2020
Annual Report

CASES AND ISSUES

Annual Report of the Advocate of the Principle of Equality for 2020

CASES AND ISSUES

Annual Report 2020
CASES AND ISSUES

Ljubljana, April 2021

III

Miha Lobnik, Advocate of the Principle of Equality

Foreword by the Head of the Institution,
Advocate of the Principle of Equality
The Annual Report for 2020 consists of two substantively distinct and completed parts.
The first part of the Annual Report titled “Systemic Overview” presents an overview of the
functioning of the equality body in the past year, both at the level of individual cases and
at the structural level. Statistical data on the work performed in the past year show a wide
range of tasks carried out by the Advocate in the field of equality, equal opportunities and
equal treatment.
The second part of the Annual Report titled “Cases and Issues” focuses in more detail on
the review of the results of the Advocate’s work, specifically on the work of the institution
with regard to personal characteristics that led to discrimination (personal grounds), such as
gender, age, disability, etc.. Presentation of the Advocate’s work on each personal ground is
structured according to the equality body’s key functions - advisory, informing and support
activities; discrimination investigations; assessments of the discriminatory character of
regulations; the Advocate’s recommendations; research activities (highlights from the
Advocate’s 2020 public opinion survey on discrimination); cooperation with civil society; and
educational and awareness-raising activities.
For the fourth year in a row, the independent state authority for protection against
discrimination recorded an increase in the number of received complaints of alleged
discrimination and proposals for systemic solutions in the form of recommendations. The
Annual Report reveals that we were successful in finding solutions to problems faced by
individuals as well as in cooperating with the State and civil society, despite the difficult
circumstances.
In the past year, the Advocate’s work was also significantly affected by the epidemic. It was a
source of numerous problems and concerns for people. Due to the hardship of the Slovenian
people, the Advocate also provided advisory assistance, received and addressed several
complaints of discrimination and prepared several recommendations aimed at improving the
situation of particular groups which were even more vulnerable as a result of the epidemic.
The Annual Report for 2020 comprehensively presents the Advocate's contribution to a society
of equal opportunities. I would hereby like to thank the employees for their professional and
committed work. I would also like to thank all those who continue to support the functioning,
activities and development of the Advocate of the Principle of Equality.

Miha Lobnik
ADVOCATE OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY

Ljubljana, April 2021

V

CONTENT OF THE ANNUAL
REPORT FOR 2020
Content: Systemic Overview
1

FUNCTIONING OF THE EQUALITY BODY

2

ACTIVITIES OF THE EQUALITY BODY

3

THE WORK OF THE ADVOCATE DEDICATED TO INDIVIDUAL CASES

4

ADVISORY, INFORMING AND SUPPORT ACTIVITIES

5

ADVOCACY – REPRESENTATION IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS

6

DISCRIMINATION INVESTIGATION

7

STATISTICS OF ADVISORY ACTIVITIES AND DISCRIMINATION INVESTIGATION
PROCEDURES

8

ASSESSING THE DISCRIMINATORY CHARACTER OF REGULATIONS

9

PROTECTION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION AT THE STRUCTURAL LEVEL

10

DATA ON DISCRIMINATION INVESTIGATIONS – OTHER STATE AUTHORITIES

11

RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE ADVOCATE

12

MEASURES FOR THE PROMOTION OF EQUAL TREATMENT AND ELIMINATION OF
DISCRIMINATION

13

THE ADVOCATE’S RESEARCH ACTIVITIES

14

THE ADVOCATE’S COOPERATION WITH STATE AUTHORITIES

15

THE ADVOCATE’S COOPERATION WITH CIVIL SOCIETY

16

EDUCATION, AWARENESS RAISING AND COMMUNICATION

17

THE ADVOCATE’S INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

18

PROTECTION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN THE FIELD OF ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE

VI

Content: Cases and Issues
1

PERSONAL GROUNDS OF DISCRIMINATION

1.1

GENDER

1.2

NATIONALITY

1.3

RACE OR ETHNIC ORIGIN

1.4

LANGUAGE

1.5

RELIGION OR BELIEF

1.6

DISABILITY

1.7

AGE

1.8

SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY AND GENDER EXPRESSION

1.9

SOCIAL STATUS

1.10

PROPERTY STATUS

1.11

EDUCATION

1.12

OTHER PERSONAL GROUNDS

VII

Table of contents

VIII

1

PERSONAL GROUNDS OF DISCRIMINATION

14

1.1
1.1.1

GENDER
Advisory, informing and support activities related to the personal ground
of gender
Discrimination investigation in relation to the personal ground of gender
Assessments of the discriminatory character of regulations with regard
to the personal ground of gender
The Advocate’s recommendations regarding the personal ground of
gender
Highlights of the public opinion survey on discrimination from 2020 with
regard to the personal ground of gender
The Advocate’s cooperation with civil society with regard to the personal
ground of gender
The Advocate’s educational and awareness-raising activities with regard
to the personal ground of gender

16

NATIONALITY
Advisory, informing and support activities related to the personal ground
of nationality
Discrimination investigation in relation to the personal ground of
nationality
Assessments of the discriminatory character of regulations with regard
to the personal ground of nationality
The Advocate’s recommendations regarding the personal ground of
nationality
Highlights of the public opinion survey on discrimination from 2020 with
regard to the personal ground of nationality
The Advocate’s cooperation with civil society with regard to the personal
ground of nationality
The Advocate’s educational and awareness-raising activities with regard
to the personal ground of nationality

23

1.1.2
1.1.3
1.1.4
1.1.5
1.1.6
1.1.7

1.2
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
1.2.4
1.2.5
1.2.6
1.2.7

1.3
1.3.1
1.3.2
1.3.3
1.3.4
1.3.5
1.3.6
1.3.7

RACE OR ETHNIC ORIGIN
Advisory, informing and support activities related to the personal ground
of race of ethnic origin
Discrimination investigation in relation to the personal ground of race or
ethnic origin
Assessments of the discriminatory character of regulations with regard
to the personal grounds of race or ethnic origin
The Advocate’s recommendations regarding the personal grounds of race
or ethnic origin
Highlights of the public opinion survey on discrimination from 2020 with
regard to the personal ground of race or ethnic origin
The Advocate’s cooperation with civil society with regard to the personal
ground of race or ethnic origin
The Advocate’s educational and awareness-raising activities with regard
to the personal ground of race and ethnic origin

16
18
20
20
21
22
22

23
24
25
25
27
27
28

30
30
31
34
34
35
35
36

IX

1.4
1.4.1
1.4.2
1.4.3
1.4.4
1.4.5
1.4.6
1.4.7

1.5
1.5.1
1.5.2
1.5.3
1.5.4
1.5.5
1.5.6
1.5.7

1.6
1.6.1
1.6.2
1.6.3
1.6.4
1.6.5
1.6.6
1.6.7

X

LANGUAGE
Advisory, informing and support activities related to the personal ground
of language
Discrimination investigation in relation to the personal ground of
language
Assessments of the discriminatory character of regulations with regard
to the personal ground of language
The Advocate’s recommendations regarding the personal ground of
language
Highlights of the public opinion survey on discrimination from 2020 with
regard to the personal ground of language
The Advocate’s cooperation with civil society with regard to the personal
ground of language
The Advocate’s educational and awareness-raising activities with regard
to the personal ground of language

RELIGION OR BELIEF
Advisory, informing and support activities related to the personal
grounds of religion or belief
Discrimination investigation in relation to the personal ground of religion
of belief
Assessments of the discriminatory character of regulations with regard
to the personal ground of religion or belief
The Advocates reccomendation regarding the personal ground of religion
or belief
Highlights of the public opinion survey on discrimination from 2020 with
regard to the personal ground of religion or belief
The Advocate’s cooperation with civil society with regard to the personal
grounds of religion or belief
The Advocate’s educational and awareness-raising activities with regard
to the personal grounds of religion or belief

DISABILITY
Advisory, informing and support activities related to the personal ground
of disability
Discrimination investigation in relation to the personal ground of
disability
Assessments of the discriminatory character of regulations with regard
to the personal ground of disability
The Advocate’s recommendations regarding the personal ground of
disability
Highlights of the public opinion survey on discrimination from 2020 with
regard to the personal ground of disability
The Advocate’s cooperation with civil society with regard to the personal
ground of disability
The Advocate’s educational and awareness-raising activities with regard
to the personal ground of disability

38
38
39
39
39
40
40
40

41
41
42
44
44
45
46
46

47
47
51
52
54
60
60
61

1.7
1.7.1
1.7.2
1.7.3
1.7.4
1.7.5
1.7.6
1.7.7

1.8
1.8.1
1.8.2
1.8.3
1.8.4
1.8.5

1.8.6
1.8.7

1.9
1.9.1
1.9.2
1.9.3
1.9.4
1.9.5
1.9.6
1.9.7

AGE
Advisory, informing and support activities related to the personal ground
of age
Discrimination investigation in relation to the personal ground of age
Assessments of the discriminatory character of regulations with regard
to the personal ground of age
The Advocate’s recommendations regarding the personal ground of age
Highlights of the public opinion survey on discrimination from 2020 with
regard to the personal ground of age
The Advocate’s cooperation with civil society with regard to the personal
ground of age
The Advocate’s educational and awareness-raising activities with regard
to the personal ground of age

65

SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY AND GENDER EXPRESSION
Advisory, informing and support activities related to the personal ground
of sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression
Discrimination investigation in relation to the personal grounds of sexual
orientation, gender identity and gender expression
Assessments of discriminatory regulations with regard to the personal
grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression
The Advocate’s recommendations regarding the personal grounds of
sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression
Highlights of the public opinion survey on discrimination from 2020 with
regard to the personal grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity and
gender expression
The Advocate’s cooperation with civil society with regard to the personal
grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression
The Advocate’s educational and awareness-raising activities with regard
to the personal grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity and gender
expression

74

SOCIAL STATUS
Advisory, informing and support activities related to the personal ground
of social status
Discrimination investigation in relation to the personal ground of social
status
Assessments of the discriminatory character of regulations with regard
to the personal ground of social status
The Advocate’s recommendations regarding the personal ground of social
status
Highlights of the public opinion survey on discrimination from 2020 with
regard to the personal ground of social status
The Advocate’s cooperation with civil society with regard to the personal
ground of social status
The Advocate’s educational and awareness-raising activities with regard
to the personal ground of social status

65
66
67
68
72
72
73

74
75
75
76

76
77

77

78
78
78
78
79
81
82
82

XI

1.10
1.10.1
1.10.2
1.10.3
1.10.4
1.10.5
1.10.6
1.10.7

1.11
1.11.1
1.11.2
1.11.3
1.11.4
1.11.5
1.11.6
1.11.7

PROPERTY STATUS
Advisory, informing and support activities related to the personal ground
of property status
Discrimination investigation in relation to the personal ground of
property status
Assessments of the discriminatory character of regulations with regard
to the personal ground of property status
The Advocate’s recommendations regarding the personal ground of
property status
Highlights of the public opinion survey on discrimination from 2020 with
regard to the personal ground of property status
The Advocate’s cooperation with civil society with regard to the personal
ground of property status
The Advocate’s educational and awareness-raising activities with regard
to the personal ground of property status

EDUCATION
Advisory, informing and support activities related to the personal ground
of education
Discrimination investigation in relation to the personal ground of
education
Assessments of the discriminatory character of regulations with regard
to the personal ground of education
The Advocate’s recommendations regarding the personal ground of
education
Highlights of the public opinion survey on discrimination from 2020 with
regard to the personal ground of education
The Advocate’s cooperation with civil society with regard to the personal
ground of education
The Advocate’s educational and awareness-raising activities with regard
to the personal ground of education

83
83
84
85
86
92
92
92

93
93
94
94
94
95
95
95

1.12
1.12.1
1.12.2
1.12.3
1.12.4
1.12.5
1.12.6

OTHER PERSONAL GROUNDS
Advisory, informing and support activities – anonymised cases
Discrimination investigation – anonymised cases
Assessing the discriminatory character of regulations
Recommendations by the Advocate
The Advocate’s cooperation with civil society
Education and awareness raising by the Advocate

96
97
103
107
112
118
119

2

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

122

XII

XIII

1 PERSONAL GROUNDS
OF DISCRIMINATION

14

The following is an overview of the work and results by personal grounds of discrimination as
listed in the Protection against Discrimination Act (PADA).
According to the PADA, the personal grounds are as follows: gender, nationality, racial or ethnic origin, language, religion or belief, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity and
gender expression, social status, property status, education, or any other personal ground.
This Chapter presents the essential results of the Advocate’s work from the following angles:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

advisory, informing and support activities;
discrimination investigation;
assessing the discriminatory character of regulations;
recommendations by the Advocate;
highlights of the public opinion survey on discrimination from 2020;
the Advocate’s cooperation with civil society;
education and awareness raising by the Advocate.

Article 2 of the PADA defines the areas of social life in which the prohibition of discrimination
must be ensured by state authorities, local communities, holders of public authority and legal and natural persons. The following colours indicate the relevant areas of social life:
Work and employment
• Access to employment, self-employment and profession (including selection criteria and
employment conditions, notwithstanding the type of activity or the level of occupational
hierarchy, including promotion);
• access to all forms and all levels of career orientation and counselling, vocational and
professional education and training, further vocational training and retraining, including
internship;
• employment and working conditions, including termination of employment contracts
and wages;
Membership in workers’ or employers’ organisations
• membership and inclusion in workers’ or employers’ organisations or any organisation whose
members perform a certain vocation, including benefits provided by such organisations;
Social rights
• social protection, including social security;
• social benefits;
Health care
• health care;
Education
• education and schooling;
Goods and services market
• access to goods and services available to the public, including housing facilities and supply thereof;
Drugo

Personal grounds of discrimination

15

1.1 Gender
1.1.1 Advisory, informing and support activities related
			 to the personal ground of gender
Gender-based lower pay
The Advocate was approached by a client who obtained employment at a management post
as reorganisation took place in the company. In assessing subordinates, she observed that
the salaries of her male co-workers were significantly higher than her salary. She considered
that she was subject to wage discrimination on the grounds of gender, so she asked the Advocate for advice. The Advocate offered advice to the client and explained how a discrimination
investigation procedure can be initiated, how evidence is collected, what are the rules of procedure and what are the consequences in case of discrimination. The client did not choose to
submit the complaint. (0702-32/2020)

Extending the duration of a research project for the period of parental leave
The Advocate was approached by a researcher employed to work on research project who was
planning parental leave. She asked whether it is possible to extend the research project for
the duration of parental leave. Regarding this topic, the Advocate issued a decision in another proceeding which was already brought to an end stating that the practices of the Ministry
of Education, Science and Sport in this regard are discriminatory on the grounds of gender
and parenthood. The Ministry did not allow researchers on parental leave to extend the duration of their projects (case No. 0700-37/2019, Decision of 19 February 2020). The Advocate
informed the client about this Decision and of the arguments justifying the extension of the
project. (0702-61/2020)

Different criteria in determining the method of calculating business performance bonuses
Following a decision on the discriminatory calculation of business performance, i.e. the Christmas bonus, with regard to the presence of the employee at the workplace (case No. 070030/2019, decision of 4 September 2019) several individuals approached the Advocate whose
employers used the same method of calculating Christmas bonuses. They wanted to know
whether the Decision by which the Advocate found indirect discrimination on the grounds of
gender, parenthood and health status had effect only in the specific case or whether it also
applies to other companies with the same practice. The Advocate explained that the decision
has effect only in the specific case of the company against which the complaint was lodged.
Since the decision of the Advocate was upheld by the Administrative Court of the Republic
of Slovenia (judgement No. I U 29/2020-21 of 11 November 2020), it can be expected that
the Advocate will issue the same decision in all other cases where the de facto and de jure
situation is substantially the same as in the case under consideration. The Advocate invited
the clients to lodge a complaint, which may also be anonymous. (0702-8/2020)

16

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

Gender as a condition in a job advertisement
The Advocate received a complaint regarding a discriminatory advertisement stating that
the employer wants to hire a female candidate with children over a certain age. The Advocate sent a clarification to the employer regarding the discriminatory character of such
employment conditions and a recommendation to make sure all job advertisements are compliant with the law. The employer responded that the recommendation will be taken into
account. (0702-24/2020)

Gender as a condition in a job advertisement
The Advocate was informed by the complainant about a discriminatory job advertisement
published by one of the employment agencies, which invited “young men with a degree in
mechanical engineering (m/f)” to apply. The Advocate explained to the agency that the wording “young men” is an inadmissible condition, which cannot be corrected by the addition
“m/f”. As it is not clear from the advertisement that the gender of the candidate for employment would be an “essential and decisive requirement” for the work at the advertised
working position, this case cannot be covered by the exception from the prohibition of discrimination under Article 13 of the PADA. A recommendation was made to the agency for the
advertisement to be removed. (0705-40/2019)

