We considered 11 complaints about denationalisation in 2015, and 14 complaints in 2014. None of the complaints was justified. Most complainants did not agree with the final decisions of an administrative authority or court. Unfortunately, we received complaints about procedures which have not been finalised yet. Considering the lack of justification of the complaints considered, we cannot overlook the notification made to the state that procedures are taking far too much time and that the situation of unfinished denationalisation is impermissible and incomprehensible. The state must act to enable the conclusion of denationalisation. The Denationalisation Act (ZDen) was passed in 1991. The complaint was justified. We also notified the Ministry of Finance about this matter. 5.5-50/2015 Other administrative matters 2.6.4 Residence registration 2.6.3 Taxes Within this field, we considered 80 complaints in 2015, which is slightly less than in 2014, when we considered 85. The percentage of justified complaints was 12.3 in 2015 and 10.9 in 2014. As per the high number of complaints considered, the rate of those that were justified means that complainants not only complain about irregularities in tax procedures but also about the bad management of the tax authorities, and are frequently dissatisfied with the taxation system and levels of tax. Former sole entrepreneurs whose debts cannot be cancelled wrote to us in connection with tax enforcement. As already mentioned, many complained about legal solutions: they disagreed with the subject or amount of tax obligation, as well with the group of taxable persons for the payment of building land use tax, motor vehicle tax, agricultural subsidies tax etc. Some even expressed dissatisfaction concerning income tax statements. Most complaints of the type mentioned above were dealt with by providing explanations; we advised complainants on the legal remedies available to protect their rights in legal procedures, and also described ways to propose changes. Some complaints referred to alleged double taxation of cross-border labour migrants, which was described in greater detail in the 2014 annual report, page 210. Our standpoint on this remains the same and accords with Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia Decision no. U-147/12 as of 29 May 2013 in which the court expressed a negative standpoint on tax privileges (additional tax benefits or relief) for cross-border migrants in comparison to persons who work on the basis of employment contracts in the Republic of Slovenia, and emphasised the importance of equality of individuals in taxation. The Constitutional Court held that the status and location of the employer alone are not grounds for giving privileged consideration to cross-border migrants. Example: Payment of enforcement costs despite debt repayment A complainant who wrote to the Ombudsman had, according to the attached documentation, settled her tax debt on 28 September 2015; however, a tax enforcement order was issued on 29 September 2015. When the complainant informed the tax authority on the timely money order, the tax authority only partially stopped the tax enforcement procedure and claimed the costs of the enforcement order. The Ombudsman requested explanations from the Financial Administration of the Republic of Slovenia (FURS), and received the reply that the complainant had settled her obligation on 28 September 2015, but outside the working hours of the payment system. The FURS received and registered the payment on 29 September 2015 at 22:55, and issued the enforcement order on the same day at 14:44. The FURS referred to the Tax Procedure Act, which determines that the tax must be paid on the day when the payment transactions services provider executes the order for tax payment (time is not specified). The Ombudsman is aware that the complainant did not settle her obligation with regard to income tax payment until the maturity date, i.e. 29 July 2015 and that the tax authority issued the reminder on 12 September 2015 to inform her of the debt status (which is most certainly an example of good practice on the part of the authority). However, the Ombudsman insists on the standpoint that the costs of the enforcement order should not burden 90 the taxable person. We have no complaints with regard to the work of the financial debt collector who managed the procedure, but with regard to the system as described by the FURS. We believe that it is unjust that an individual who actually ordered the amount on the day before the issue of the enforcement order (although the money order was made outside the working hours of the payment transactions system) – in this case on 28 September 2015 – should bear costs because the FURS received the payment or registered it a day later. It is a fact that the debt was settled before the initiation of the tax enforcement and that the complainant voluntarily settled the debt to avoid the enforcement procedure. ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA FOR 2015 The Ombudsman considered several complaints about residence registration. This is quite a problematic issue. Many people lose their work, apartment, home, and residence, followed by the right to financial social assistance, health insurance, and the possibility to apply for tenders for non-profit housing. Another problem is that many individuals who do not receive financial social or other assistance or who have never received it cannot be registered at the address of the authority that provides or provided assistance. The same applies when an individual receives assistance in the area of one social work centre and resides in the area of another. There are also complications when requesting the consent of the competent authority to register at the address of their head office. This and the great distress of people who remain without residence through no fault of their own, calls for the passing of a new act and the regulation of legal residence. We have held discussions with all ministers of the interior for several years and we spoke about this matter with the current minister Vesna Györköš Žnidar. However, these meetings indicate only an awareness of the need for changes, and the promises that changes are being prepared. Therefore, we wish propose again that the responsible bodies regulate this matter. 2.6.5 Municipal roads on private land The Ombudsman has noticed that irregularities concerning road categorisation by municipalities are quite frequent. This issue appears in several sets. Within the first set, this issue involves categorised municipal public roads that cross private land. Despite several legislative attempts to regulate this issue, also by simplifying procedures, and despite clear constitutional standpoints, municipalities do not approach the regulation of the legal and constitutional situation. Municipalities only rarely resolve such situations, i.e. when there are problems with individual owners of land crossed by public roads. Resolving this issue can be selective and unplanned, and depends on the good will of the individual municipality or mayor. The dynamics of resolving this issue depend on the financial means of each municipality. The second set refers to plotting of municipal roads in the land register. These routes are usually different from the routes registered in land mapping registers. In these cases, municipalities frequently take no action to eliminate these illegal situations. The issues usually involve abandoned municipal roads that do not serve their purpose and, due to this criterion for classification under the Decree on public road classification criteria (Decree), traffic actually runs on other, formally non-regulated “municipal” roads. The third set refers to the municipal road categorisation procedure with respect to the verification of criteria for categorisation in accordance with the Decree. We have observed that municipalities categorise roads without legally and professional justifying the technical conditions for categorisation in accordance with the Decree, i.e. which roads fulfil the criteria for categorisation and which do not. Therefore, in our opinion, categorisation is not always according to expert criteria. ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA FOR 2015 91 2.6 ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS 2.6 ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS 2.6.2 Denationalisation