The number of complaints considered was the same as last year. Particularly noticeable were the issues of (unduly) long procedures for deciding with complaints from individuals about decisions and the issue of refunding of unduly received scholarships. We also examined complaints concerning the first call for applications for the right to scholarships for shortage occupations. In reviewing the complaints, we established that the deadline determined by law for deciding on complaints at the Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (MDDSZ) were considerably exceeded in the cases in question, despite the ministry’s hiring of additional staff. The average time in which a decision was made on complaints from 2014 and 2015 was six to eight months, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion is still too long for secondary school or university students, who often depend on scholarships. The Ombudsman believes that the procedure is being delayed without justification, and so the MDDSZ is thereby violating the principle of good governance. On the basis of the answer from the MDDSZ, we referred the complainant to the competent CSD in order to again exercise the right to child care allowance. The complaint was justified. In certain complaints, parents expressed their dissatisfaction with the implementation or providers of additional professional assistance to students with special needs in inclusive schools, because they said that this assistance should be provided exclusively by an expert with adequate specialisation (speech therapist for a child with a speech impediment, deaf education teacher for a deaf or hard-of-hearing child etc.). In the Ombudsman’s opinion, technical difficulties in providing on-line access to the application form, which should have been anticipated by the Fund, could result in applicants being treated unequally. Applicants who relied on the provision under point 7 of the call for applications and planned to print the application were in disadvantaged position compared to those who received the form at the Fund’s headquarters. The fact that the applicants who live in Ljubljana were able to go to immediately to the Fund’s head office when they realised that there was a problem with the on-line access could also mean additional unequal treatment, since those people who come from other places did not have this option (within the same time frame). Two complaints concerned parents’ dissatisfaction with a placement decision. In one complaint, the parents could not come to terms with the decision that their daughter should be enrolled in a special primary school. In the second complaint, a social care institution complained to the Ombudsman about the decision to place a boy in a special programme. Experts at the centre thought that the said programme was insufficiently demanding for the boy, as his abilities were higher. Together with the boy’s mother, the centre made efforts to have the placement changed, but without success. The Ombudsman could not intervene in any way, because the Ombudsman is not authorised to directly change the expert opinion of the commission competent for the placement of children with special needs, and also cannot take a position on technical issues. It also cannot change a decision of a body of second instance. We nevertheless assessed that the complaint was justified, because the second-instance commission for placement at the Ministry of Education, Science and Sport (MIZŠ) could re-evaluate the boy’s abilities, especially if the expert (psychological) opinions of experts of the institute and experts of the commission for placement regarding his abilities differed. The Ombudsman is also of the opinion that all children should be given the opportunity to utilise their abilities to the greatest possible extent, and, in any event, in a way that is in the child’s best interests. The Ombudsman sent an inquiry to the Fund in which it was urged to take a position on the alleged discrimination and tell us what measures it would take to ensure that all applicants are treated equally. In a letter sent to the Fund, which was also sent to the MDDSZ, the Ombudsman provided the preliminary opinion that unequal treatment cannot be remedied other than by annulling and repeating the call for applications. This is exactly what happened. The adjustment of lessons to a decision on placement was a problem in two secondary schools. On the basis of information on the existence of the Instructions for the implementation of educational programmes of vocational and professional training with adjusted implementation and additional professional assistance, which the Ombudsman sent to the parents, the parents solved the problem by means of talks with the schools where the said instructions were sent to teachers. The first call for applications for awarding scholarships for shortage occupations had an open deadline, meaning that the scholarship recipients were selected in the order in which complete applications were received, with regard to the date and hour of submission of individual complete applications, until all available funds were spent. In accordance with point 7 of the text of the call for applications, the form should have been available on the website of the Fund on the first day of the deadline for the submission of applications (24 August 2015). 2.15 CHILDREN’S RIGHTS We asked about the matter of backdated payments of child care allowance and assistance and attendance allowance. With regard to the inquiry about the issue that we sent to the MDDSZ, the responsible representatives said that each specific case would be examined separately and that the best possible solution for the beneficiaries would be found. The Ombudsman recommends that the ministry reach a settlement with all affected parties who exercise their rights in judicial proceedings or to remedy the injustices by amending the legislative regulation. 2.15.8 Children with special needs The Ombudsman received and re-examined somewhat fewer complaints from this field (35) than in the year before (43). More complaints related to the exercise of the right to child care allowance, either because of the parents’ conviction that they were eligible for a higher allowance, although their children did not have the most severe types of disorder, or because individuals were convinced that the processing of their complaints about negative decisions took too long. We also examined a complaint concerning the concurrent exercise of the right to child care allowance and assistance and attendance allowance. Parents of the most severely affected children had tried to exercise the right to both allowances in the past, and in this regard they had turned to the labour and social courts. The latter confirmed their conviction that parents may exercise the right to both allowances already in 2012. However, only in June 2015 did the Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (MDDSZ) send to social work centres (CSD) and the Pension and Disability Insurance Institute of Slovenian a relevant circular letter informing them that both rights could be exercised concurrently. Parents thus had to again submit applications to exercise a right that they had to give up in the previous years due to the incorrect interpretation of regulations. 160 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA FOR 2015 One complaint contained a complaint by the president of the parents’ council in an institution for children with special needs to effect that children who attend a special education and schooling programme are not treated equally, depending on the type of institution implementing the programme (a social protection institution or institution in the field of education and schooling). The Ombudsman has been pointing to this problem for years. Whether children with special needs should be given more or fewer rights than they are entitled to should not depend on the type of institution. These rights should be provided to an equal extent within the context of the children’s deficiencies and limitations. The Ombudsman also examined complaints related to the alleged (non)operation of commission for the placement of children with special needs. Allegedly this field is at a standstill, with complainants claiming that placement procedures are not carried out in accordance with the Placement of Children with Special Needs Act (ZUOPP). Several parents and the Association for the rights of sick children warned us about the problem. With regard to the problem, the MIZŠ organised a meeting immediately after receiving the complaints and inquiry from the Ombudsman, at which participants were given a number of explanations. The standstill in the implementation of placement procedures was due to the reorganisation of the department for the placement of children with special needs at the National Education Institute (ZRSŠ). The main purpose of the reorganisation was to upgrade work on placement procedures. The leadership of the ZRSŠ decided to reorganise also because the terms of all members of the commissions ended in April. There was a significant backlog; all documentation was in hard copies; too many secretaries were servicing the expert service, all of ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA FOR 2015 161 2.15 CHILDREN’S RIGHTS 2.15.7 Scholarships