Poster at the police station
A client approached the Advocate regarding a violence prevention awareness poster posted
in the premises of a police station. The poster allegedly suggested that the perpetrators of
violence are only men, and the victims of violence are mostly women. The client was of the
view that such posters should be removed from the premises of the police and replaced with
gender-neutral posters. The Advocate explained that by focusing on one form of violence and
drawing attention to a statistically proven serious social problem, the poster does not interfere with the rights and interests of others, so in this case, it is not an issue of discrimination.
(0702-81/2020)

Personal grounds of discrimination – Gender

17

1.1.2 Discrimination investigation in relation to the
			 personal ground of gender
Indirectly discriminatory criteria in determining the method of calculating business performance bonuses
Based on a complaint, the Advocate considered a case of alleged discrimination with regard
to the payment of the company’s business performance bonuses. The company conditioned
the amount of the bonus upon the employee’s presence at the workplace. Those who were
absent from work during the year for health reasons would receive a lower Christmas bonus.
The Advocate found that the criterion was indirectly discriminatory in spite of being seemingly neutral for all employees, as pregnant workers, workers on paternity leave, those with
chronic or other illnesses and injuries, those caring for or accompanying family members in
cases of illness or injury, workers with disabilities and the elderly were in a disadvantaged
situation. The Advocate submitted the decision to the competent inspectorate for initiating
minor offence proceedings. This has been the second decision of the Advocate on this subject. The first decision was upheld by the Administrative Court of the Republic of Slovenia
with judgement No. IU 29/2020-21 of 11 November 2020. (Decision No. 0700-12/2020/14 of
5 October 2020)

The State discriminates against female prisoners in the Ig prison
Female convicts serving a prison sentence in the Ig prison informed the Advocate on alleged
poorer treatment in comparison to male prisoners serving their sentences in the Dob prison.
The convicts alleged that a de facto and de iure unequal treatment on the basis of gender
exists. They highlighted several topics where the treatment was allegedly worse: spending
time outdoors (contact with nature) (1), visiting the gym, library, shop, and laundry at the
time when the person has outdoor access (2); receiving visits (3); the possibility of private
contacts (4) and telephone calls as well as the use of electronic communication means (5).
The Advocate did not consider the right to contact with nature, because the Law on Enforcement of Criminal Sanctions does not provide for the right to spending time outdoors
in nature, but only the right to spending time outdoors, which the prison enables. Visiting
the gym, library, shop and laundry no longer coincides with the time of the person’s outdoor
access. The prison in Ig was rearranged during the proceedings carried out by the Advocate.
However, in accordance with the burden of proof, the Prison Administration failed to prove
that the unequal treatment of convicts was permissible and in harmony with the Protection
against Discrimination Act. Therefore, in points 3, 4 and 5, the Advocate found direct discrimination on the grounds of gender. Following the issuance of the Advocate’s decision, the
prison management arranged a room for family and partner contacts for the convicts. The
Republic of Slovenia has initiated an administrative dispute against the Advocate’s decision
before the Administrative Court of the Republic of Slovenia. (Decision No. 0700-67/2019/23
of 2 September 2020)

18

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

A young researcher was subject to indirect discrimination by the Ministry due to pregnancy
and parenthood
The Advocate received a complaint from one of the faculties to consider the discrimination of
their researcher with regard the conditions of the operation “Researchers at the beginning of
career 2.0”, which is carried out by the MESS. The researcher and project manager, who took
parental leave during the project, were not permitted by the MESS to extend the project for
the period of the justified absence. The Advocate assessed that the conditions of the public
call indicate unequal treatment of female researchers due to the personal ground of pregnancy or parenthood and also gender. Namely, only women become pregnant, and according
to publicly available data, in the majority of cases, mothers are the ones who take parental
leave. The consequent non-extension of the deadline for the implementation of the project
with regard to absence due to parental leave produces negative effects for the researchers.
The absence of the researcher leads to her inability to participate in the development of
science, which is otherwise possible within the project, and results in lower scientific performance of the researcher, lower points A’ and A” and weaker competitiveness compared to
other colleagues who are not absent from the project for such a long time due to parental
leave. All this leads to poorer performance in obtaining further projects. This has been a second decision of the Advocate on the same subject so far. Following both decisions, the MESS
undertook to provide a way to extend the project timescale in respect of the future financing
schemes taking into account the parental leave. In the case, it was not possible to identify
any competent inspectorate that could carry out minor offence proceedings. For this purpose, the Advocate turned to the Inspection Council at the MPA, which forwarded the matter
to the MLFSAEO, which further submitted it to the Labour Inspectorate of the Republic of
Slovenia. The Labour Inspectorate of the Republic of Slovenia declined jurisdiction, notifying
the MLFSAEO, which further informed the MPA that the competent inspectorate could not be
identified in the case. (Decision No. 0700-37/2019/11 of 19 February 2020)

The conduct of the ski resort, which offered a package of accommodation and a ski pass to
women for the International Women’s Day, was not discriminatory
An individual complained about the accommodation and ski pass package for the so-called
“Ladies Week” offered by the ski resort on Women’s Day. The offer was available only to
women. The applicant alleged discrimination based on gender, as men were allegedly in a
disadvantaged situation. The Advocate found that at the same time, there was another offer
under a different name that included the same range of services at the same price available
to men. Therefore, no discrimination was found in this case. (Decision No. 0700-10/2019/6
of 1 September 2020)

Personal grounds of discrimination – Gender

19

An unjustifiably lower amount of the sports fee on the grounds of gender constitutes discrimination
The Advocate found the price list of a tennis club on the club’s website, which sets out that
the sports fee for women is 30 eur lower than the sports fee for men. Due to the significant
difference in the price of the sports fee, the Advocate initiated ex officio discrimination
investigation procedure. Moreover, the Advocate also turned to the club for more information, however, no reply was received. As the tennis club failed to submit a legitimate goal to
support the differentiation of the value of the sports fee for men and women, the Advocate
found direct discrimination on the grounds of gender. The Advocate forwarded the decision
to the competent inspectorate (MIRS) for the initiation of minor offence proceedings against
the infringer. (Decision No. 0700-45/2020/4 of 26 October 2020)

1.1.3 Assessments of the discriminatory character of
			 regulations with regard to the personal ground of
			gender
According to the Advocate, regulations pertaining to fathers who pay child suport for their
children do not constitute discrimination in determining their creditworthiness by banks
in Slovenia
In Slovenia, after divorce or separation of parents, in 75% of cases child custody is granted
to the mothers. This means that in most of these cases, it is the fathers who are obliged
to pay child support. As a result, the fathers tend to be less creditworthy, while mothers
are not given such a rigorous assessment of their creditworthiness by the banks. The Advocate established in the proceedings that in assessing the creditworthiness of consumers, the
amount of child support is taken into account for both parents. With the implementation of
the Decision on restrictions on household lending, adopted by the Bank of Slovenia, a mechanism was established that prevents indirect discrimination against fathers in assessing their
creditworthiness. (050-10/2019)

1.1.4 The Advocate’s recommendations regarding the
			 personal ground of gender
Recommendation regarding the draft Act Amending the Local Elections Act
The Advocate recommended that measures be taken to encourage women’s participation in the candidacy, as well as the possibility of their actual eligibility in local elections.
(0070-5/2020/1)
Recommendation status: The legislative process is still ongoing.

20

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

Recommendation regarding the amendment to the Ordinance on the provisional prohibition on the offering and sale of goods and services to consumers in the Republic of Slovenia
– a proposal to extend the time when pregnant women can shop in stores
The Advocate recommended to the MEDT that by amending the Ordinance, the time interval for shopping in grocery stores intended (exclusively) for particular vulnerable groups be
extended. The Advocate was informed that pregnant women face a lot of problems caused
by the government ordinance, which allows certain vulnerable groups to shop in stores only
between 8 am and 10 am, as not everyone can take their turn in time. The Advocate therefore recommended that the MEDT should extend the time interval for shopping in grocery
stores intended (exclusively) for particular vulnerable groups by amending the ordinance.
(0701-2/2020/1)
Recommendation status: Partially taken into account.

1.1.5 Highlights of the public opinion survey on
			 discrimination from 2020 with regard to the
			 personal ground of gender
Compared to 2017, the number of people who perceive discrimination as unequal treatment
on the basis of gender increased by 16 percentage points (from 10 to 26 per cent). In addition to this, 12 per cent of the respondents perceive gender as the most common ground
of discrimination in Slovenia, which is three per cent more than in 2017. The share of the
population that sees women as the most frequent targets or victims of discrimination also
increased by 11 percentage points (from 8 % in 2017 to 19 % in 2020).
Among the various positions, the people of Slovenia display the greatest tolerance towards
gender equality; 90 per cent of respondents agree with the equal role of men and women
in society, while two per cent disagree. Compared to 2017, acceptance of gender equality
increased by 16 percentage points.
Among the 22 per cent who believe they were discriminated against in 2020, 12 per cent were
subject to discrimination based on the personal ground of gender. This means that in 2020,
two per cent of the population of Slovenia were subject to discrimination based on gender.
This is twice as much, compared to 2017.

Personal grounds of discrimination – Gender

21

1.1.6 The Advocate’s cooperation with civil society with
			 regard to the personal ground of gender
At the initiative of the Gender Equality Research Institute, the Advocate’s staff members
met with the institutes’ representatives on 20 January 2020. The purpose of the meeting
was to present the project of building the first platform, the database of Slovenian female
experts, which is being prepared in cooperation with the Belgian organisation The Brussels
Binder. The platform of a multidisciplinary network of female experts should contribute to
the empowerment of women and enable them to connect with all stakeholders needing their
knowledge.
On 29 September 2020, a representative of the Advocate took part in an in-depth interview
as part of a survey carried out by a non-profit private research institute RAND Europe in
cooperation with the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE). The research focuses on
the consequences of the coronavirus epidemic for women and children who are the victims of
domestic violence. The research aims to improve the understanding of the various measures
and initiatives introduced to support the victims of domestic violence as a consequence of
the coronavirus epidemic. The representative of the Advocate presented his observations
based on the monitoring of the general situation in this area (increasing problems, mental
health and anxiety, etc.), and put special emphasis on the observations on good practices,
such as targeted awareness raising by NGOs, especially the SOS telephone lines, and by the
Police, as well as breakthroughs in the field of informing particularly vulnerable groups, (e.g.
easy reading on the RTV Slovenia, interpretation of all government press conferences into
the Slovenian sign language).

1.1.7 The Advocate’s educational and awareness-raising
			 activities with regard to the personal ground of
			gender
In 2020, the Advocate carried out various activities of educating and raising awareness with
regard to the personal ground of gender through the distribution of the brochure Discrimination of pregnant women and parents at work and publications in the media and via social
networks.

22

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

1.2 Nationality
THE ADVOCATE HIGHLIGHTS
Article 61 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia
(expression of national affiliation)
Everyone has the right to freely express affiliation with his nation or national community, to foster and give
expression to his culture, and to use his language and script.

1.2.1 Advisory, informing and support activities related
			 to the personal ground of nationality
Denied purchase of land
The Advocate was approached by a client who claimed that the conduct of the municipal real
estate office was discriminatory, as the client was not allowed to buy the land due to their
nationality. The Advocate advised the client on how to launch the proceedings before the
Advocate. (0702-64/2019)

The amount of damages in judicial proceedings
The Advocate was approached by a client who is involved in proceedings against the employer before the Labour court. In one part, the proceedings referred to the allegation of harassment due to the personal grounds of the client (nationality and religion or belief), based
on which the client also sought compensation. The compensation was partially granted to
the client. However, the client considered that the compensation was too low. The Advocate advised the client on how to strengthen arguments concerning harassment as a form
of discrimination in the appellate judicial proceedings and how to claim higher damages.
(0702-7/2020)

Bank account closure
The Advocate was approached by a client regarding a case, with which they became acquainted and were asking on how to proceed in the event of closure of a bank account of a
foreign citizen. The reason for the bank account closure was allegedly the nationality and
citizenship of the client. The Advocate advised the client on how to launch the proceedings
for discrimination investigation before the Advocate. (0702-30/2020)

Personal grounds of discrimination – Nationality

23

Registration of residence of foreign workers
A client who was the administrator of a property turned to the Advocate because the Administrative unit did not permit them to register the residence of foreign workers employed in
the Republic of Slovenia at the address of the real estate, due to the so-called “blockage”. The
client claimed that discrimination on the grounds of citizenship and nationality took place.
The Advocate submitted an inquiry to the competent Administrative unit and received a
reply explaining the reasons for denying the registration of residence, which were forwarded
to the client together with an additional explanation. In the subject case, it turned out that
the topic was not related to the issue of discrimination on the grounds of nationality and
citizenship, as claimed by the client. (0702-77/2020)

Response to a call for tender rejected
The Advocate was approached by a client whose response to a call for tender for funds for
the implementation of projects was rejected. The client alleged that discrimination based
on anti-Semitism took place. After examining the case, the Advocate advised the client on
how to initiate the proceedings before the Advocate, and explained that it was necessary
to plausibly demonstrate that the reason for the action was anti-Semitism and that the
mere allegations and assumptions of the client do not suffice in the proceedings of taking
evidence. (0702-87/2020)

1.2.2 Discrimination investigation in relation to the
			 personal ground of nationality
Refusal to issue a decision in the Italian language in the bilingual area constitutes discriminatory conduct
The Advocate considered a complaint of an Italian citizen with permanent residence in the
Republic of Slovenia, to whom the administrative body operating in a bilingual area refused
to issue a decision in the Italian language. After examining the regulations and case law of
the Court of Justice of the EU, the Advocate found that by rejecting the client’s request to
use the Italian language or issue a decision in the Italian language in the personal income tax
assessment procedure, referring to the fact that the taxpayer is not a member of the Italian
national community, the authority interfered with his right to use the language of the national community, which is otherwise recognised as the official language of the authorities’
operations in this area, in a proceeding before a state authority in the bilingual area. By the
described conduct, the authority violated the principle of non-discrimination under the PADA.
Namely, by referring to the individual’s personal ground of citizenship (being an Italian citizen) and the related personal ground of not belonging to the Italian national community, the
tax authority operating in the bilingual area prevented the client from using the language of
the national community (Italian), whereby, according to the Advocate, the authority fulfilled
all the constituent conditions of direct discrimination under paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the
PADA. (Decision No. 0700-39/2019/15 of 12 October 2020)

24

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

The financing of Radio Romic does not violate the prohibition of discrimination
Representatives of one of the Roma associations filed a complaint with the Advocate regarding the financing of the Roma radio station Romic, owned by the Council of Roma Community of the Republic of Slovenia. Namely, the association has to apply for the financing
of their internet radio by means of tenders by the Ministry of Culture while Radio Romic is
financed by the Council of Roma Community of the Republic of Slovenia in the framework of
its annual financing. After the procedure, the Advocate established that the complainant’s
internet radio was not in a comparable situation to the radio Romic. The latter has existed
and developed since 2003, and the State has recognised its importance as a central Roma
media production. Therefore, according to the Advocate, the special financing of the Radio
Romic does not constitute discrimination. (Decision No. 0700-27/2019/20 of 19 May 2020)

1.2.3 Assessments of the discriminatory character of
			 regulations with regard to the personal ground of
			nationality
In 2020, the Advocate did not conduct assessments of the discriminatory character of regulations with regard to the personal ground of nationality.

1.2.4 The Advocate’s recommendations regarding the
			 personal ground of nationality
Recommendation regarding effective protection against discrimination in the area of taxi
transport as a publicly available service of the Municipality of Ljubljana
The Advocate carried out a discrimination investigation procedure due to denying access to
taxi transport to a group of persons by taxi drivers. The Advocate established in the decision
that the drivers had violated the prohibition of direct discrimination on the grounds of race
or ethnic origin. In order to improve the taxi services in Ljubljana, the Advocate made a recommendation to the Municipality of Ljubljana to require from the taxi companies which are
granted a transport license to follow the principles of equal treatment. (0700-78/2019/22)
Recommendation status: So far not taken into account.

Personal grounds of discrimination – Nationality

25

Recommendation on accessibility of taxi transport for migrants
The Advocate carried out a discrimination investigation procedure due to denying access to
taxi transport to a group of persons by taxi drivers. The Advocate established in the decision
that the drivers had violated the prohibition of direct discrimination on the grounds of race
or ethnic origin. It was recommended to the taxi service that an internal act on equal treatment of clients regardless of their personal ground be adopted and a declaration on compliance with the principles of equal treatment be submitted for signature to each contractor at
the beginning of the cooperation. At least once a year, a non-discrimination training should
be organised for all employees, in addition to this, Police procedures involving public transport providers in relation to the personal grounds of their clients should be regularly monitored. (0700-78/2019/20)
Recommendation status: So far not taken into account.

