1 INTRODUCTION 1 INTRODUCTION payment of social assistance services or rent subsidies from 2013 are still being processed. The Ombudsman is not pleased with this situation, since the deadlines for decision making are unacceptably long. With such delays, the Ministry and the state violate people’s right to equal protection of rights as guaranteed by Article 22 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, and they also violate the principle of the rule of law and a social state as per Article 2 of the Constitution. The Ombudsman has been emphasising these problems for a long time, and measures will have to be taken resembling those in the Lukenda project. The reorganisation of social work centres would also be necessary, which would enable more time for consultations and the provision of expert assistance. Legal solutions which limited the observance of insurance periods upon retirement which people bought in the past in legal procedures also contributed to increasing distrust in the rule of law and the social state. Individuals feel double-crossed in their expectations, and some even demand reimbursement of their contributions. So the Ombudsman filed a request for a constitutional review of the Pension and Disability Insurance Act (ZPIZ-2), which enforced these changes, and impatient complainants request that we accelerate the procedure at the Constitutional Court. An increasing number of complainants expect the Ombudsman to submit additional requests for constitutional reviews of various regulations, e.g. the Ministry of Health was supposed to determine the types and levels of physical impairments by 1 January 2015, which would serve as the basis for enforcing rights to disability insurance. The Ministry has not done this yet, and thus the Selfgoverning Agreement on the List of Physical Impairments (Samoupravni sporazum o seznamu telesnih okvar) of 1983 is still in force. The obsolescence of a legal act from 33 years ago needs no further clarification, and the legal extension of applicability of a regulation from the former state after 25 years of independence is improper for a state governed by the rule of law. In my three-year term, we filed one constitutional complaint and five requests for constitutional reviews or legality of a regulation or general act issued for the exercise of public authority. These also included a request for a constitutional review of Article 25 of the Act Regulating Measures Aimed at the Fiscal Balance of Municipalities relating to the enforcement of rights to public funds (subsidies of rents for tenants of market and caretaker dwellings) and a request for a constitutional review of certain articles of the Exercise of Rights from Public Funds Act and the Rules determining the savings amount and property value and on the value of provision for basic needs with reference to procedures for exercising rights to public funds. Unfortunately, no progress has been made in the drafting (of certain urgent) amendments to the Mental Health Act in 2015. Our recommendation that the Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities adopt all necessary additional measures to ensure suitable facilities to accommodate persons in special social care institutions according to court decisions on the basis of Article 74 of the Mental Health Act also remains unrealised. In 2015, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia complied with our request and partly abrogated Article 74 of this Act. The Ombudsman commends the decision of the Constitutional Court, which will enable better (legal) protection of persons declared contractually incapable, while eliminating concern that such persons would be left to the autocracy of representatives and reducing the possibility of abuse in this field with judicial supervision. In 2015, we also met the advocates of patients’ rights and the Patients’ Rights Ombudsman. They pointed out the long waiting times, delayed diagnoses, different prices of services in private out-patient clinics and problems of patients with dental treatment at home and abroad. They agreed that the field should be more transparent, and better professional supervision of providers should be provided to enable a higher quality of health services. Photo of the Ombudsman’s board (May 2016). From left to right: Deputy Ombudsman Ivan Šelih, Secretary General of the Ombudsman mag. Bojana Kvas, Deputy Ombudsman mag. Kornelija Marzel, Ombudsman Vlasta Nussdorfer, Deputy Ombudsman Tone Dolčič, Director of the Expert Service Martina Ocepek, and Deputy Ombudsman Miha Horvat. insensitive to human tragedies elsewhere, in other countries. Has Lampeduza not touched us as people? Do we not care about hundreds of thousands of people, including many children and unaccompanied minors, who simply disappear along the way, perhaps in the claws of human traffickers or human organ traders? Many were taken by the sea, forever. Fundamental human rights of these people were violated, and as a member of the UN, the Council of Europe and the European Union, Slovenia should take a more decisive approach to eliminating crisis areas and establishing peace. In conclusion I express great respect for the work of all Slovenian and international non-governmental organisations which unselfishly assisted and attracted numerous volunteers during the migration crisis, when hundreds of thousands of people fled wars, famine, hopelessness and death through our territory. The volunteers distributed food and water day and night and provided humane living conditions, medical assistance, legal advice and other. State institutions also, although with a delay in certain fields, but nevertheless suitably and together with volunteers, proved that we are capable of helping people. I am concerned that we are almost The annual discussion of the Ombudsman’s annual report at sessions of boards and committees and later at the plenary session of the National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia, at sessions of committees and the plenary session of the National Council of the Republic of Slovenia and the session of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia is undoubtedly a unique example of good practice also in Europe and an expression of the great attention which the highest state authorities pay to the report, the findings and recommendations of the Ombudsman. A longer document (over 150 pages) from the Government of the Republic of Slovenia on the realisation of the recommendations of the National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia adopted upon the discussion of the previous annual report, including the response report of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia on the current regular annual report, is particularly valuable. For the most part, I find that state 22 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA FOR 2015 Refugees received our help ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA FOR 2015 23