executed by means of a postal money order, whereby such payments would be subject to monthly postal fees and delayed by one day. The main problem in the field of social security is the poverty of a large group of citizens, the consequences of which affect not only the material situation of individuals, but even more so their attitude to others, their self-image, family relations, and above all, it violates the right to dignity. Social assistance does not ensure survival, and individuals must find other (frequently illegal) ways to survive and support their families. The state allocates substantial funds to mitigate social distress. NGOs also provide their help; nevertheless, individuals are frequently left to the kind-heartedness of others who provide help. By comparing different amounts of assistances allocated to Slovenian citizens and foreigners who arrived in Slovenia during the migrant crisis, an impression was created that the state is parsimonious with some and generous to others. It is imperative that the public and individuals are informed accordingly, and social work centres play the main role in these processes. In last year’s response report, the Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities ensured that the reorganisation of social work centres was a priority; however, no changes have been noted in the past year. A beneficiary, a recipient of cash social assistance in the amount of EUR 269.20, who will be receiving assistance by a postal money order because she was unable to open a bank account contacted the Ombudsman. She complained about the fee of EUR 15.83, or as she put it: “this is equal to the cost of bread to sustain me for 20 days”. The complainant managed to agree with the centre on the payment of cash social assistance without fees. The Ombudsman believes that the search for solutions should not be left to the resourcefulness of beneficiaries and social work centres. For several years, we have emphasised the unacceptable backlogs in resolving complaints concerning decisions on rights relating to public funds, which are undermining people’s trust in the social state and state governed by the rule of law. With such delays, the Ministry violates people’s right to equal protection of rights, which is guaranteed by Article 22 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, and also violates the principle of the rule of law and a social state in Article 2 of the Constitution. 2.13.1 U  nacceptable delay when preparing expert groundwork for the Act on Social Inclusion The Ombudsman has been contacted by a growing number of individuals, adults with mental disorders or their parents/carers, concerned that persons with mental disorders, in addition to attending occupational activity centres, should be able to work or be included in a regular work environment as per their abilities and wishes. Despite their “inability to live an independent life and work”, persons with mental disabilities who claim rights according to the Act Concerning Social Care of Mentally and Physically Handicapped Persons (ZDVDTP) may apply as job seekers at the Employment Service of Slovenia if they are aged between 15 and 65; however, by doing so, they lose the rights arising from their “inability to live an independent life and work”. According to the Ombudsman, this arrangement is not suitable or realistic. The possibility of “transferring between statuses” should be provided. Furthermore, persons with recognised rights as per the ZDVDTP usually cannot compete equally on the labour market. Since employment for them means in particular social inclusion and not primarily a means of subsistence, the rights arising from the ZDVDTP should be retained. Unfortunately, we observe that the Act on Social Inclusion within the framework of which these issues would be resolved has been in preparation for several years with no obvious progress. In 2015, the Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities assured us again that material would be prepared for a government discussion by the end of the calendar year, but it was not. 2.13.2 Payment of social transfers For individuals and families who fully rely on social transfers, it is of the utmost importance that they receive them in full and not reduced by bank charges on bank accounts or other banking activities based on enforcement or security orders. A while ago, a social work centre being aware of beneficiaries’ distress and problems, some of whom were even unable to keep their bank accounts open, began resolving this issue by transferring cash payments of social transfers to the centre itself. The situation later became uncontrollable and too dangerous for the employees, and the several hundred beneficiaries who came to the centre each month and queued several hours for the payment. Conflicts and disagreements also arose between people waiting in the line. The centre then decided to end such cash payments and asked the beneficiaries to submit bank account numbers to which transfers would be made in the future. The centre explained that otherwise the transfer would be 136 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA FOR 2015 The situation was at least partly resolved by Article 102a of the Claim Enforcement and Security Act, which entered into force on 4 August 2015, i.e. relating to charging fees for implementing activities based on enforcement or security orders. Certain concerns were raised about suitably resolving the problem, since it is probable that banks would start closing debtors’ accounts or submit many enforcement proposals for the settlement of outstanding fees and thus additionally burden courts with new cases. Finally, they will also burden debtors, who will have to settle banks’ charges together with statutory default interest and enforcement costs. It may be expected that Article 102a of the Claim Enforcement and Security Act will impose new problems on the socially most disadvantaged individuals and families. The issue of beneficiaries entitled to social transfers who do not have bank accounts has not been addressed yet. The Ombudsman proposes that this problem be resolved comprehensively and with final effect as soon as possible, which was also pointed out to the Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, which explained that the introduction of so-called social accounts or pre-payment cards was anticipated, which is considered a suitable way to solve this problem. 2.13.3 Contentious provisions of the Exercise of Rights from Public Funds Act In May 2015, the Ombudsman filed a request for a review of the constitutionality of paragraph five of Article 10, point 4 of paragraph one of Article 12 and paragraph one of Article 14 of the Exercise of Rights from Public Funds Act and the constitutionality and legality of paragraph two of Article 7 of the Rules for determining the savings amount and property value and on the value of provision for basic needs with reference to procedures of exercise of rights to public funds based on the provision of paragraph three of Article 17 of the ZUPJS. The entire text of the request is published on our website. Below, we summarise certain findings and assessments relating to the legal presumption that causes many problems in practice and also constitutes a violation of human rights: “In the provision of paragraph five of Article 10 of the ZUPJS, the legislator defined a legal presumption (praesumptio iuris) that non-marital cohabitation exists between parents of a child unless there are grounds for the annulment of the marriage as per the ZZZDR. We believe that this presumption constitutes an excessive encroachment on privacy and individuals privacy, which is completely disproportionate to the needs to protect the public system from abuse. The rule of the reversed burden of proof is seldom applied in Slovenian law, e.g. when prosecuting organised crime, determining liability for damage caused by a hazardous object or when assisting victims of subtle forms of systematic violence (bullying in the workplace, discrimination etc.), i.e. when combating the worst forms of crime or protecting weak individuals from significantly stronger opponents. It is thus unacceptable for the reversal of the burden of proof to be applied in relations of the state when dealing with weaker citizens, particularly concerning claims for basic rights needed for the physical survival of people who are often functionally illiterate, and their de facto access to legal protection is frequently exceptionally difficult. We believe that such arrangements constitute unjustified and unequal treatment of many individuals from certain groups of people, which we substantiate in the following five paragraphs. ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA FOR 2015 137 2.13 SOCIAL MATTERS 2.13 SOCIAL MATTERS Equal Opportunities in the 2014 report that it increase staffing at social work centres (recommendation no. 96). We repeat this recommendation.