Recommendation on the ensuring of inclusive education in the case of reoccurring school
closures
The Advocate recommended that, in the case of reoccurring school closures, the MESS should
provide for an inclusive education for all children, especially with regard to their access to
information and communication technologies. It was pointed out that despite the involvement of all relevant services, there was a difference in the acquisition of knowledge between
different groups of students, especially those from the so-called vulnerable groups (e.g. children with a migrant background, children from economically vulnerable backgrounds, Roma
children, children with special needs), which had a negative impact on their learning performance and, consequently, on the exercise of their right to education.
The Advocate assessed that when distance learning using computer technology was introduced during the first wave of the epidemic, not all students were granted the same opportunities. Moreover, the recommendation that pupils and students entitled to a subsidy for
lunch be provided with the payment of funds in the amount of the approved food subsidy
during the closure of educational institutions, was once again underlined by the Advocate.
(0709-60/2020/1)
Recommendation status: Partially taken into account. The MESS devoted some attention to
certain parts of the recommendation, e.g. the psychological and psychosocial consequences
of distance learning, and at the end of December 2020, an Ordinance on the reopening of primary schools with a specially adapted program and institutions for the education of children
and adolescents with special needs was issued.

Recommendation on compliance with the provisions of professional codes of conduct for
journalists
At the occurrence of journalistic contributions stereotyping members of the Roma community with regard to issues related to crime and delinquency, the Advocate made a recommendation to the Slovene Association of Journalists, Association of Journalists and the Slovenske
novice newspaper that journalists should follow the provisions of the professional codes of
conduct for journalist in avoiding stereotypes. (0709-59/2020)
Recommendation status: Partially taken into account. The Advocate did not receive any response to the recommendation from the media nor from any of the associations of journalists.

26

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

Recommendations and comments regarding the new draft Act Amending the Mass
Media Act
As part of the public consultation, the Advocate made a recommendation to the MC as the
drafter of the draft Act Amending the Mass Media Act (MMA), focusing on the proposed
arrangement of the inequality and intolerance prohibition, the accessibility of media and
programme content to people with disabilities, and the conditions for obtaining the status
of media of particular importance. The Advocate recommended that the drafter take into
account the recommendations in the relevant field made by the Advocate to the first draft
proposal of the Act Amending the MMA, including the proposal to classify the violation of the
obligation of the media publisher to remove public comments encouraging intolerance (the
so-called notice and take down obligation) as a minor offence. (0701-1/2019/7)
Recommendation status: The legislative process is still ongoing.

1.2.5 Highlights of the public opinion survey on
			 discrimination from 2020 with regard to the
			 personal ground of nationality
In total, 13 per cent of people perceive discrimination as unequal treatment on the grounds
of nationality. At the same time, the largest part of respondents believes that nationality,
race and ethnic origin are the most common reasons for discrimination in Slovenia (45 per
cent).
Regarding race or nationality, the respondents show a high level of equality and positive
agreement – over half of them (55 per cent) would easily rent their real estate property
to people of other race or nationality, however, 24 per cent of the population would not do
so. Among the respondents, 68 per cent would not mind if Slovenia were represented by a
politician of a different skin color, which is difficult to imagine for just below a fifth of the
population (18 per cent). About 80 per cent of respondents would support their child’s marriage to a person of other nationality (83 per cent) and race or skin colour (79 per cent); the
data show greater tolerance in this area compared to 2017, as both shares increased by seven
percentage points.
At the same time, in 2020, of the 22 per cent of respondents who believe that they were
subject to discrimination, only eight per cent (or about two per cent of all respondents) were
discriminated against based on their nationality, race or ethnic origin.

1.2.6 The Advocate’s cooperation with civil society with
			 regard to the personal ground of nationality
Due to the declared epidemic associated with the COVID-19 disease, the Advocate’s cooperation with civil society organisations was mostly carried out in written form. This way, the Advocate obtained information on discrimination as perceived by the individual organisations
in their particular fields of work.

Personal grounds of discrimination – Nationality

27

1.2.7 The Advocate’s educational and awareness-raising
			 activities with regard to the personal ground of
			nationality
The Advocate attended a working meeting with representatives of the Social Chamber of
Slovenia
On 5 February 2020, the representatives of the Advocate were invited by the Section of
organisations in the field of integration of migrants, which operates within the framework
of the Social Chamber of Slovenia, to introduce the powers and activities of the Advocate
and the procedure for discrimination investigation. The purpose of the meeting was to promote the cooperation of the members of the Section with the Advocate. The Section brings
together representatives of various organisations in the field of social protection which are
active in the field of integration of migrants. After the presentation, the representatives of
the Advocate sent the Social Chamber of Slovenia key information on where people who feel
they have been discriminated against can turn for help.

The Advocate at the expert consultation on the occasion of World Refugee Day
On 18 June 2020, a representative of the Advocate participated in a consultation on the
occasion of World Refugee Day, organised by the Association Odnos. It was a discussion with
various national and local stakeholders about good practices and challenges in the field of
social inclusion and integration of refugees and people with refugee experience in Slovenia. A representative of the Advocate presented cases of suspected discrimination against
foreigners with refugee experience and migrants. He also presented other ways of tackling
discrimination at the social level and some specific proactive initiatives of the Advocate, such
as information intended for awareness-raising on the exercise of the right of foreigners to
open a basic bank account.

28

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

THE ADVOCATE HIGHLIGHTS
Article 64 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia
(special rights of the autochthonous Italian and Hungarian national communities in Slovenia)
The autochthonous Italian and Hungarian national communities and their members shall be guaranteed the
right to use their national symbols freely and, in order to preserve their national identity, the right to establish organisations and develop economic, cultural, scientific, and research activities, as well as activities in
the field of public media and publishing. In accordance with laws, these two national communities and their
members have the right to education and schooling in their own languages, as well as the right to establish
and develop such education and schooling. The geographic areas in which bilingual schools are compulsory
shall be established by law. These national communities and their members shall be guaranteed the right to
foster relations with their nations of origin and their respective countries. The state shall provide material
and moral support for the exercise of these rights.
In order to exercise their rights, the members of these communities shall establish their own self-governing
communities in the geographic areas where they live. On the proposal of these self-governing national communities, the state may authorise them to perform certain functions under national jurisdiction, and shall
provide funds for the performing of such functions.
The two national communities shall be directly represented in representative bodies of local self-government
and in the National Assembly.
The position of the Italian and Hungarian national communities and the manner in which their rights are
exercised in the geographic areas where they live, the obligations of the self-governing local communities for
the exercise of these rights, and those rights which the members of these national communities exercise also
outside these areas, shall all be regulated by law. The rights of both national communities and their members
shall be guaranteed irrespective of the number of members of these communities.
Laws, regulations, and other general acts that concern the exercise of the constitutionally provided rights and
the position of the national communities exclusively, may not be adopted without the consent of representatives of these national communities.

Personal grounds of discrimination – Nationality

29

1.3 Race or ethnic origin
THE ADVOCATE HIGHLIGHTS
Article 65 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia
(Status and special rights of the Roma community in Slovenia)
The status and special rights of the Roma community living in Slovenia shall be regulated by law.

1.3.1 Advisory, informing and support activities related
			 to the personal ground of race of ethnic origin
Harassment in front of the school in the afternoon
The Advocate was approached by a client regarding a racial harassment of her child in front
of the school in the afternoon. Although she informed the school, the school did not respond.
The Advocate informed the client in which cases discrimination could be referred to if the relevant proceedings were conducted. The question of responsibility was raised, as the alleged
perpetrators were minors under the age of 15, and of the responsibility of the school, given
that the event took place outside of class time. The Advocate informed the client about the
possibility of submitting a complaint and about the manner in which the proceeding is being
conducted. (0705-30/2020)

Workplace harassment
The Advocate was approached by an individual married to a foreign citizen of Asian origin. He
stated that she was the victim or racist remarks at workplace. The client informed the management, which announced awareness raising among employees about the inadmissibility of
racism. But instead, the employer announced, that this is a personal matter and awareness
raising will not be carried out. The individual approached the Advocate with the question of
what can be done. The Advocate informed the client of the possibilities for action and called
on the client to submit a complaint. The client did not choose to submit the complaint.
(0702-51/2020)

30

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

Surname as a reason for non-inclusion in public works
The Advocate was approached by a client who, as an unemployed person, has been waiting for
several years for the opportunity to participate in public works. The client believes that this was
not made possible due to her age and ethnicity, specifically the surname ending in -ić. The Advocate advised the client and explained that action can be taken only in specific cases of discrimination, where it can be established that the reason for unequal treatment is the personal ground
of the person concerned. Furthermore, the client was provided with instructions on how to file
a complaint, based on which, in specific cases of discrimination, the Advocate can take action.
(0702-29/2020)

Assistance in obtaining municipal subsidy
The Advocate was approached by a client, a resident of a Roma settlement, who asked for help
in obtaining a municipal subsidy for the construction of a bathroom and a connection to the
electricity network. With the aim of providing advisory assistance, the Advocate sent an enquiry
to the competent municipality and obtained information on the facts of the case and accordingly advised the client on further steps to improve their living conditions. (0702-53/2019)

Inappropriate post on social networks by a civil servant
The Advocate was approached by a client regarding an inappropriate post on online social
networks by an employee of the Ministry of the Interior. The post referred to refugees. The
client wanted to lodge a complaint based on the subject post. The Advocate explained the
competencies of the equality body under Article 8 of the PADA in relation to cases of harassment and under Article 10 of the PADA in relation to cases of incitement to discrimination
or public justification of neglect. The Advocate further explained that the post, although
inappropriate, did not contain elements of discrimination. (7002-52/2020)

1.3.2 Discrimination investigation in relation to the
			 personal ground of race or ethnic origin
Preventing marriage on the basis of nationality (third country) constitutes discriminatory
conduct
The Advocate received a complaint regarding the conduct of the Ministry of the Interior, one
of the Administrative units and the Police due to the Internal instruction no. 211-90/2008/2
(1321-03), by which the MI ordered Administrative units to be especially cautious when Slovenian citizens announced their marriage to citizens of some African countries. As a result
of the instruction, the complainant was unable to enter into marriage with a foreign citizen
in the Republic of Slovenia, as the Administrative unit confiscated her documents on the
basis of the announced marriage. The Advocate found that the Internal instruction was
discriminatory on the grounds of race or ethnicity. Based on the Advocate’s observation, the
Ministry of the Interior revoked the internal instruction. (Decision No. 0700-82/2019/22 of
4 November 2020)

Personal grounds of discrimination – Race or ethnic origin

31

At the Shooters club, the Advocate found no racial discrimination
The Advocate considered an alleged discriminatory treatment of a coloured French guest of
the Shooters club, who was forced to leave the club based on the instructions of the club
manager. As part of the official proceeding, the Advocate questioned the manager, two club
employees and a security guard. Despite repeated calls by the Advocate, other witnesses to
the event refused to participate in the discrimination proceeding, nor did the French student
provide additional explanations concerning the treatment he was subject to. Based on the
testimonies, the Advocate concluded that the conduct of the club manager did not fulfil the
elements necessary to find discrimination. Witnesses unanimously testified that the conduct
of the club manager was not based on the skin color of the French student. (Decision No.
0700-19/2019/55 of 12 October 2020)

The refusal to serve guests was not based on their nationality, therefore discrimination did
not take place.
The Advocate learned from the media about the alleged discrimination due to ethnic origin, when the employees of the restaurant in Velenje refused to serve the Albanian ethnic
group. The Advocate initiated ex officio discrimination investigation procedure. After the
investigation, it was established that the owner of the bar had ordered the employees not
to serve particular customers. The reason for this was their inappropriate behaviour and not
the ethnic origin of these individuals. The employees of the bar had a bad experience with
them as allegedly they often harassed the female members of the staff, caused problems
with parking in front of the bar, and in spite of the warnings, the men used the women’s rest
room and demanded service in the Albanian language. The Advocate closed the proceedings
by establishing that the owner of the bar had not violated the prohibition of discrimination
on the grounds of ethnic origin. (Decision No. 0700-30/2020/37 of 31 August 2020)

Refusal to provide taxi services due to the race or nationality of the client constitutes a
discriminatory conduct
Based on a third-party complaint, the Advocate considered a case of alleged discrimination in
the provision of passenger transport services. A group of persons attending a funeral in Žale
in Ljubljana needed transport to the town center. They called a taxi service and agreed that
two vehicles would come to pick them up. The taxis arrived at the agreed location separately.
First the transport of persons was refused by the first taxi driver, then by the second taxi
driver. During the proceedings, the Advocate found that the taxi drivers refused to provide
the services to the clients solely because of their race or nationality. Therefore, the Advocate
found the existence of direct discrimination which is prohibited. The Advocate forwarded
the decision to the competent inspectorate for the initiation of minor offence proceedings
against the infringer. (Decisions no. 0700-78/2019/16 and 0700-78/2019/16 of 5 October
2020)

32

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

The bank did not refuse to provide banking services to the client due to her place of birth,
the Advocate did not find any discriminatory conduct
The complainant lodged a complaint against the bank, which allegedly refused to provide
banking services to her and her partner because of their place of birth. It was a time of the
coronavirus pandemic, during which some countries (including the country of birth of one of
the clients) were particularly at risk. During the evidentiary proceedings, the Advocate found
that the allegations of discrimination by the bank were not confirmed. The bank performed
most of the services for the client, except for opening one bank account, as agreement was
not reached with the clients regarding the selection of a suitable package. A few days later,
however, this account was also opened. As a result, the Advocate did not find any discriminatory conduct. (Decision No. 0700-21/2020/13 of 23 September 2020)

The Bank did not violate the prohibition of discrimination in opening a basic bank account
for an asylum seeker
The asylum seeker sought to open a basic bank account with the bank. He was employed and
his employer could not pay him without a bank account. The bank allegedly refused to open
the account as asylum seekers remain in Slovenia only temporarily and usually there are no
inflows into these accounts and costs incur to the bank for maintaining such accounts. The
complainant lodged a complaint against the conduct of the bank. He alleged that discrimination on the grounds of race, nationality, citizenship, and asylum seeker status occurred.
Based on the evidence collected, the Advocate established in the proceedings that there was
a clear misunderstanding when opening the account. Namely, the bank opened the bank
account for him even before the event described by the applicant took place. However, the
bank did not send him a bank card, as the client signed that he would pick it up at the office
of the bank. He did not do so, but re-applied to open an account at another branch office,
encountering the explanation described. He was then referred to the original branch office,
where he was handed over the bank card. Notwithstanding the obvious misunderstanding in
the communication, the Advocate found that the bank did not interfere with the complainant’s right to a basic bank account, so the Advocate did not find discrimination. (Decision No.
0700-52/2019/12 of 9 March 2020)

Discrimination at the workplace on the grounds of nationality was not found
The Advocate of the Principle of Equality was approached by a person who claimed that she
was subject to discrimination and harassment at the workplace by her colleagues and superiors due to her ethnic origin. The Advocate conducted interviews with the complainant’s
colleagues. Their statements did not confirm the allegations made by the complainant in
the complaint. He also did not prove or substantiate the allegations in any way which would
confirm the existence of discrimination. The Advocate found that the complainant did not
prove a causal link between the personal ground and the treatment he was allegedly subject
to as a worker. On the basis of all the facts obtained, the complaint was rejected. (Decision
No. 0700-4/2020/7 of 27 July 2020)

Personal grounds of discrimination – Race or ethnic origin

33

1.3.3 Assessments of the discriminatory character of
			 regulations with regard to the personal grounds of
			 race or ethnic origin
In 2020, the Advocate did not conduct assessments of the discriminatory character of regulations with regard to the personal grounds of race or ethnic origin

1.3.4 The Advocate’s recommendations regarding the
			 personal grounds of race or ethnic origin
Recommendation on the ensuring of inclusive education in the case of reoccurring school
closures
The Advocate recommended that, in the case of reoccurring school closures, the MESS should
provide for an inclusive education for all children, especially with regard to their access to
information and communication technologies. It was pointed out that despite the involvement of all relevant services, there was a difference in the acquisition of knowledge between
different groups of students, especially those from the so-called vulnerable groups (e.g. children with a migrant background, children from economically vulnerable backgrounds, Roma
children, children with special needs), which had a negative impact on their learning performance and, consequently, on the exercise of their right to education. The Advocate assessed
that when distance learning using computer technology was introduced during the first wave
of the epidemic, not all students were granted the same opportunities. Moreover, the recommendation that pupils and students entitled to a subsidy for lunch be provided with the payment of funds in the amount of the approved food subsidy during the closure of educational
institutions, was once again underlined by the Advocate. (0709-60/2020/1)
Recommendation status: Partially taken into account. The MESS devoted some attention to
certain parts of the recommendation, e.g. the psychological and psychosocial consequences
of distance learning, and at the end of December 2020, an Ordinance on the reopening of primary schools with a specially adapted program and institutions for the education of children
and adolescents with special needs was issued.

