4. Payment of support to a toddler staying at home in Rae rural municipality Case No 7-5/130127 The Chancellor was contacted by a petitioner to whom Rae rural municipality government had refused to pay 120 euros of support for a toddler staying at home, as the petitioner had not paid 2 euros and 50 cents for the study journal of the family’s child who was attending school. The debt had been incurred because the offer for the sale of the pupil’s study journal had been addressed to the mother while the invoice was sent to the father’s e-mail address which he no longer used. PART II PART III In conclusion, the Chancellor reached the opinion that the 20-hour weekly load of pupils engaged in education for children with severe and profound intellectual disability applicable throughout the basic school level is compatible with the fundamental right to equality established under the Constitution. PART IV As a result of the analysis, the Chancellor reached the conclusion that the aim of different treatment of pupils engaged in education for children with severe and profound intellectual disability in comparison with other basic school pupils is to ensure a weekly load taking into account their potential to participate in learning, and the additional aim is the state’s wish to make an optimal and effective use of both the money and people (special education teachers). In assessing the constitutionality of the different treatment, the Chancellor found that the weekly load of pupils engaged in education for children with severe and profound intellectual disability which stays on the level for children in the first grade (i.e. children 7–8 years old) does not constitute a serious interference with the fundamental right to equality of such pupils. The seriousness of the interference is also diminished by the obligation under the Act to adjust the instruction according to a child’s individual potential and the possibility of pupils in such education to study for a total of 12 years at the basic school. PART I CANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS OMBUDSMAN FOR CHILDREN In the petitioned matter, the Chancellor established that Rae rural municipality government had failed to comply with the principle of guaranteeing fundamental rights and freedoms in four aspects. First, contrary to the Administrative Procedure Act the municipality had failed to notify the petitioner of the administrative proceedings initiated against them and did not give the petitioner a possibility to submit their opinion and objections within the administrative proceedings. According to the explanations by the municipality, the petitioner had not been heard because at the time of making the order to stop the payment of the support they were indebted to the municipality. Another reason given by the rural municipality was that the municipality’s legal act establishing the payment of the support is available for everyone, persons themselves can examine it and find out the consequences of indebtedness to the municipality or any of its subdivisions. Second, contrary to the Administrative Procedure Act the municipality failed to make use of its discretion when making the decision to stop the payment of the support. In issuing the order to stop the payment of the support the municipality relied on the provision of the underlying regulation according to which discretion should have been used when deciding to stop the payment of the support. Third, the decision to stop the payment of the support for the toddler staying at home was disproportionate. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, an administrative body may restrict a person’s rights or cause them other burdensome consequences only if this is indispensable. Contrary to the principle first to choose the means which are least burdensome for the person while still equally effective for achieving the desired aim, Rae rural municipality chose a measure having significantly negative consequences for the petitioner. In addition to 47