The Ombudsman is very strict when deciding on requests to file for a review of constitutionality. When making such decisions, we determine whether a direct violation of human rights is involved, whether the affected persons are able to file the complaint themselves, and if the problem has wider significance. Due to the large number of complainants and the assessment of the number of affected citizens, we assessed that it was not appropriate to expect that they would meet the demanding condition of legal interest required by the Constitutional Court, since in this case they would first have to retire and then apply all the available legal remedies. For this reason, we filed a request for a review of the constitutionality of paragraph four of Article 27, paragraphs one and two of Article 38 and paragraphs one and two of Article 391 of the Pension and Disability Insurance Act in July 2015. Below, we summarise only a section of the justification of the request, which is published in full on our website: Many complainants contacted the Ombudsman because they had purchased pensionable service for the period when they were students or doing military service in order to be able to retire early, i.e. on the basis of conditions of the Act applicable at the time of their purchase, i.e. the ZPIZ/92 or the ZPIZ-1. This purchase was done by an administrative procedure with a decision of the Pension and Disability Insurance Institute of the Republic of Slovenia (ZPIZ) on the basis of which the pensionable service that was purchased was entered in the employment booklet, subject to the payment of the determined contribution, and recorded in the civil register. On the basis of such a final decision, the purchased pensionable service applied as per the ZPIZ/92 to the same extent, the same manner and with the same effects as the remaining pensionable service, and according to the ZPIZ-1, also to a greater extent than as per the applicable arrangements of the ZPIZ-2. 2.11 PENSION AND DISABILITY INSURANCE The ZPIZ-2 encroached on the rights of those who purchased pensionable service on the basis of provisions of the ZPIZ/92 and the ZPIZ-1. The conditions for obtaining old-age pension deteriorated for those who purchased pensionable service after the passage of the ZPIZ-2 in a similar way as for insured persons who had not purchased pensionable service. Whereby, it was not observed that the purchased pensionable service was granted on the basis of a special legal provision with a purchase or direct personal payment of a sum determined by the ZPIZ on the basis of the Act, and that the purchase of pensionable service was determined in a final decision issued by the ZPIZ. Even worse consequences for complainants are attributed to paragraph four of Article 27 of the ZPIZ-2, which states: “Irrespective of the provision of paragraph one of this Article, an insured person (man or woman) who is 60 years old and has 40 years of pensionable service without the purchase of pensionable service shall obtain the right to old-age pension.” With this provision, the ZPIZ-2 has severely encroached on the right to purchased pensionable service and on the constitutional rights of those who made such a purchase. The lowering of pensions is a measure with long-term negative consequences for retired persons, but it is even worse if people are unable to obtain their pensions under the conditions prescribed explicitly for their cases and also approved with final decisions. This not only encroaches on entitlements based on the purchase of pensionable service, but also completely disregards them. In this case, it is impossible to justify the encroachment on the position of complainants with the argument that purchased pensionable service must be treated the same as pensionable service obtained on other legal bases, since this constitutes severely unequal treatment of purchased pensionable service and those insured persons who purchased it. We are pleased to note that the problem of the pensions of public employees in former federal authorities, which was discussed in the 2014 annual report, has been resolved. The Government acted on the Ombudsman’s proposal and settled open issues with the Act Regulating the Settlement of the Liabilities of the Republic of Slovenia Arising from Pension and Disability Insurance, which was passed by the National Assembly in January 2016. 2.11.3 Disability insurance We received several complaints relating to the activities of various disabled people’s organisations, where certain individuals in leading positions allegedly violated their members’ rights. Associations, like civil society organisations, are not subject to the Ombudsman’s supervision except in cases when they have public authorisations. While certain irregularities or even violations of members’ rights were established in most complaints, we were unable to instigate procedures, and merely informed complainants of ways enforce their rights. The statutes of individual societies could anticipate a prompt and efficient manner of resolving disputed relations (e.g. mediation), since judicial proceedings are not appropriate in most disputes between members of associations. Most of the complaints concerning disability insurance still refer to dissatisfaction with the work of disability commissions, which complainants claim work too slowly and are particularly impersonal and unfriendly. Similar complaints concerning the enforcement of rights have already been discussed in previous annual reports, and we thus repeat our proposal to the Pension and Disability Insurance Institute to dedicate more attention to the communication of disability commissions with insured persons. Unfortunately, it is necessary to mention in every annual report the delays of executive bodies when issuing executive acts. An act, the implementation of which anticipates the adoption of executive acts, is incomplete because it cannot be fully implemented, although it is valid and should be implemented in full. This is contrary to Article 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, and since the Government proposes most legislation, it should ensure that the acts not come into force until all the executive acts needed to implement a new arrangement are passed. The transitional application of repealed acts resolves this issue formally and legally; however, old acts are usually difficult to apply in new conditions, which causes dissatisfaction and mistrust in the rule of law. The aforementioned arises from the current situation and was highlighted several times. In Article 403, the Pension and Disability Insurance Act (ZPIZ-2) determines that the Ministry of Health in agreement with the ministry responsible for the disabled people define the types and levels of physical impairments, which would serve as the basis for enforcing rights to disability insurance within two years after the entry into force of the Act (i.e. by 1 January 2015). The Ministry of Health has not yet issued an executive act, and the Self-governing Agreement on the List of Physical Impairments (Samoupravni sporazum o seznamu telesnih okvar) from 1983 is still in force. The obsolescence of an act enacted 33 years ago needs no further clarification, and the legal extension of applicability of a regulation devised by the former state after more than 20 years of independence (the Act was passed in 2012) is certainly unsuitable and unprecedented for a state governed by the rule of law. Following the latest reminder, the Ministry of Health ensured that the regulation would be drafted by the end of June 2016. The Constitutional Court informed us that the Ombudsman’s request would be discussed according to the order of other previously filed complaints or requests, which meant that the Ombudsman’s request would not be treated with priority. We had already received the opinions of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia and the National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia, which believed that the Ombudsman’s request was unfounded. We hope that a decision on the matter will be made this year. 124 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA FOR 2015 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA FOR 2015 125 2.11 PENSION AND DISABILITY INSURANCE reimbursement of funds with which they purchased the insurance period from the Pension and Disability Insurance Institute of the Republic of Slovenia and which cannot be utilised for the expected purposes because of the new law. Because they would first have to exhaust all legal remedies before filing a constitutional complaint or request for a constitutional review of the disputable legal provisions, they expected the Ombudsman to do this as per Article 24 of the Constitutional Court Act.