Recommendation on compliance with the provisions of professional codes of conduct for
journalists
At the occurrence of journalistic contributions stereotyping members of the Roma community with regard to issues related to crime and delinquency, the Advocate made a recommendation to the Slovene Association of Journalists, Association of Journalists and the Slovenske
novice newspaper that journalists should follow the provisions of the professional codes of
conduct for journalist in avoiding stereotypes. (0709-59/2020)
Recommendation status: Partially taken into account. The Advocate did not receive any response to the recommendation from the media nor from any of the associations of journalists.

34

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

Recommendations and comments regarding the new draft Act Amending the Mass Media Act
As part of the public consultation, the Advocate made a recommendation to the MC as the
drafter of the draft Act Amending the Mass Media Act (MMA), focusing on the proposed
arrangement of the inequality and intolerance prohibition, the accessibility of media and
programme content to people with disabilities, and the conditions for obtaining the status
of media of particular importance. The Advocate recommended that the drafter take into
account the recommendations in the relevant field made by the Advocate to the first draft
proposal of the Act Amending the MMA, including the proposal to classify the violation of the
obligation of the media publisher to remove public comments encouraging intolerance (the
so-called notice and take down obligation) as a minor offence. (0701-1/2019/7)
Recommendation status: The legislative process is still ongoing.

1.3.5 Highlights of the public opinion survey on
			 discrimination from 2020 with regard to the
			 personal ground of race or ethnic origin
The largest part of respondents believes that nationality, race, and ethnic origin are the most
common reasons for discrimination in Slovenia (45 per cent). The most common targets of
discrimination in Slovenia are, according to the respondents (24 per cent), the members of
the Roma community. With regard to the relationship of the respondents towards the mentioned group, the respondents show divided opinions, which is clear from the following data:
70 percent of people would not mind if their friend was a member of the Roma community
(while 16 per cent of people would be bothered by this fact). In the case of owning a company,
57 per cent of people would also be willing to employ a Roma person without hesitation (16
per cent, however, would not be willing to employ them). On the other hand, 42 per cent of
people think that the majority of Roma do not wish to work, while only a quarter of respondents (25 per cent) disagrees; 44 percent of respondents think that the employment of the
Roma in service activities would certainly discourage many customers, while 23 per cent of
people are convinced of the opposite.
The most accepting attitude towards the Roma is shown by the inhabitants of the Pomurska, Podravska, Primorsko-Notranjska and Obalno-Kraška regions; the lowest tolerance was
detected in the regions of Spodnjeposavska and South-Eastern Slovenija.

1.3.6 The Advocate’s cooperation with civil society with
			 regard to the personal ground of race or ethnic
			origin
Due to the declared epidemic associated with the COVID-19 disease, the Advocate’s cooperation with civil society organisations was mostly carried out in written form. This way, the Advocate obtained information on discrimination as perceived by the individual organisations
in their particular fields of work.

Personal grounds of discrimination – Race or ethnic origin

35

1.3.7 The Advocate’s educational and awareness-raising
			 activities with regard to the personal ground of race
			and ethnic origin
The Advocate attended a working meeting with representatives of the Social Chamber of
Slovenia
On 5 February 2020, the representatives of the Advocate were invited by the Section of
organisations in the field of integration of migrants, which operates within the framework
of the Social Chamber of Slovenia, to introduce the powers and activities of the Advocate
and the procedure for discrimination investigation. The purpose of the meeting was to promote the cooperation of the members of the Section with the Advocate. The Section brings
together representatives of various organisations in the field of social protection which are
active in the field of integration of migrants. After the presentation, the representatives of
the Advocate sent the Social Chamber of Slovenia key information on where people who feel
they have been discriminated against can turn for help.

The Advocate at the expert consultation on the occasion of World Refugee Day
On 18 June 2020, a representative of the Advocate participated in a consultation on the
occasion of World Refugee Day, organised by the Association Odnos. It was a discussion with
various national and local stakeholders about good practices and challenges in the field of
social inclusion and integration of refugees and people with refugee experience in Slovenia.
A representative of the Advocate presented cases of suspected discrimination against foreigners with refugee experience and migrants. He also presented other ways of tackling discrimination at the social level and some specific proactive initiatives of the Advocate, such as
collecting information on the exercise of the right of foreigners to open a basic bank account.

Workshop on the protection against discrimination in the Multipurpose Roma Center Drom
in Kerinov Grm near Krško
On 30 July 2020, the representatives of the Advocate held a workshop on the protection
against discrimination at the invitation of the Multipurpose Roma Center Drom in the settlement of Kerinov Grm near Krško. They presented to the participants what discrimination
is and when individuals who are victims or witnesses of discrimination, or have questions
related to it, can turn to the Advocate. The workshop was attended by girls and young women who said that they or their acquaintances were denied entry to a store just because they
were Roma. Some pointed out that they were harassed by classmates because of their ethnic
origin.

36

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

In the Roma settlement of Kerinov Grm, the Advocate presented the options available in the case of various discriminatory practices.

Personal grounds of discrimination – Race or ethnic origin

37

1.4 Language
1.4.1 Advisory, informing and support activities related
			 to the personal ground of language
Rejected application for a job position
The candidate’s application for a job position was rejected due the submission of a CV in English instead of Slovenian. The candidate alleged discrimination on the grounds of language.
The Advocate explained to the client that the case might involve possible direct discrimination on the grounds of language. However, it could also fall within the exceptions from the
prohibition of discrimination under Article 13 of the PADA, which allows, among other things,
employers to set such conditions that represent a genuine and determining professional
requirement for performing work, which can also be the knowledge of a language. Such a
condition should also observe the proportionality test. The Advocate invited the candidate to
lodge a complaint. (0702-39/2020)

Communication at the Administrative unit
The Advocate was approached by a client who, as a foreigner, is arranging a residence permit
in Slovenia at the competent Administrative unit. They stated that the employees refuse to
communicate with the clients in English, which makes it difficult for them to communicate
with the Administrative unit, moreover, they are allegedly also being disrespectful in their
way of communication. The client asked for advice. The Advocate explained to the client the
arrangement in the field of language, namely that the official language of the state (administrative) authorities in the Republic of Slovenia is Slovene (except in the bilingual areas,
where Italian and Hungarian also have the role of official languages). Regarding the disrespectful way of communication by the employees of the Administrative unit, the Advocate
informed the client of the possible appeal procedures. (0702-88/2020)

38

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

1.4.2 Discrimination investigation in relation to the
			 personal ground of language
Refusal to issue a decision in the Italian language in the bilingual area constitutes a discriminatory conduct.
The Advocate considered a complaint of an Italian citizen with permanent residence in the
Republic of Slovenia, to whom the administrative body operating in a bilingual area refused
to issue a decision in the Italian language. After examining the regulations and case law of
the Court of Justice of the EU, the Advocate found that by rejecting the client’s request to
use the Italian language or issue a decision in the Italian language in the personal income tax
assessment procedure, referring to the fact that the taxpayer is not a member of the Italian
national community, the authority interfered with his right to use the language of the national community, which is otherwise recognised as the official language of the authorities’
operations in this area, in a proceeding before a state authority in the bilingual area. By the
described conduct, the authority violated the principle of non-discrimination under the PADA.
Namely, by referring to the individual’s personal ground of citizenship (being an Italian citizen) and the related personal ground of not belonging to the Italian national community, the
tax authority operating in the bilingual area prevented the client from using the language of
the national community (Italian), whereby, according to the Advocate, the authority fulfilled
all the constituent conditions of direct discrimination under paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the
PADA. (Decision No. 0700-39/2019/15 of 12 October 2020)

1.4.3 Assessments of the discriminatory character of
			 regulations with regard to the personal ground of
			language
In 2020, the Advocate did not conduct assessments of the discriminatory character of regulations with regard to the personal ground of language.

1.4.4 The Advocate’s recommendations regarding the
			 personal ground of language
Recommendation regarding the draft Act Amending the State Prosecution Service Act
In the context of professional coordination regarding the Act, the Advocate recommended
to the MoJ, that the use of minority languages as official languages in proceedings before all
authorities be consistently regulated. It was also highlighted in the recommendation, that
two solutions from the draft, which enable interventions in the employment status of state
prosecutors, are questionable in the light of the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds
of disability and age. (0701-11/2020/1)
Recommendation status: The legislative process is still ongoing.

Personal grounds of discrimination – Language

39

1.4.5 Highlights of the public opinion survey on
			 discrimination from 2020 with regard to the
			 personal ground of language
In 2020, 10 per cent of the respondents considered language or knowledge of a language as
the most common reason for discrimination in Slovenia, which is 5 percentage points less
compared to 2017 (when the share was 15 per cent).
The attitude of the population towards the knowledge of a language is between neutral and
favourable reception of equality. Namely, 92 per cent of the population would not have a
problem with their co-worker being a foreigner if they spoke Slovene well (only three per cent
of the participants would have problems with this situation); whereby 44 per cent of people
are bothered by the fact that various organisations employ people who do not know the Slovene language well (which does not bother 31 per cent of the respondents).

1.4.6 The Advocate’s cooperation with civil society with
			 regard to the personal ground of language
In 2020, the Advocate met with Felicej Žiža and Ferenc Horváth, who are the Deputies representing the Italian and Hungarian national communities. At their initiative, the Advocate prepared a bilingual Slovene/Italian and Slovene/Hungarian version of the complaint
against discrimination form and a Summary of the Annual Report for 2019 in both minority
languages.
The bilingual materials were also sent to the self-governing communities, minority organisations, municipalities and state authorities in the bilingual area and the Ambassadors of
Italy and Hungary in Slovenia. Through to the media, members of both minorities were also
informed.

1.4.7 The Advocate’s educational and awareness-raising
			 activities with regard to the personal ground of
			language
In 2020, the Advocate also provided part of the basic information on the equality body in
the Italian and Hungarian language, the official languages in areas home to Italian and Hungarian national communities. 70 copies of the bilingual Slovene/Hungarian Summary of the
Annual Report and 79 copies of the bilingual Slovene/Italian Summary of the Annual Report
were sent to different recipients. In total, 625 bilingual Slovene/Italian forms and 560 bilingual Slovene/Hungarian forms were distributed.
The Advocate sent out 1,000 bilingual Slovene/English versions of the complaint against
discrimination form.

40

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

1.5 Religion or belief
THE ADVOCATE HIGHLIGHTS
Article 41 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia
(freedom of conscience)
Religious and other beliefs may be freely professed in private and public life.
No one shall be obliged to declare his religious or other beliefs.
Parents have the right to provide their children with a religious and moral upbringing in accordance with their
beliefs.
The religious and moral guidance given to children must be appropriate to their age and maturity, and be
consistent with their free conscience and religious and other beliefs or convictions.

1.5.1 Advisory, informing and support activities related
			 to the personal grounds of religion or belief
The amount of damages in judicial proceedings
The Advocate was approached by a client who is involved in proceedings against the employer before the Labour court. In one part, the proceedings referred to the allegation of harassment due to the personal grounds of the client (nationality and religion or belief), based
on which the client also sought compensation. The compensation was partially granted to
the client. However, the client considered that the compensation was too low. The Advocate advised the client on how to strengthen arguments concerning harassment as a form
of discrimination in the appellate judicial proceedings and how to claim higher damages.
(0702-7/2020)

A post on social networks by a civil servant
The Advocate was approached by a client regarding a post on a social network by a civil servant which, according to the client, contained an inappropriate greeting for the Christmas
holidays. The Advocate informed the client about the obligatory elements of a complaint
under the PADA (an indication of the personal ground, rights with which the post supposedly interfered and the type of discrimination that the post gave rise to). The client did not
choose to submit the complaint. (0702-3/2020)

Personal grounds of discrimination – Religion or belief

41

1.5.2 Discrimination investigation in relation to the
			 personal ground of religion of belief
Parents reached an agreement with the kindergarten regarding a reasonable accommodation of the diet for children based on religion
The Advocate received a complaint lodged by a mother of a child in kindergarten. There,
children were often served meals containing pork. However, the whole family and thus the
child avoids pork on the grounds of religion (a particular branch of the Christian religion).
The representatives of the kindergarten explained that meals can be adjusted only based on
a medical certificate of a certain diet, in line with the recommendations of the medical profession. But the prohibition to eat pork was not based on the child’s health condition, but on
the religious beliefs of the child and the family. During the proceedings, the client stated that
the kindergarten eventually took into account the efforts to resolve the situation and the
Advocate’s clarification. At the end, the mother and the kindergarten reached an agreement
regarding a suitable adjustment of the child’s diet, thus preventing indirect discrimination
based on the religion of the family. And because a settlement was reached in the case, the
client withdrew the complaint, and the Advocate issued a decision on the suspension of the
proceeding. (Decision No. 0700-32/2019/28 of 24 January 2020)

Rejecting a request of a religious community to perform a blessing of a primary school does
not constitute discrimination
A smaller religious community wanted to perform a blessing of a primary school. To this end,
they addressed a letter to the school. However, they received no response. They lodged a
complaint to the Advocate making an allegation of discrimination on the grounds of religion.
However, the Advocate did not find any discriminatory conduct. The constitutionally guaranteed right to religious freedom does not include the right to perform blessings of public facilities. The unresponsiveness of the addressee does not interfere with the freedom of religious
expression. (Decision No. 0700-76/2019/3 of 20 January 2020)

Rejecting a request of a religious community to perform a blessing of a public facility does
not constitute discrimination
A smaller religious community wanted to perform a blessing of a new sports hall at its opening. To this end, they addressed a letter to the public institution, the owner of the facility. However, they received no response. They lodged a complaint to the Advocate making
an allegation of discrimination on the grounds of religion. However, the Advocate did not
find any discriminatory conduct. The constitutionally guaranteed right to religious freedom
does not include the right to perform blessings of public facilities. The unresponsiveness
of the addressee does not interfere with the freedom of religious expression. (Decision no.
0700-75/2019/5 of 20 January 2020)

42

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

The allocation of different seats to representatives of religious communities at national
celebrations does not constitute discrimination
A smaller religious community lodged a complaint making an allegation of discrimination
on the grounds of religion, which allegedly resulted from the fact that their representatives
were not granted a seat of the same type as the largest religious communities when invited
to state celebrations. However, the Advocate did not find any discriminatory conduct. The
manner in which, in line with the protocol, seats for those invited to state celebrations,
including religious communities, are arranged, does not interfere with any of their constitutionally or legally guaranteed rights, including the right to religious freedom. (Decision No.
0700-73/2019/5 of 19 May 2020)

The complainant failed to prove that the reason for the blockage of his Twitter account
was his religion or belief
Members of a parliamentary party blocked the Twitter account of a particular smaller religious community. The religious community complained about the conduct, which according
to their opinion constituted discrimination on the grounds of religion, as the blockage allegedly prevented the spread of the religion among the people following the Twitter users
who blocked it. The Advocate did not find discrimination due to the lack of evidence, that
the blockage was made due to religion. At the same time, the blockage did not violate the
religious freedom nor the rights of the religious community to express their religious beliefs.
(Decision No. 0700-69/2019/7 of 19 May 2020)

The manner in which a petition was handled before the Commission of the National Assembly on Petitions does not constitute discrimination
The complainant alleged that the manner in which the Committee on Petitions handled his
petition in the National Assembly was discriminatory. His petition was not properly considered, and he regarded as problematic also the fact that his petition was not considered in a
public session like some others. He alleged discrimination on the grounds of political conviction. The Advocate established in the proceedings that the allegations stating that the Committee on Petitions did not properly consider the petition were not confirmed. It was also
noted that numerous petitions were not considered in public sessions, so discrimination on
the grounds of political belief could not be confirmed. However, the Advocate found that the
right to petition was insufficiently regulated and that the procedure for handling petitions
was not properly defined. (Decision No. 0700-79/2019/13 of 27 July 2020)

Personal grounds of discrimination – Religion or belief

43

The instructions to remove an advertisement from the bus constitutes discrimination on
the grounds of religion or belief
The Advocate received a complaint lodged by a complainant who concluded a contract with
a particular advertising agency. In the contract, the parties agreed on the production of an
advertisement, which was to be placed on a vehicle of a public transport provider for a fixed
period of two months. The advertisement was placed on the vehicle, but it was removed
prematurely, only after nine days. The Advocate assessed whether the premature removal
of the advertisement from the public transport vehicle constituted discrimination against
the complainant due to the personal grounds of religion or belief. As the proceeding against
one of the potential violators was stopped due to a settlement, the Advocate focused on
the conduct of the public transport provider in the continuation of the proceedings. In the
course of the proceedings, it was established that the said advertisement was indeed removed prematurely from the public transport vehicle. This happened at the request by the
public transport provider, addressed to the advertising agency, which carried out the removal
of the advertisement. With the advertisement, the complainant advertised his advisory and
support services in case of pregnancy. In public, the advertisement provoked negative reactions due to the fact that the complainant in general opposes abortion. The public transport
provider considered the negative responses as incitement to intolerance, which, pursuant to
the advertising conditions, enabled the withdrawal of the advertisement. The provider consequently argued that the reason for the removal of the advertisement was in the alleged
incitement to intolerance in the public and not in the content of the advertisement or the
complainant’s religion or belief. But this argument did not convince the Advocate. And it was
established that the effect of the removal was such as to offend the complainant, who, in
general, represents views related to the personal grounds of religion or belief. The Advocate
found that the request by the public transport provider to the advertising agency constituted an instruction to discriminate, which contradicts the provisions of Article 9 of the PADA.
The violator appealed against decision to the Administrative Court, where the proceedings
are still pending. (Decision No. 0700-2/2019/33 of 4 July 2019)

1.5.3 Assessments of the discriminatory character of
			 regulations with regard to the personal ground of
			religion or belief
In 2020, the Advocate did not conduct assessments of the discriminatory character of regulations with regard to the personal ground of religion of belief.

