amount in the complainant's case was too slow and took too long. They noted that the high volume of disability cases handled (on an almost daily basis) by the Ministry was the most likely reason that the duty to forward the contract for part-time employment promptly was overlooked or that the Police or the Ministry did not detect that the contract was not sent to ZPIZ on time. ZPIZ also did not notify them of this.

In light of the determinations in this case, where operational delays or delays in cooperation with ZPIZ indubitably occurred, MNZ assured they would thoroughly review business processes, mutual cooperation processes, and the responsibilities of internal organizational units. They further assured us that they would update their approaches to solving and overseeing disability cases to avoid such unacceptably long delays in operations in the future. They have also apologized for the delay in responding to the Ombudsman, as, they explained, a thorough and detailed verification of the processes and operations by the competent internal organizational units of the MNZ and the Police in the subject matter and numerous substantively similar cases required more time.

After reviewing the entire complaint, the Ombudsman determined that the work of ZPIZ and MNZ violated the principles of good administration and the right to social security as the complainant was left without partial disability compensation for almost half a year due to the inactivity of both authorities and has not received the advance of the partial compensation for a considerable part of this period. The Ombudsman is pleased that the matter was finally resolved after his intervention, and the decision was issued. The engagement of the complainant certainly contributed to the final resolution of the matter, as the payment order for the partial disability compensation advance was only issued on the day he submitted a complaint to the Ombudsman and sent ZPIZ a courtesy copy. In his final letter to ZPIZ and MNZ, the Ombudsman expressed his expectation that the complications in this subject matter at least contribute to such delays be avoided in the future. 9.2-1/2024