The Ombudsman considered the complaint justified, since the substantive law was erroneously applied in this case, causing a violation of the right to social security of the complainant. The Ombudsman commended the decision of the competent social work centre, i.e. that they recognised their error after the complaint was submitted and that they had granted financial social assistance to the applicant. This ensured the complainant the constitutional right to social security. Two interesting and justified complaints concerning aliens that we received and considered are presented below. Example: Disregarding the instruction of the ministry and violating the provisions of the General Administrative Procedure Act in the case of issuing the first residence permit for the purpose of family reunification The Ombudsman considered a complaint submitted by an adult alien (complainant) who needed care and assistance of his mother due to his severe health condition and requested the issue of the first residence permit for the purpose of family reunification. The complainant turned to the Ombudsman for help, since Ljubljana Administrative Unit refused to issue the first temporary residence permit for the purpose of family reunification. In this matter, the Ombudsman addressed several inquiries to the administrative unit and to the Ministry of the Interior. Based on the answers provided by the aforementioned authorities, the Ombudsman found that the request for the first temporary residence permit for the purpose of family reunification for the complainant’s mother was filed on 4 December 2014 with the administrative unit, which issued a decision on 16 January 2015, rejecting the complainant’s request. The administrative unit justified its decision based on the provision in indent one of paragraph one of Article 55 of the Aliens Act (ZTuj-2), based on which a permit for residence in the Republic of Slovenia is not issued to an alien if the conditions in paragraphs three and four of Article 33 of the ZTuj-2 are not met, i.e. general and special conditions for issuing the residence permit. According to the opinion of the administrative unit, the complainant did not prove in the procedure for acquiring a permit that he had sufficient means to caring for his mother. According to the same opinion, the complainant did not prove that he had an obligation to maintain the mother under the law of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is the condition in indent five of paragraph three of Article 47 of the ZTuj-2. According to this provision, parents are considered family members of an alien if the alien is obliged to maintain them in accordance with the law of the country of which they are citizens. The complainant lodged a complaint against the decision at the Ministry of the Interior, which issued a decision on 20 April 2015 granting the complaint due to the incompletely or inappropriately observed current situation with regard to the guaranteed sufficient means of the complainant for maintaining his mother and with regard to the obligation of the complainant to maintain his mother as per the law of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and it dismissed the decision and initiated a new procedure at the administrative unit. In the complaint procedure, the Ministry of the Interior also found that Ljubljana Administrative Unit will more easily and quickly supplement the procedure for issuing a permit to the complainant’s mother, i.e. establish the current situation with regard to the means for maintenance which the complainant has at his disposal on a monthly basis, and with regard 100 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA FOR 2015 to his obligation to maintain his mother under the law of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the repeated procedure, the administrative unit once again rejected the application for the temporary residence of the mother for the purpose of family reunification. After examining the decision on the rejection, the Ombudsman proposed to the administrative unit that, when deciding on a priority request, they should consider the fact that the case involves an extreme situation, since the complainant had severe health problems and needed daily care and assistance. We also proposed to the Ministry of the Interior that, if the complaint is justified and if Article 251 of the ZUP is considered, they should decide on the matter with regard to the principle of efficiency. The Ministry of the Interior replied that, considering the request for priority consideration, they would try to decide on the complaint as soon as possible. On 25 August 2015, the complainant notified us that the Ministry of the Interior had accepted the complaint and decided on the request for the first temporary residence permit for the purpose of family reunification for his mother. The Ombudsman asked the Ministry of the Interior to send a copy of the decision. The Ombudsman received the decision of the Ministry of the Interior and its explanation with regard to the priority consideration of the request on 21 September 2015. The Ministry of the Interior was able to decide on the complaint and on the administrative matter when the administrative unit extended the temporary residence permit for the complainant. The right to family reunification can be granted to an alien who receives a temporary residence permit. The explanation in the decision of the Ministry of the Interior indicated that the administrative unit had considered the instruction of the Ministry of the Interior in the repeated procedure, i.e. on how to supplement the procedure for the first temporary residence permit for the purpose of family reunification (with regard to establishing the current situation in relation to sufficient means for maintenance and with the complainant’s obligation to maintain his mother under the law of Bosnia and Herzegovina); they did not consider the instruction of the Ministry of the Interior on how, or with what evidence, the complainant’s obligation to maintain his mother under the law of Bosnia and Herzegovina can be proven in the repeated procedure. Because in accordance with paragraph three of Article 251 of the ZUP in the repeated procedure, the administrative unit should have dealt with the matter as per the instructions of the Ministry of the Interior, and because in the opinion of the Ministry of the Interior this violation affected the legality and accuracy of the decision, Ljubljana Administrative Unit committed a significant violation of rules of procedure. At the same time the administrative unit erroneously assessed the evidence, and based on the established facts, it drew the wrong conclusion about the current situation concerning the complainant’s obligation to maintain his mother under the law of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Due to these facts, the Ministry of the Interior accepted the complainant’s complaint and abrogated the contested decision of the administrative unit. The Ministry of the Interior then decided on the complainant’s request for the first temporary permit for the purpose of family reunification with his mother, and issued a temporary residence permit for an alien in the Republic of Slovenia for the purpose of family reunification. The Ombudsman regarded this complaint justified, since the administrative unit did not act in accordance with the ZUP in the repeated procedure and disregarded the instructions of the Ministry of the Interior on how, and with which evidence, the complainant’s obligation to maintain his mother under the law of Bosnia and Herzegovina could be verified. Thus, the administrative unit encroached on the complainant’s right to family life and violated the principle of good administration. 5.2-14/2015 Example: Delaying the procedure for issuing a permanent residence permit for an erased person A complainant wrote to the Ombudsman with regard to the delay in the procedure for issuing a permanent residence permit in accordance with the Act Regulating the Legal Status of Citizens of Former Yugoslavia Living in the Republic of Slovenia (ZUSDDD). The complainant stated that she had submitted the application in 2012, whereupon Maribor Administrative Unit rejected the application three times; all decisions were abrogated by ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA FOR 2015 101 2.6 ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS 2.6 ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS inform us on the current situation, and we proposed that they study the possibility provided to them as the first instance authority in connection with a complaint by the General Administrative Procedure Act (ZUP), i.e. in Article 242. In their reply, the competent social work centre explained that they had decided on the basis of Article 3 of the Financial Social Assistance Act (ZSVarPre), which stipulates that beneficiaries are citizens of the Republic of Slovenia with permanent residence in the Republic of Slovenia, aliens with the permanent residence permit and with permanent residence in the Republic of Slovenia, and persons under international protection, as well as their family members, who, based on the right to family reunion acquire a permit to reside in the Republic of Slovenia and who have a registered permanent or temporary residence in the Republic of Slovenia, and that they decided in accordance with the standpoint of the Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, which denied the competence of the social work centre to decide on financial social assistance as per the ZTuj. They explained that the complainant was not entitled to financial assistance according to the issued decision. After the complaint was submitted, they acted in accordance with Article 242 of the ZUP and issued a new decision granting financial assistance to the applicant.