1.5.4 The Advocates reccomendation regarding the
			 personal ground of religion or belief
In 2020, the Advocate did not issue any recommendations regarding the personal grounds of
religion or belief.

44

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

1.5.5 Highlights of the public opinion survey on
			 discrimination from 2020 with regard to the
			 personal ground of religion or belief
Religion: The population of Slovenia to a large extent understands discrimination as unequal
treatment due to religion (21 per cent) – which is six percentage points more than in 2017.
Moreover, 21 per cent of the respondents consider religion or belief to be the most common
reason for discrimination in Slovenia, which is 7 percentage points less compared to 2017. At
the same time, five per cent of the participants in the survey perceive Muslims as the most
frequent victims of discrimination in Slovenia, while one per cent of respondents see Christians as the most frequent victims.
The attitude of the population towards religion is between neutral and favourable reception
of equality, but eight per cent of the population would be uncomfortable if they were represented by a non-Christian mayor, which would not bother 80 per cent of the population.
On the other hand, 32 per cent of people would not trust an organisation lead by a Muslim,
while 39 per cent of respondents would trust such an organisation. At the same time, 43 per
cent of people disagree with the fact that kindergartens or schools adjust the children’s diet
according to their religion, which is supported by 35 per cent of people. 67 per cent of the
population have understanding for people who marry a person of another religion or change
their religion because of it, while 13 per cent of respondents disagree. However, people tend
to be more supportive in the case of their child’s marriage to a person of other religion, which
is supported by 75 per cent of respondents, 9 per cent of respondents would not support this.

Belief: A quarter (25 per cent) of respondents view political belief as the most common
reason for discrimination in Slovenia, which is a large increase compared to 2017 when the
share was 13 per cent. At the same time, six per cent of participants believe that politicians
or people who express their political beliefs are the most frequent targets of discrimination
in Slovenia, which is three percentage points more than in 2017.
The data show that intolerance towards a particular political belief has increased somewhat;
59 per cent of people (eight per cent more than in 2017) believe that there are people whose
political views are such that they should be banned from appearing in the media, 21 per cent
of respondents disagree with this opinion.
The proportion of respondents who claimed to have experienced discrimination based on
political belief doubled in 2020, (among the 22 per cent who claimed to have experienced
discrimination in general), the proportion reached 6 per cent (3.5 per cent of the population
of Slovenia), compared to seven per cent in 2017 (1.5 per cent of the population of Slovenia).
Among the 14 per cent who claimed to have been subject to harassed, 14 per cent were harassed due to their political beliefs, which is almost two per cent of the population of Slovenia.

Personal grounds of discrimination – Religion or belief

45

1.5.6 The Advocate’s cooperation with civil society with
			 regard to the personal grounds of religion or belief
Due to the declared epidemic associated with the COVID-19 disease, the Advocate’s cooperation with civil society organisations was mostly carried out in written form. This way, the Advocate obtained information on discrimination as perceived by the individual organisations
in their particular fields of work.

1.5.7 The Advocate’s educational and awareness-raising
			 activities with regard to the personal grounds of
			religion or belief
In 2020, the Advocate did not conduct any special educational or awareness-raising activities
with regard to the personal grounds of religion or belief.

THE ADVOCATE HIGHLIGHTS
Article 7 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia
The state and religious communities shall be separate.
Religious communities shall enjoy equal rights; they shall pursue their activities freely.

46

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

1.6 Disability
THE ADVOCATE HIGHLIGHTS
Article 52 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia
(rights of disabled persons)
Disabled persons shall be guaranteed protection and work-training in accordance with the law.
Physically or mentally handicapped children and other severely disabled persons have the right to education
and training for an active life in society.
The education and training referred to in the preceding paragraph shall be financed from public funds.

1.6.1 Advisory, informing and support activities related
			 to the personal ground of disability
Access to public passenger transport
The Advocate was approached by a client, a wheelchair user, regarding the accessibility of
public passenger transport. She highlighted an event when the bus driver did not want to
prepare a ramp for her to enter the vehicle and brought up the issue of access to vehicles
for people confined to the so-called “electric scooters” and the fact that some drivers require
escorts for people in wheelchairs. Based on the information received, the Advocate sent an
inquiry to the public passenger transport company. The company replied that the task of
preparing the ramp for entering the vehicle is the obligation of the driver, which is also specified in the internal acts of the public transport provider. With regard to the requirement for
escort, the provider ensured that there is no such request. However, the provider pointed out,
that the installation of equipment in the bus is adapted to wheelchairs, but not to electric
scooters. As a result, in such case the risk of accidents is greater, which makes the presence
of an escort reasonable for safety reasons. The Advocate forwarded the clarifications to the
client. (0702-89/2020)

Accessibility of a school for a mobility-impaired student
The Advocate was approached by a client, the mother of a mobility-impaired ninth-grader,
who wanted to enroll in one of the gymnasiums, but did not decide to do so, due to the architectural inaccessibility of the facility for mobility-imapired persons. The mother asked the
Advocate for advice on what can be done. The Advocate presented to her the possibility of
lodging a complaint against the conduct of the gymnasium and to initiate a discrimination
investigation procedure to find discrimination in access to education on the grounds of disability. The client did not decide to lodge the complaint, however, the case showed the need
for a systemic regulation of the topic, as the gymnasium is a part of the network of public
education facilities, which are not accessible to mobility-impaired persons. (0702-68/2019)

Personal grounds of discrimination – Disability

47

Termination of employment of a person with a disability
The Advocate was approached by a client to whom the occupational medical centre granted
the status of a person with disability of third degree. As a result, the client’s employer terminated their employment by the arguments than no suitable workplace is available for them.
The client disagreed and considered that the employer could have adapted the work process
in the same way as it was adapted to the needs of a colleague without such disability. The
client considered that she was discriminated against compared to their colleague. The client
asked for an opinion and advice. The Advocate informed the client on the possibility of a
discrimination investigation procedure and how to launch the procedure of discrimination
investigation before the equality body. The client did not choose to submit the complaint.
(0700-16/2020)

Ensuring the participation of an escort to a person with paralysis during rehabilitation
The Advocate was approached by a client with paralysis, who was not allowed to be accompanied by an escort during a paid rehabilitation. The question referred to the implementation of the obligation to ensure reasonable adaptation (which would be ensured through the
participation of an escort) in access to health rehabilitation services provided by disability
associations. The Advocate advised the client on how to conduct the proceedings for discrimination investigation in such case and how ti lodge a complaint. The client did not choose to
submit the complaint. The Advocate has already issued a decision finding discrimination in a
similar case, but there is no competent inspectorate in this area to initiate a minor offence
proceeding against the association. (0702-59/2019)

Access to a store during the epidemic
The Advocate was approached by a client who, being a 50-year-old person with a disability,
wanted to exercise the right of shopping in stores at the time reserved exclusively for vulnerable groups during the coronavirus epidemic. Upon arrival at the store during that time,
she was denied access by the security guard, as he had been instructed to let in only persons
older than 65 years. She approached the Advocate and sought advice regarding the situation.
The Advocate provided the client with an explanation that the security guard had been given
wrong instructions and advised them to inform the store that persons with disabilities are
included among vulnerable groups, the client was also invited to lodge a complaint with the
Advocate. (0702-66/2020)

48

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

The opportunity to visit relatives with dementia in care homes for the elderly
A client turned to the Advocate due to the fact that they were not granted the status of a
person with the first degree of disability, but only the third degree by the Pension and Disability Insurance Institute (PDII). The client initiated a judicial proceeding against the PDII
decision. Additionally, the client forwarded to Advocate an expert opinion from the judicial
proceedings with which they did not agree. The Advocate explained to the client that the
equality body can not interfere in the specific judicial proceedings and that the assessment
of the degree of disability is a professional issue for which the Advocate is not competent.
The Advocate expressed understanding for the client’s situation and advised them on further
possibilities for action in the judicial proceedings. (0702-116/2020)

Dissatisfaction with the recognised degree of disability
A client turned to the Advocate due to the fact that they were not granted the status of a
person with the first degree of disability, but only the third degree by the Pension and Disability Insurance Institute (PDII). The client initiated a judicial proceeding against the PDII
decision. Additionally, the client forwarded to Advocate an expert opinion from the judicial
proceedings with which they did not agree. The Advocate explained to the client that the
equality body can not interfere in the specific judicial proceedings and that the assessment
of the degree of disability is a professional issue for which the Advocate is not competent.
The Advocate expressed understanding for the client’s situation and advised them on further
possibilities for action in the judicial proceedings. (0702-26/2020)

Exemption from court fees
The Advocate was approached by a client’s legal representative, who is conducting judicial
proceedings for the re-acquisition of the right to vote of the client, who was deprived of the
right under the third paragraph of Article 7 of the National Assembly Elections Act. The client failed to enforce the claim for exemption from court fees before the court, for which in
cases of protection against discrimination the legal basis is stipulated in the third paragraph
of Article 10 of the Court Fees Act. The Advocate the client by preparing arguments for submission in the judicial proceedings. The client also informed the Advocate about the general
efforts for the return of the voting right, which is a systemic issue that the Advocate also
deals with it at the systemic level. (0702-40/2019)

Personal grounds of discrimination – Disability

49

Difficulties in cooperating with state authorities regarding the schooling of a child with
autism
The Advocate was approached by a client, the mother of a child with special needs, who
has been waiting for a decision on guidance for a long time, at the same time, she is facing
difficulties in cooperating with state authorities in resolving the situation of the child. The
Advocate addressed the matter in the light of the obligation of state authorities to ensure
reasonable accommodation for children with disabilities, with the aim of preventing discrimination on the grounds of disability. The Advocate provided the client with advice in the field
of ensuring reasonable accommodation and informed them about the authorities competent
for the individual matters presented by the client. (0702-49/2019)

Termination of employment of a person with a disability
The Advocate was approached by a client to whom the occupational medical centre granted
the status of a person with disability of third degree. As a result, the client’s employer terminated their employment by the arguments than no suitable workplace is available for them.
The client disagreed and considered that the employer could have adapted the work process
in the same way as it was adapted to the needs of a colleague without such disability. The
client considered that she was discriminated against compared to their colleague. The client
asked for an opinion and advice. The Advocate informed the client on the possibility of a
discrimination investigation procedure and how to launch the procedure of discrimination
investigation before the equality body. The client did not choose to submit the complaint.
(0702-40/2020)

50

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

1.6.2 Discrimination investigation in relation to the
			 personal ground of disability
Failure to include the care allowance among income for the calculation of creditworthiness
does not constitute a discriminatory conduct
A person with disability who receives a care allowance wanted to obtain a bank loan for the
renovation of an apartment. The bank did not take the allowance into account when calculating the person’s creditworthiness, so the person made a complaint with the Advocate and
alleged discrimination. In the proceedings, the Advocate found that the care allowance was
a strictly earmarked allowance for persons with disabilities, which could only be used for the
specific purpose of assisting a person with disabilities in their daily tasks, and not for financing a loan. As a result, the Advocate did not find any discrimination in the case. (Decision No.
0700-20/2020/3 of 1 July 2020)

Changing the town’s pedestrian regime and restricting access to the old town does not
constitute discrimination on the grounds of disability
One of the municipalities closed the city center to traffic and restricted access with a permit
to property owners and tenants. An individual complained that, as a person with a disability,
they have difficulties in accessing the old town, where the association of which they are a
member also has premises. The Advocate found that in doing so, the city municipality provided transportation with a free electric vehicle, which is available daily from 7 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.
The mentioned association has the opening hours until 18.00 at the latest, and in the event
of an extension of the association’s working hours, the individual may also use the association’s permit for access. According to the Advocate, the new regulation pursues a legitimate
goal – to reduce traffic in the town center, and the regulation is appropriate and necessary to
achieve this goal, and at the same time measures are taken for people with reduced mobility.
(Decision No. 0700-56/2019/8 of 19 February 2020)

Denying access to a store to a person with a disability during the Covid-19 epidemic constitutes discrimination
The Advocate received a complaint from a person using a wheelchair who was not allowed to
buy after 10 am, i.e. outside the time reserved for vulnerable groups during the epidemic1.
The security guard assessed the complainant as a vulnerable group and banned them from
entering. The Advocate carried out the procedure of discrimination investigation pursuant to
the PADA. It was established that the store’s management had given security guards incorrect information that shopping was prohibited after 10 a.m. for all vulnerable groups and not
just the elderly, as stated in the relevant government ordinance. The Advocate found a violation of the prohibition of discrimination and proposed to the competent inspectorate the
initiation of a minor offence proceedings. (Decision No. 0700-24/2020/10 of 27 July 2020)

1

Ordinance on the provisional prohibition on the offering and sale of goods and services to consumers in the
Republic of Slovenia, Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, Nos. 25/20, 29/20, 32/20, 37/20, 42/20,
47/20, 53/20, 58/20, 59/20 and 67/20.

Personal grounds of discrimination – Disability

51

1.6.3 Assessments of the discriminatory character of
			 regulations with regard to the personal ground of
			disability
According to the Advocate, the Act Regulating the Supplement to Pensions for Work and
Outstanding Achievements in Sports is discriminatory towards athletes with disabilities
On the basis of a complaint regarding alleged discrimination, the Advocate assessed the
discriminatory character of the Act Regulating the Supplement to Pensions for Work and
Outstanding Achievements in Sports (ARSPWOAS). This Act regulates in more detail the conditions under which high-profile athletes can receive a special supplement to their pension.
This way, athletes with a medal from the World Championships in the Olympic industry or
discipline are entitled to a pension supplement. However, athletes with disabilities with comparable achievement do not have the same right. According to the Advocate, high-profile
athletes with and without disabilities are in a comparable situation, so they should also be
entitled to equal rights. The Advocate found that the arrangement provided for by the ARSPWOAS constitutes direct discrimination against athletes with disabilities on the basis of
disability. (050-3/2020)

According to the Advocate, the legal vacuum in the area of alignment of disability benefits
for physical disabilities with inflation constitutes discrimination
At the initiative of a victim, the Advocate made an assessment of the discriminatory character of the legal regulation in the area of alignment of disability benefits for physical disabilities. The Advocate noted that since 2012, when the amendment to the Pension and
Disability Insurance Act was adopted, the adoption of regulations which would also regulate
the method of harmonisation has been planned. Since then, a legal vacuum has existed in
this field, as there is no legal basis for disability benefits to be included in transfers that are
subject to harmonisation under the Act Regulating Adjustments of Transfers to Individuals
and Households in the Republic of Slovenia. As a result of this legal vacuum, the treatment
of persons who are entitled to disability benefits due to their physical disability is discriminatory. (050-12/2020)

According to the Advocate, a different arrangement for disabled pensioners and persons
with disabilities is not discriminatory
The complainant stated that disabled pensioners are in a worse or less favourable situation
compared to persons with disabilities, who are not entitled to disability pensions, but receive
a disability allowance. The status of both groups is are regulated by different regulations. The
Pension and Disability Insurance Act (PDIA-2) and the Social Inclusion of Disabled Persons Act
(SIDPA) refer to persons with disabilities in situations that are substantially different.

52

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

For persons addressed under the Pension and Disability Insurance Act (PDIA-2), their entitlement to pension and disability insurance rights (stemming from their employment) must
be taken into account. Persons addressed under the Social Inclusion of Disabled Persons Act
(SIDPA) are not or cannot be entitled to these rights, as they have never worked or have
worked for a short period. As the two groups are not in comparable positions, different arrangements by different acts with different sets of rights are justified. As a result, the Advocate assessed that the legal regulation is not discriminatory towards disabled pensioners.
(050-3/2019)

According to the Advocate, the Personal Assistance Act is not discriminatory towards deafblind persons in comparison to deaf persons
The clients suffering from deafblindness are, as blind persons, entitled to the assistance and
care allowance. With the enactment of the Personal Assistance Act, they also acquired the
right to personal assistance in the amount of 30 hours per month, however, as a result they
had to start paying half of the allowance for the assistance and care to the selected personal
assistance provider. They consider that the Personal Assistance Act is discriminatory towards
deafblind people in comparison to deaf people. The Advocate assessed that the regulation
does not constitute a poorer treatment of deafblind people compared to deaf people. Namely, the latter are not even entitled to the care allowance and therefore do not have to pay half
of the amount to the provider if they are granted the right to personal assistance. In view
of the above, the Advocate assessed that the regulation is not discriminatory. (050-1/2019
and 050-2/2019)

According to the Advocate, the regulation of the use of tourist vouchers does not constitute discrimination against the elderly, the sick and people with disabilities
A client lodged a complaint with the Advocate of the Principle of Equality regarding the incapacity of people with disabilities, the sick and the elderly to take advantage of the tourist
vouchers granted to them. The complainant alleged discrimination on the grounds of age,
disability and health and posed the question of why these persons cannot use the vouchers for other services. The benefit was introduced by the Act Determining the Intervention
Measures to Mitigate and Remedy the Consequences of the COVID-19 Epidemic.2
The Advocate found that the vouchers were intended to support Slovenian tourism industry,
which was left without income due to the pandemic, and to direct domestic guests to tourist facilities in Slovenia. According to the Advocate, the goal pursued by the vouchers was
legitimate, and the requirement that the vouchers be used for tourism was appropriate and
necessary. Hence, no suspicion of discrimination arises from the regulation. Consequently,
the Advocate did not carry out a more detailed assessment of discrimination. (050-17/2020)

2

Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 80/20.

Personal grounds of discrimination – Disability

53

1.6.4 The Advocate’s recommendations regarding the
			 personal ground of disability
Recommendation regarding the draft Act Amending the Housing Act
Regarding the draft act, the Advocate recommended amendments to the MESP with the aim
of improving physical accessibility of multi-apartment buildings for people with disabilities.
Recommendation status: The legislative process is still ongoing. (0709-62/2020/1)

Recommendations regarding the proposed amendment to the Audiovisual Media Services
Act
In the recommendation to the MC regarding the proposed amendment to the Audiovisual
Media Services Act (AMSA), the Advocate stood up for a wider accessibility of all services to
ensure access to audiovisual media services (including websites, web applications and electronic program guides, provision of information on accessibility and accessible formats) and
proposed consideration to enact stricter controls regarding the implementation of accessibility requirements. Among other things, the Advocate recommended that an arrangement be
made that would set the persons liable a binding time frame and measurable content goals
as well as indicators for achieving the accessibility of their services. The Advocate therefore
recommended that in Article 10 of the draft amendment, a legal systemic reference be
made to Articles 8 and 14 of the Equalisation of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities
Act and that the lowest common standard of accessibility be adopted as soon as possible.
(0709-48/2020)
Recommendation status: The legislative process is still ongoing.

Recommendations and comments regarding the new draft Act Amending the Mass Media
Act
As part of the public consultation, the Advocate made a recommendation to the MC as the
drafter of the draft Act Amending the Mass Media Act (MMA), focusing on the proposed
arrangement of the inequality and intolerance prohibition, the accessibility of media and
programme content to people with disabilities, and the conditions for obtaining the status
of media of particular importance. The Advocate recommended that the drafter take into
account the recommendations in the relevant field made by the Advocate to the first draft
proposal of the Act Amending the MMA, including the proposal to classify the violation of the
obligation of the media publisher to remove public comments encouraging intolerance (the
so-called notice and take down obligation) as a minor offence. (0701-1/2019/7)
Recommendation status: The legislative process is still ongoing.

54

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

Recommendation regarding the draft Act Amending the Radiotelevizija Slovenija Act
The Advocate recommended to MC, as the drafter of the Act Amending the Radiotelevizija
Slovenija Act, to include persons with intellectual disabilities among those who are exempt
from paying the RTV fee, in addition to the socially endangered and certain groups of people
with disabilities. The Advocate also suggested that the Ministry consider the possibility of a
similar arrangement for people with psychosocial disabilities. (0701-10/2020/1)
Recommendation status: The legislative process is still ongoing.

Recommendations regarding the draft Act Amending the Act on Intervention Measures to
Contain the COVID-19 Epidemic and Mitigate its Consequences for Citizens and the Economy (Set of measures to mitigate the effects of the epidemic No. 2)
The Advocate recommended to the National Assembly the adoption of special measures for
vulnerable social groups during the COVID-19 epidemic, which were overlooked by the Set of
measures to mitigate the effects of the epidemic No. 1 or whose situation was not satisfactorily regulated. In doing so, the Advocate’s starting points were the recommendations to
the Government of 10 April (No. 0701-5/2020/1), summarising which recommendations were
not followed or were only partially followed. Thus, the Advocate recommended that, in the
context of intervention measures during the epidemic, the following be provided: financial
assistance to recipients and providers of personal assistance; financial assistance to care
homes for the elderly; families of children with special needs. (0701-5/2020/6)
Recommendation status: The recommendations were taken into account for families of children with special needs, partly for care homes for the elderly, but recommendations for
financial assistance to recipients and providers of personal assistance were not taken into
account.

Recommendation regarding the draft Act Amending the State Prosecution Service Act
In the context of professional coordination regarding the Act, the Advocate recommended
to the MoJ, that the use of minority languages as official languages in proceedings before all
authorities be consistently regulated. It was also highlighted in the recommendation, that
two solutions from the draft, which enable interventions in the employment status of state
prosecutors, are questionable in the light of the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds
of disability and age. (0701-11/2020/1)
Recommendation status: The legislative process is still ongoing.

Personal grounds of discrimination – Disability

55

Recommendation regarding the draft of the Long-Term Care Act
The Advocate recommended to the Ministry of Health that the draft act should clearly define
the principle of equal access to long-term care for all, regardless of the personal grounds of
the beneficiaries, and the right to independent and autonomous life of the beneficiaries. In
the recommendation, the Advocate stated that the act should clearly define the right to
long-term care, dis-aggregate all its essential elements, criteria and methods of exercise of
the rights, and the means for their protection. It was also recommended that a comparable
level of enjoyment of rights be ensured for children without the status of long-term care
beneficiaries. (0701-14/2020/2)
Recommendation status: The legislative process is still ongoing.

Recommendation regarding the draft Act Determining Temporary Measures to Mitigate
and Remedy the Consequences of COVID-19 (Set of measures to mitigate the effects of the
epidemic No. 5)
The Advocate recommended to the National Assembly that the measures also provide workers who cannot perform their work due to quarantine or child care (i.e. force majeure) with
compensation not lower than the minimum wage (which was already in force during the first
wave of the epidemic). Guardians of adults with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities and
guardians and foster parents of children should be included among the workers who are unable to perform their work due to so-called force majeure.
The Advocate recommended that additional justifications for distinguishing certain beneficiaries and methods of determining the amount of aid or compensation be included in the
act. It was also recommended that consideration be given to introducing additional special
measures to ensure equal opportunities for the people most affected by the adoption of
stricter measures envisaged in the government’s plan to prevent the spread of infections.
(0701-15/2020/1)
Recommendation status: The recommendation was taken into account in the part where
the Advocate proposed compensation in the amount of at least the minimum wage (in Set
of measures to mitigate the effects of the epidemic No. 7) and that guardians and foster
parents of persons, including adults, be included among the recipients of compensation (by
way of amendments). The recommendation regarding the unjustified differentiation of beneficiaries of aid was not taken into account.

56

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

Recommendation regardingthe draft Act on the Intervention for Children and Youth with
Emotional and Behavioural Disorders in Education
During the public consultation, the Advocate made a recommendation regarding the draft
Act on the Intervention for Children and Youth with Emotional and Behavioural Disorders in
Education (AICYEBDE) and recommended, among other things, supplementing the principles
of operation of professional centres with the principles of non-discrimination, the exercise of
human rights in line with the individual’s age and maturity, the explicit right to be informed
and to make statements as well as the right of children and adolescents to be included in
the consultation within all decision-making processes (the so-called right to be heard). These
principles and rights derive from the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Moreover, the
Advocate proposed an amendment stating that shall data be collected also for the purpose
of ensuring and monitoring the implementation of equal treatment and planning specific
measures. (001-6/2020/5)
Recommendation status: Partially taken into account. The legislator took into account only
a smaller part of the recommendation, including the proposed principle: “equal opportunities
by taking into account the different needs of children and adolescents.”

Recommendation regarding the draft for the Mental Health Act
In the recommendation to the Ministry of Health, the Advocate highlighted the lack of content related to the observance of human rights protection standards. Among other things, a
recommendation was addressed to Ministry of Health, to include the prohibition of discrimination, stigmatisation and other neglect based on mental disorder in the act; to examine
the compliance of the envisaged solutions with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities; and to provide information, counselling and information in accessible languages,
forms and technologies, including information in the form of easy reading. (0070-4/2020/1)
Recommendation status: The legislative process is still ongoing.

Recommendation regarding the draft Motor Vehicles Tax Act
In a recommendation to the National Assembly, the Advocate pointed out that the prohibition of discrimination also applies to the determination of benefits in the exemption
from motor vehicle tax for large families and people with disabilities. Some of the criteria
for obtaining benefits (permanent residence, benefits available for only one vehicle, beneficiaries only with certain types of disabilities) are questionable in terms of equal treatment
(foreigners, EU citizens, the elderly, and people with certain disabilities), so the Advocate
recommended improvement of the arrangement. (0070-3/2020/1)
Recommendation status: Not taken into account.

Personal grounds of discrimination – Disability

57

Recommendation regarding the draft Act Amending the Local Elections Act
The Advocate recommended to the MPA that the universal suffrage in local elections be
granted to everyone, including people with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities. To this
end, the Advocate recommended removal of the possibility of deprivation of the right to
vote, as this right is directly protected by the primary EU law. The Advocate also recommended that voters be informed and empowered by setting a uniform standard for access to
electoral procedures and materials and providing supportive decision-making. The Advocate
recommended that measures be taken to encourage women’s participation in the candidacy,
as well as the possibility of their actual eligibility in local elections. (0070-5/2020/1)
Recommendation status: The legislative process is still ongoing.

Recommendation regarding the draft Act Amending the Referendum and Popular Initiative
Act
The Advocate recommended to the MPA that the amendment to the Act enable the exercise
of the right to a legislative and constitutional referendum and the right to a popular legislative and constitutional initiative to persons who were deprived of their right to vote upon
deprivation of legal capacity or extended parental rights. A modernisation of electoral procedures and materials was also recommended to establish legal guarantees that will ensure
full access to electoral procedures and the empowerment of all voters, including persons with
intellectual and psychosocial disabilities. At the same time, a system of a so-called supportive
decision-making should be provided for. (0070-7/2020/1)
Recommendation status: The legislative process is still ongoing.

Recommendation regarding the amendment to the Ordinance on the provisional prohibition on the offering and sale of goods and services to consumers in the Republic of Slovenia – a proposal to extend the time when pensioners, people with disabilities and pregnant
women can buy in stores
The Advocate recommended to the MEDT that by amending the Ordinance, the time interval for shopping in grocery stores intended (exclusively) for particular vulnerable groups
be extended. The Advocate was informed that the elderly (pensioners) face a lot of problems caused by the government ordinance, which allows certain vulnerable groups to shop
in stores only between 8 am and 10 am, as not everyone can take their turn in time. The
Advocate therefore recommended that the MEDT should extend the time interval for shopping in grocery stores intended (exclusively) for particular vulnerable groups by amending
the ordinance. (0701-2/2020/1)
Recommendation status: Partially taken into account.

58

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

Recommendation regarding the Pension Supplement for Work and Outstanding Achievements in Sports Act.
On the basis of a complaint regarding alleged discrimination, the Advocate assessed the
discriminatory character of the Act Regulating the Supplement to Pensions for Work and
Outstanding Achievements in Sports and found that the arrangement constitutes direct
discrimination of athletes with disabilities on the basis of their disability, as the regulation
does not attribute equal importance to sporting achievements of persons with disabilities
compared to persons without disabilities. High-profile athletes with a medal from the World
Championships in a Paralympic discipline or industry are therefore deprived of the opportunity to receive a pension supplement. The Advocate informed the Ministry of Education, Science and Sports about the assessment and recommended that the legislation be amended.
(050-3/2020/24)
Recommendation status: So far not taken into account.

Recommendation on the ensuring of inclusive education in the case of reoccurring school
closures
The Advocate recommended that, in the case of reoccurring school closures, the MESS should
provide for an inclusive education for all children, especially with regard to their access to
information and communication technologies.
It was pointed out that despite the involvement of all relevant services, there was a difference in the acquisition of knowledge between different groups of students, especially those
from the so-called vulnerable groups (e.g. children with a migrant background, children from
economically vulnerable backgrounds, Roma children, children with special needs), which had
a negative impact on their learning performance and, consequently, on the exercise of their
right to education. The Advocate assessed that when distance learning using computer technology was introduced during the first wave of the epidemic, not all students were granted
the same opportunities. Moreover, the recommendation that pupils and students entitled to
a subsidy for lunch be provided with the payment of funds in the amount of the approved
food subsidy during the closure of educational institutions, was once again underlined by the
Advocate. (0709-60/2020/1)
Recommendation status: Partially taken into account. The MESS devoted some attention to
certain parts of the recommendation, e.g. the psychological and psychosocial consequences
of distance learning, and at the end of December 2020, an Ordinance on the reopening of primary schools with a specially adapted program and institutions for the education of children
and adolescents with special needs was issued.

Personal grounds of discrimination – Disability

59

1.6.5 Highlights of the public opinion survey on
			 discrimination from 2020 with regard to the
			 personal ground of disability
Among the participants of the survey, 14 per cent of respondents thought that people with
various disabilities (or diseases) are the most common target of discrimination in Slovenia
(which is an increase of nine percentage points compared to 2017), 21 per cent of people
consider disability as the most common reason for discrimination in Slovenia (which is three
percentage points more than in 2017).
As regards disability, the population expresses a high level of support for equality, as three
quarters of the population of Slovenia would easily have a person with a severe disability as
a co-worker, while only nine per cent of respondents see this as a problem.

1.6.6 The Advocate’s cooperation with civil society with
			 regard to the personal ground of disability
Representatives of the deaf invited the Advocate to participate in a discussion on audism.
Hence, on 31 January 2020, the experiences of people with audism from various spheres of
life, including the labor market, employment relationships and education were presented to
the representatives of the Advocate. The representatives of the Advocate were particularly
interested in the experience of people in education at all levels, especially in connection with
the planned preparation of a special report on the education of the deaf. On 21 February
2020, a representative of the Advocate attended a conference entitled “Language of People
with Deafblindness” organised by the Slovenian Association of the Deafblind DLAN on the
occasion of the International Mother Language Day in the premises of the Municipality of
Ljubljana. The consultation was aimed at discussing the importance of recognising and acknowledging the right of people with deafblindness to their language. There are 23 different
tactile ways of communication for the deafblind in Slovenia, and the promotion of the language of the deafblind would contribute to a greater sense of equality and acceptance of the
people with this type of disability.
The participants highlighted trust between the interpreter and the user as an essential element of communication for the deafblind. They emphasised the need to provide systemic
conditions to enable a greater use of the language of the deafblind in practice and promote
it as a “language” and not just as a “way of communication”. The inclusion of the language of
the deafblind in the new National Program for Language Policy would also contribute to this.
On 8 September 2020, the Advocate’s representatives met with the RTV Slovenia’s Viewers’
and Listeners’ Rights Ombudsman Ilinka Todorovski. At the meeting, they exchanged key
information and findings from the annual reports of the Advocate and the Ombudsman
for 2019 and focused on some common issues, such as the accessibility of RTV programme
content for persons with disabilities and prevention of hate speech in comments under online news; on 1 October 2020, representatives of the Advocate visited RTV Slovenia at the
initiative of the RTV Slovenia’s Viewers’ and Listeners’ Rights Ombudsman. The purpose of

60

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

the visit was to get acquainted in more detail with the work of the RTV Slovenia in the field
of ensuring the accessibility of media broadcasts for people with disabilities and in the field
of moderating comments on the MMC portal. Ensuring the accessibility of media broadcasts
for people with disabilities is most advanced within the framework of the TV channels. Here,
to the greatest extent possible and in accordance with the available resources, accessibility
for the deaf and hard of hearing is ensured by subtitling the broadcasts, and for the blind
and visually impaired by audio description and audio subtitling, using the speech synthesis
technology.
At the initiative of the representatives of the visually impaired, the representatives of the
Advocate participated at a working meeting on 16 October 2020, where the participants
exchanged views on systemic challenges in the field of regulating the rights of people with
disabilities. The discussion concerned the availability of technical aids, the allowance for assistance and care, and some challenges regarding the draft Long-Term Care Act, the implementation of the Personal Assistance Act, as well as the (non) provision of reasonable
accommodation.

1.6.7 The Advocate’s educational and awareness-raising
			 activities with regard to the personal ground of
			disability
The Advocate at the central annual meeting of the Slovenian association for persons with
intellectual disabilities Sožitje
At the invitation of the Slovenian association for persons with intellectual disabilities Sožitje
(Association Sožitje), a representative of the Advocate participated in their annual meeting
in Zreče on 11 January 2020. In his presentation, the representative of the Advocate emphasised that each one of us must strive for an inclusive society that will not leave anyone
behind. He presented the ways and opportunities for the Advocate’s work at various levels.
As an example of good cooperation with NGOs, he brought up the cooperation of the Association Sožitje with the Advocate in the preparation of written information on the Advocate’s
services in easy reading. According to some estimates, half a million people in Slovenia need
easy-to-read information. These are mainly people with intellectual disabilities and mental
health issues, people with dementia, the elderly, foreigners, and others.
The Advocate supported the project Enabling multimodal mobility of people with reduced
mobility
On 14 January 2020, the Head of the Advocate Miha Lobnik participated in the public presentation of the project “Enabling multimodal mobility of persons with reduced mobility” carried out by the Geodetic Institute of Slovenia and funded by the Ministry of Infrastructure.
The aim of the project is to enable physical and digital accessibility for vulnerable groups in
the entire territory of Slovenia, which will ensure their mobility, greater social inclusion, and
equality. The Head of the Advocate, Miha Lobnik, welcomed the project and described it as a
step in the right direction – in the direction of ensuring greater inclusion of all. Moreover, he
stated at the presentation: “Enabling multimodal mobility of people with reduced mobility is
a project, which changes our society to prevent individual cases of exclusion. This is a direction that brings progress.”

Personal grounds of discrimination – Disability

61

The Head of the Advocate, Miha Lobnik, supported the project Enabling multimodal mobility of people with reduced
mobility by participating in a presentation.

The Advocate at the panel discussion “Language of people with deafblindness”
On the occasion of the International Mother Language Day on 21 February 2020, a representative of the Advocate participated in a panel discussion of the Slovenian Association of the
Deafblind – Dlan, entitled “Language of People with Deafblindness”. At the panel discussion,
the participants talked through the importance of recognition and acknowledgement of the
rights of the deafblind. The representative of the Advocate emphasised, among other things,
that in protecting the rights of people with disabilities, the commitments of international
as well as national law must be strictly observed. He also stressed that accommodations are
essential for the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by
persons with disabilities.
The Advocate at the conference of the Association Sožitje: Challenges of the pandemic for
persons with intellectual disabilities and their families
On 28 September 2020, a representative of the Advocate participated in the annual meeting of the Slovenian association for persons with intellectual disabilities Sožitje (Association
Sožitje) entitled “Challenges of the pandemic for persons with intellectual disabilities and
their families”. The speakers devoted most of their time to the effects of various restrictive
and protective measures connected to the COVID-19 epidemic on people with intellectual disabilities and their relatives. The focus of the discussion was on social exclusion resulting from
the closure of institutions for institutional care, work and rehabilitation and schools as well
as the lack of professional and psychosocial support for people with intellectual disabilities
and their relatives. The participants said they also miss some intervention measures for the
alleviation of distress, including the financial difficulties.

62

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

Advocate at the opening of the exhibition of works of art “Feelings of the Deafblind”
Predstavnik Zagovornika se je 1. julija 2020 udeležil in nagovoril udeležence slovesnosti ob
otvoritvi razstave likovnih izdelkov članov Združenja gluhoslepih Slovenije DLAN »Čutenja
gluhoslepih«. Združenje DLAN tradicionalno prireja razstave likovnih del gluhoslepih ljudi
v spomin na gluhoslepo pisateljico in aktivistko Helen Keller. Predstavnik Zagovornika je v
pozdravnem nagovoru poudaril pomen vključevanja ljudi z vsemi oblikami invalidnostmi v
družbeno življenje.
The Advocate at the panel discussion at the book release on the sex lives of people with
disabilities
On 9 October 2020, a representative of the Advocate participated in a panel discussion on
the occasion of the release of the book “Pomoč pri seksualnem življenju ljudi s hendikepom”
(Assistance in the sexual life of people with disabilities), published by the institute for applicative studies OPRO. Little is said about the rights of people with disabilities to express
and meet their sexual needs, even among health professionals and others working in the field
of care for people with disabilities. The topic is difficult also for the parents and guardians
of these people, especially when it comes to people with psychosocial and intellectual disabilities. The representative of the Advocate welcomed the release of the book, which makes
an important contribution to raising awareness and understanding of these issues, which
should not be a taboo subject.
Head of the Advocate at the closing conference of the 4ALL project
On 23 October 2020, the Head of the Advocate, Miha Lobnik, participated at the closing web
conference of the 4ALL project, carried out by the Association of Vocational Rehabilitation
Providers of the Republic of Slovenia, Slovenian Philanthropy and VOZIM, Institute for Innovative Education. The Head of the Advocate, Miha Lobnik, welcomed the successful completion of the project and its results, and emphasised the importance of continuing the project
activities even after its completion. The aim of the project was to promote equal opportunities and equal treatment and to prevent discrimination against vulnerable social groups.
The project also specifically addressed the issues of employment of people with disabilities,
their discrimination in employment and access to the built environment and information.
The results of the project include brochures and manuals on accessibility and employment of
people with disabilities, as well as an easy-to-read guide on the Personal Assistance Act and
the Social Inclusion of Disabled Persons Act.
The Advocate at the event of the Slovenian Association of the Deaf 14 11 on audism
On 13 November 2020, a representative of the Advocate participated in an online event organised by the Slovenian Association of the Deaf 14 11 on audism – discrimination against
the deaf. The Slovenian Association of the Deaf 14 11 is, among other things, dedicated to
raising public awareness on the importance of the Slovenian Sign Language as the mother
tongue of deaf people. The main subject of the online event was related to the experiences
during the COVID-19 epidemic. A representative of the Advocate invited the participants of
the event to share experiences that could constitute discrimination with the Advocate – either by lodging a complaint or by requesting a free advisory opinion. As a solution to the additional restrictions of communication due to the use of face masks which make lip-reading
impossible, the Advocate’s representative drew attention to special, deaf-friendly face masks
with a transparent window that allows lip-reading and following facial expressions, which is
crucial for the use of sign language.

Personal grounds of discrimination – Disability

63

The Advocate addressed the participants at the expert conference of the Risa Institute on
easy reading
On 25 November 2020, the Head of the Advocate, Miha Lobnik, as a guest of honour addressed the participants of a two-day online expert conference on easy reading entitled “Language comes closer”. The conference was prepared by the Risa Institute – Center for General,
Functional and Cultural Literacy. In his address, the Head of the Advocate, Miha Lobnik, emphasised, among other things, that reading can be the right of people with intellectual and
psychosocial disabilities, but also a challenge for all who want to communicate information
in easy reading, including the Advocate. The right to be informed is one of the fundamental
human rights. It is crucial for making informed decisions and for inclusion in society. One way
of bringing content closer to as wide a circle of people as possible is easy reading.
The Advocate thanked the Risa Institute and its partners for their efforts to ensure the right
to access to information also for all those who have difficulty understanding the content
when presented in the usual way.

64

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

1.7 Age
1.7.1 Advisory, informing and support activities related
			 to the personal ground of age
Prohibition for people over the age of 65 to enter shops during the epidemic
The Advocate received numerous questions in relation to discrimination on the ground of
age during the coronavirus epidemic, as persons over the age of 65 were prohibited to enter
stores, except during the time reserved for them (from 8 until 10 and during the last hour
of the opening time). Based on the questions received, the Advocate initiated the procedure
of assessing the discriminatory nature of the Ordinance on the provisional prohibition on the
offering and sale of goods and services to consumers in the Republic of Slovenia.3 Based on
the data collected, the Advocate concluded that the prohibition on entering shops for the
elderly after 10 am was not a proportionate measure, and that Slovenia was the only country, apart from only one other European country, which prevented the elderly from shopping
after a certain hour. In view of the above, the Advocate assessed that the reservation of
time for shopping of vulnerable groups was a proportionate measure, but the provision of
the Ordinance of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia prohibiting them from entering
after 10 am was discriminatory against the elderly. The Advocate informed the clients on
this position. (0702-57/2020, 0702-63/2020 and 0702-67/2020)

Disbursement of voluntary pension insurance funds
The Advocate received a question from a client who was paying contributions to the voluntary retirement scheme Upon retirement, the client wanted to activate the funds collected.
But because she had been paying contributions for less than ten years, the amount paid
out was subject to the 8.5 % tax on the collected funds pursuant to the Insurance Premium
Tax Act (IPTA).4 The client considered that such treatment represents discrimination on the
grounds of age, as younger workers who had been paying contributions for more than ten
years before retirement were not required to pay the duties. The Advocate explained to the
client that the calculation of the tax does not depend on the age of the individual, but on the
number of years when the contributions were paid. The IPTA also enables the retention of
the collected funds until the end of the ten-year period from the beginning of the payments,
which represents an appropriate accommodation for the elderly persons who would retire
before the end of this period. (0702-31/2020)

3
4

Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, Nos. 25/20, 29/20, 32/20, 37/20, 42/20, 47/20, 53/20, 58/20, 59/20
and 67/20.
Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 96/05 – official consolidated text and 90/14.

Personal grounds of discrimination – Age

65

Surname as a reason for the non-inclusion in public works
The Advocate was approached by a client who, as an unemployed person, has been waiting
for several years for the opportunity to participate in public works. The client believes that
this was not made possible due to her age and ethnicity, specifically the surname ending in
-ić. The Advocate advised the client and explained that action can be taken only in specific
cases of discrimination, where it can be established that the reason for unequal treatment
is the personal ground of the person concerned. Furthermore, the client was provided with
instructions on how to file a complaint, based on which, in specific cases of discrimination,
the Advocate can take action. (0702-29/2020)

Restriction on the exercise of the profession of a judge due to age
The Advocate was approached by a client seeking advice regarding the age limit for the
function of a judge at the International Sports Federation. The client was informed of the
decision of the Advocate in a similar case from another sports discipline and wanted to know
whether the arguments used by the Advocate in that other case were also relevant at the
international level and whether action can be taken with regard to the decision of the sports
federation. The Advocate explained to the client that the argumentation may be relevant.
As far as distinguishing on the bases of age in the field of work is concerned, the legislation
(Directive 2000/78/EC, PADA) stipulates that unequal treatment on grounds of age does not
constitute discrimination if the characteristic and context of the professional activity provide for such a professional requirement, but only on condition that the aim is legitimate and
the requirement is appropriate, necessary and proportionate. It could therefore be argued
that a particular age limit can not be a condition for performing the work of a judge. The
Advocate also informed the client that the rules of operation of the international organisation must be challenged under the law of the country of the organisation’s headquarters.
(0702-120/2020)

1.7.2 Discrimination investigation in relation to the
			 personal ground of age
In the case of access to work, the Advocate did not find discrimination
The client complained due to alleged age discrimination in access to work. The client sent
an application on the basis of a public call for participation in a project, but the organisation
did not invite them to participate. As the client had relevant experience, they suspected the
reason could have been their age. But because the client could not provide any evidence or
substantiate their sense with any circumstances arising from the communication with the
organisation, the Advocate did not find discrimination. (Decision No. 0700-19/2020/8 of 24
July 2020)

66

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

In the case of awarding the title Municipal Athlete of the Year, discrimination was not found
The Advocate received a complaint due to alleged discrimination on the grounds of age in
the selection of the Athlete of the Year in one of the municipalities. The title was awarded to
a junior professional athlete while the applicant competes in his age category as a veteran
athlete. The Advocate found in the proceedings that the awarding organisation takes into
account a number of criteria, among which age is not included. In addition, the Advocate
found that the complainant was not even in a comparable situation with the winner of the
award (as they compete in completely different categories), therefore discrimination was not
found. (Decision No. 0700-23/2020/15 of 21 December 2020)

1.7.3 Assessments of the discriminatory character of
			 regulations with regard to the personal ground of
			age
According to the Advocate, the prohibition for people over the age of 65 to enter shops
after 10 am during the epidemic was discriminatory
The Advocate received numerous complaints in relation to discrimination on the ground of
age during the COVID-19 epidemic, as persons over the age of 65 were prohibited to enter
stores, except during the time reserved for them (from 8 until 10 and during the last hour of
the opening time).5 Based on the complaints received, the Advocate initiated the procedure
of assessing the discriminatory character of the Ordinance on the provisional prohibition on
the offering and sale of goods and services to consumers in the Republic of Slovenia.6 In the
proceedings, the Advocate obtained the opinion of the National Institute of Public Health
(NIPH) and the Infectious Diseases Clinic. Moreover, the Advocate also obtained information
on whether the elderly were prevented from shopping in stores at certain hours in other European countries too. Based on the data collected, the Advocate concluded that the prohibition on entering shops for the elderly after 10 am was not a proportionate measure, and that
Slovenia was the only country, apart from only one other European country, which prevented
the elderly from shopping after a certain hour. In view of the above, the Advocate assessed
that the reservation of time for shopping of vulnerable groups was a proportionate measure,
but the provision of the Ordinance of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia prohibiting
them from entering after 10 am was discriminatory against the elderly. The Advocate made
a recommended to the Government of the Republic of Slovenia not to impose such restrictions in the event of recurrence of the epidemic. (050-8/2020)

5

6

Ordinance on the provisional prohibition on the offering and sale of goods and services to consumers in the
Republic of Slovenia (Official Gazette of the RS, Nos. 25/20, 29/20, 32/20, 37/20, 42/20, 44/20, 47/20, 53/20,
58/20, 59/20 and 67/20).
Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, Nos. 25/20, 29/20, 32/20, 37/20, 42/20, 47/20, 53/20, 58/20, 59/20
and 67/20.

Personal grounds of discrimination – Age

67

Following the assessment of the Advocate, the provisions of the Citizenship Act, which
determine the conditions for extraordinary naturalisation, are not discriminatory against
unaccompanied minors
The complainant approached the Advocate with a request for the assessment of the discriminatory character of the Citizenship of the Republic of Slovenia Act (CRSA), which does
not allow unaccompanied minors who show exceptional achievements for the Republic of
Slovenia to acquire the Slovenian citizenship by extraordinary naturalisation, unlike adults
who have this opportunity. In the proceedings, the Advocate found that the extraordinary
naturalisation pursues the state interest, which according to the legislator could be fulfilled
only by adults with full legal capacity. The Advocate assessed that the age of majority is an
appropriate and suitable condition in view of the goal pursued. The equality body also pointed out that the Citizenship of the Republic of Slovenia Act already provided for a possibility of
acquiring citizenship for unaccompanied minors after five years of residence in the Republic
of Slovenia based on the status of international protection, without having to prove their
benefits to the state for scientific, economic, cultural, national, or similar reasons under
Article 13 of the Citizenship of the Republic of Slovenia Act. As a result, the Advocate did not
find discriminatory character of the contested regulation. (050-5/2019)

1.7.4 The Advocate’s recommendations regarding the
			 personal ground of age
Recommendation regarding the draft Act on the Intervention for Children and Youth with
Emotional and Behavioural Disorders in Education
During the public consultation, the Advocate made a recommendation regarding the draft
Act on the Intervention for Children and Youth with Emotional and Behavioural Disorders in
Education (AICYEBDE) and recommended, among other things, supplementing the principles
of operation of professional centres with the principles of non-discrimination, the exercise
of human rights in line with the individual’s age and maturity, the clear right to be informed
and to make statements as well as the right of children and adolescents to be included in
the consultation within all decision-making processes (the so-called right to be heard). These
principles and rights derive from the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Moreover, the
Advocate proposed an amendment stating that shall data be collected also for the purpose
of ensuring and monitoring the implementation of equal treatment and planning specific
measures. (001-6/2020/5)
Recommendation status: Partially taken into account. The legislator took into account only a
part of the recommendation, including the proposed principle: “equal opportunities by taking
into account the different needs of children and adolescents.”

68

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

Recommendations regarding the draft Act Amending the Act on Intervention Measures to
Contain the COVID-19 Epidemic and Mitigate its Consequences for Citizens and the Economy (Set of measures to mitigate the effects of the epidemic no. 2)
The Advocate recommended to the National Assembly the adoption of special measures for
vulnerable social groups during the COVID-19 epidemic, which were overlooked by the Set of
measures to mitigate the effects of the epidemic no. 1 or whose situation was not satisfactorily regulated. In doing so, the Advocate’s starting points were the recommendations to the
Government of 10 April (no. 0701-5/2020/1), summarising which recommendations were not
followed or were only partially followed.
Thus, the Advocate recommended that, in the context of the intervention measures during
the epidemic, financial aid be granted to care homes for the elderly. (0701-5/2020/6)
Recommendation status: Recommendations were taken into account.

Recommendation regarding the draft Act Amending the State Prosecution Service Act
Within the framework of professional coordination, the Advocate reminded the MoJ, that
two solutions from the draft, which enable interventions in the employment status of state
prosecutors, are questionable in the light of the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds
of disability and age. (0701-11/2020/1)
Recommendation status: The legislative process is still ongoing.

Recommendation regarding the draft of the Long-Term Care Act
The Advocate recommended to the Ministry of Health that the draft act should clearly define
the principle of equal access to long-term care for all, regardless of the personal grounds of
the beneficiaries, and the right to independent and autonomous life of the beneficiaries. In
the recommendation, the Advocate stated that the act should clearly define the right to
long-term care, dis-aggregate all its essential elements, criteria, and methods of exercise of
the rights, and the means for their protection. It was also recommended that a comparable
level of enjoyment of rights be ensured for children without the status of long-term care
beneficiaries. (0701-14/2020/2)
Recommendation status: The legislative process is still ongoing.

Personal grounds of discrimination – Age

69

Recommendation regarding the amendment to the Ordinance on the provisional prohibition on the offering and sale of goods and services to consumers in the Republic of Slovenia
– a proposal to extend the time when pensioners, the people with disabilities and pregnant
women can buy in stores
The Advocate recommended to the MEDT that by amending the ordinance, the time interval for shopping in grocery stores intended (exclusively) for particular vulnerable groups
be extended. The Advocate was informed that the elderly (pensioners) face a lot of problems caused by the government ordinance, which allows certain vulnerable groups to shop
in stores only between 8 am and 10 am, as not everyone can take their turn in time. The
Advocate therefore recommended that the MEDT should extend the time interval for shopping in grocery stores intended (exclusively) for particular vulnerable groups by amending
the ordinance. (0701-2/2020/1)
Recommendation status: Partially taken into account.

Recommendation regarding the discriminatory character of the Ordinance on the provisional prohibition on the offering and sale of goods and services to consumers in the Republic of Slovenia
The Advocate received numerous complaints in relation to discrimination on the ground of
age during the epidemic, as persons over the age of 65 were prohibited to enter stores, except
during the time reserved for them (from 8 until 10 and during the last hour of the opening
time). Based on the complaints received, the Advocate initiated a discrimination assessment
procedure. In the proceedings, the opinion of the National Institute of Public Health (NIPH)
was obtained. Moreover, the Advocate also obtained information on whether the elderly were
prevented from shopping in stores at certain hours also in any other European countries.
Based on the data collected, the Advocate concluded that the prohibition on entering shops
for the elderly after 10 am was not a proportionate measure, and that Slovenia was the only
European country, apart from Serbia, which prevented the elderly from shopping after a
certain hour. In view of the above, the Advocate assessed that the exclusive reservation of
time for shopping of vulnerable groups (including the elderly) was a proportionate measure,
but the provision of the Ordinance of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia prohibiting
them from entering after 10 am was discriminatory against the elderly. (050-8/2020/39)
Recommendation status: Taken into account, as the restriction was no longer applied in the
second wave of the epidemic.

70

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

Recommendation regarding the ensuring of conditions for distance learning for all schoolage children
In the recommendation made to the MESS, the Advocate pointed out that some Slovenian
families with school-age children did not have adequate access to distance learning during
the time of the epidemic. It was suggested that the Ministry should help schools directly by
purchasing information and communication equipment and by providing them with access
to the World Wide Web. (0701-4/2020/1)
Recommendation status: Partially taken into account. The Ministry explained that a project
is being implemented with the help of various donors to provide school children with the
necessary ICT equipment. Based on reports from the media, the Advocate estimated that,
despite the efforts of authorities, some children did not have access to ICT equipment and a
quality connection to the World Wide Web.

Recommendation regarding further measures to mitigate the effects of the COVID-19 epidemic in the housing-related area
The Advocate recommended further measures to the MESP to mitigate the effects of the
COVID-19 epidemic in the housing-related area. As information on the rights and possibilities
of aid to tenants is very dispersed, the Advocate recommended that the Ministry should
provide accessible and comprehensible information on the rights and possibilities of aid to
tenants in one place and closely monitor the situation on the housing market in the coming
months and use available measures to respond (e.g. additional subsidies, a freeze of rent),
paying special attention to vulnerable groups. (0701-5/2020/4)
Recommendation status: Not taken into account.

Recommendation on the ensuring of inclusive education in the case of reoccurring school
closures
The Advocate recommended that, in the case of reoccurring school closures, the MESS should
provide for an inclusive education for all children, especially with regard to their access to
information and communication technologies. It was pointed out that despite the involvement of all relevant services, there was a difference in the acquisition of knowledge between
different groups of students, especially those from the so-called vulnerable groups (e.g. children with a migrant background, children from economically vulnerable backgrounds, Roma
children, children with special needs), which had a negative impact on their learning performance and, consequently, on the exercise of their right to education. The Advocate assessed
that when distance learning using computer technology was introduced during the first wave
of the epidemic, not all students were granted the same opportunities. Moreover, the recommendation that pupils and students entitled to a subsidy for lunch be provided with the payment of funds in the amount of the approved food subsidy during the closure of educational
institutions, was once again underlined by the Advocate. (0709-60/2020/1)
Recommendation status: Partially taken into account. The MESS devoted some attention to
certain parts of the recommendation, e.g. the psychological and psychosocial consequences
of distance learning, and at the end of December 2020, an Ordinance on the reopening of primary schools with a specially adapted program and institutions for the education of children
and adolescents with special needs was issued.

Personal grounds of discrimination – Age

71

1.7.5 Highlights of the public opinion survey on
			 discrimination from 2020 with regard to the
			 personal ground of age
Nine per cent of the respondents perceive age as the most common ground of discrimination
in Slovenia, which is one percentage point less than in 2017.
Respondents who believe they were subject to discrimination most often consider that the
reason was their age (22 per cent), which is three percentage points more than in 2017, when
age was also the most common reason.
The elderly: 87 per cent of people believe that the elderly can make a significant contribution
to the development of society (only five per cent of people disagree); 53 per cent of people
think the older generations are just as capable as the younger ones.
At the same time, 11 per cent of participants in the survey believe that the elderly are the
most frequent targets of discrimination, which is seven per cent more than in 2017.
Young people: 50 per cent of people disagree with the statement that the younger generations have no moral values, which is what 19 per cent of people think.
Four per cent of respondents perceive young people as the most frequent targets of discrimination in Slovenia, which is three percentage points more than in 2017.
Young people (aged 15 to 24) and the elderly (aged between 65 and 75) are those who, on
average, show a higher level of tolerance, which is slightly lower among the middle-aged generation, the people aged 25 to 34 are least tolerant.

1.7.6 The Advocate’s cooperation with civil society with
			 regard to the personal ground of age
The Advocate participated in an in-depth EIGE interview
On 29 September 2020, THE Advocate took part in an in-depth interview as part of a survey
carried out by a non-profit private research institute RAND Europe in cooperation with the
European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE). The research focuses on the consequences of
the coronavirus epidemic for women and children who are the victims of domestic violence.
The research aims to improve the understanding of the various measures and initiatives
introduced to support the victims of domestic violence in the context of the crisis as a consequence of the coronavirus epidemic. The representative of the Advocate sent his observations based on the monitoring of the general situation in this field (increasing problems,
mental health and anxiety, etc.), and put special emphasis on the observations on good practices, such as targeted awareness raising by NGOs, especially the SOS telephone lines, and by
the Police as well as breakthroughs in the field of informing particularly vulnerable groups,
(e.g. easy reading on the RTV Slovenia, interpretation of all government press conferences
into the Slovenian sign language).

72

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

1.7.7 The Advocate’s educational and awareness-raising
			 activities with regard to the personal ground of age
The Advocate at the panel discussion “Human Rights and the Elderly”
On 22 October 2020, the Head of the Advocate, Miha Lobnik, took part in an online panel
discussion entitled “Human Rights and the Elderly”, organised by the Novum Institute and
the European Liberal Forum. The starting point of the discussion was the attitude of society
towards the elderly, as demonstrated during the COVID-19 epidemic, which showed elements
of ageism, from individual cases of excessive protection and resulting excessive restrictions
of rights to the exposure of structural and systemic problems of long-standing neglect of
long-term care, palliative care and hospital capacities.

THE ADVOCATE HIGHLIGHTS
Article 56 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia
(rights of children)
Children shall enjoy special protection and care. Children shall enjoy human rights and fundamental freedoms
consistent with their age and maturity.
Children shall be guaranteed special protection from economic, social, physical, mental, or other exploitation
and abuse. Such protection shall be regulated by law.
Children and minors who are not cared for by their parents, who have no parents or who are without proper
family care shall enjoy the special protection of the state. Their position shall be regulated by law.

Personal grounds of discrimination – Age

73

1.8 Sexual orientation, gender
identity and gender expression
1.8.1 Advisory, informing and support activities related
			 to the personal ground of sexual orientation, gender
			 identity and gender expression
Definition of family members when crossing the border
The Advocate was approached by a client with a question concerning the definition of family
members in connection with measures to prevent the spread of coronavirus infection with
regard to the crossing of the state border with the Republic of Italy, under the Ordinance of
the Government of the Republic of Slovenia.7 The news, which was published on the official
website of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia, did not list partners within a civil union and non-formal civil union under the Civil Union Act (CUA) among the immediate family
members.8 The client wanted to know whether these persons were included among family
members who, according to the exceptions, were allowed to visit each other. The Advocate
explained that the Ordinance does not contain a definition of who falls under the definition
of immediate family members, so it is necessary to rely on the applicable regulations governing family and partnership relations regarding the legal definition of immediate family
members. The legal status of partners within a civil union and non-formal civil union to which
the client’s question refers is regulated in the CUA. According to the CUA, the partners within
a civil union or non-formal civil union fall under the definition of immediate family members
from the Ordinance in question. In the opposite case, if the Ordinance had been interpreted differently, the question of possible discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation
would have arisen. (0702-72/2020)

Intolerant expression of a member of a particular organisation
The Advocate was approached by a membership organisation, which provided a letter of
support for a project aimed at raising awareness of non-discrimination against members of
the LGBT community. One member of the organisation protested because of the letter and
publicly distanced himself from the support and expressed intolerant opinions in the record.
The Advocate confirmed that the conduct represented inappropriate expression, but at the
same time underlined the freedom of expression, which is limited only when opinions lead to
criminal offences (e.g. public incitement to hatred, violence or intolerance under Article 297
of the Criminal Code), or when they constitute one of the prohibited forms of discrimination.
Such prohibited forms include incitement to discrimination from Article 10 of the PADA, however the opinion of the member does not contain elements of incitement to discrimination.
(0702-117/2020)
7

8

74

Ordinance amending the Ordinance on imposing and implementing measures related to prevent the spread
of epidemic COVID-19 at the border crossing points at the external border and inspection posts within national
borders of the Republic of Slovenia, Official Gazette of the RS, No. 64/20.
Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 33/16.

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

1.8.2 Discrimination investigation in relation to the
			 personal grounds of sexual orientation, gender
			 identity and gender expression
In 2020, the Advocate did not issue any decision dealing with discrimination investigation in
relation to the personal grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression.

1.8.3 Assessments of discriminatory regulations with
			 regard to the personal grounds of sexual orientation,
			 gender identity and gender expression
According to the Advocate, the conditions for the conclusion marriage and civil union are
discriminatory.
At the initiative of two individuals, the Advocate assessed the discriminatory character of
certain articles of the Family Code (FC) and the Civil Union Act (CUA), which set out the conditions for the conclusion of marriage and civil union and the conditions for access to the
possibility of joint adoption. In the assessment, the Advocate found that the existence of two
different forms of legal regulation of life partnerships makes unjustified distinction between
people and segregates them according to sexual orientation. The character of the union in
the case of same-sex or heterosexual life partnership is the same and there is no reason for
any legal differentiation between these forms of partnership, which is currently based solely
on the gender of partners and/or their sexual orientation, hence, the arrangement constitutes discrimination. According to the Advocate’s findings, the conditions for access to joint
adoption are also linked to the gender of the partners or their sexual orientation, and the
reason for this is not in any way justified. According to the Advocate, the prohibition to apply
for joint adoption under the CUE meets the definition of direct discrimination, while the limitation of joint adoption under the FA exclusively on spouses or non-marital partners fulfils
the conditions of direct discrimination due to sexual orientation. In this case, the Advocate
submitted a request for the assessment of constitutionality and legality to the Constitutional court of the Republic of Slovenia. (050-1/2018)

Personal grounds of discrimination – Sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression

75

1.8.4 The Advocate’s recommendations regarding the
			 personal grounds of sexual orientation, gender
			 identity and gender expression
Recommendation regarding the draft of the new Communicable Diseases Act
A recommendation was addressed to MH, to provide information, counselling and education
in accessible languages, forms and technologies, in line with the principle of accessibility.
The Advocate also raised the issue of vaccination as a condition for access to programs of
secondary and higher education institutions in the field of health care. A recommendation
was also made by the Advocate that protective equipment for persons in disadvantaged material situation be provided by the State and that the MH amend the Act so that persons in a
civil union or non-formal civil union be clearly and unambiguously entitled to compensation.
(0070-1/2020/1)
Recommendation status: The legislative process is still ongoing.

1.8.5
			
			
			

Highlights of the public opinion survey on
discrimination from 2020 with regard to the
personal grounds of sexual orientation, gender
identity and gender expression

The concept of discrimination is understood by 12 per cent of the population as unequal
treatment due to sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression (which is seven
percentage points more than in 2017). In both 2020 and 2017, respondents identified sexual
orientation as one of the most common reasons for discrimination in Slovenia (39 per cent),
at the same time, they see same-sex people as the most common target of discrimination
in Slovenia (24 per cent), which is an increase of ten percentage points compared to 2017.
The respondents agree (72 per cent of people) that same-sex couples should be able to get
married, but 16 per cent of people disagree. 58 per cent of respondents do not agree that the
law does not provide the same rights to same-sex couples in comparison with other couples,
while 22 per cent of people agree.
Regarding parenthood, 49 per cent of respondents believe that two women in a civil union
can raise a child in the same was as a man and a woman. 32 per cent of people disagree, while
19 per cent are neutral on the issue.
43 per cent of respondents believe that two men in a civil union can raise a child in a equal
way. 40 per cent of respondents disagree with this, and 17 per cent are neutral on this issue.
In general, 53 per cent of respondents agree that same-sex couples should be able to adopt
children. 28 per cent of respondents do not agree that same-sex couples have the possibility
of adopting children, and 18 per cent are neutral on this issue.

76

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

80 per cent of respondents would not mind if their neighbour or co-worker were homosexual,
nine per cent of people would feel uncomfortable, while 23 per cent of people are neutral.
76 per cent of people would not mind if their teacher or their children’s teacher were homosexual, 25 per cent would feel uncomfortable about it, a quarter of the respondents are
neutral.
49 per cent of respondents would hire a person who dresses in the style of the opposite sex,
24 per cent would not, while 27 per cent are neutral in this regard.
37 per cent of people would support their children if they wanted to change their gender,
while 35 per cent of people would not support this.

1.8.6 The Advocate’s cooperation with civil society with
			 regard to the personal grounds of sexual orientation,
			 gender identity and gender expression
Due to the declared epidemic associated with the COVID-19 disease, the Advocate’s cooperation with civil society organisations was mostly carried out in written form. This way, the Advocate obtained information on discrimination as perceived by the individual organisations
in their particular fields of work.

1.8.7 The Advocate’s educational and awareness-raising
			 activities with regard to the personal grounds of
			 sexual orientation, gender identity and gender
			expression
The Advocate at the discussion on the first LGBTIQ + strategy of the European Commission
The European Commission has adopted the first ever strategy for equality between gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgender, intersex and queer people (LGBTIQ+ people). On this occasion,
the Advocate took part in a conversation organised by the European Commission Representation in Slovenia and the cultural centre Pritličje, which was carried out on 26 November 2020.
“The strategy is the result of efforts and endeavours in the wider European space and will
represent the basis for specific actions of the European Commission. The strategy reflects
that the values of respect for minority rights are being strengthened in Europe. The positive
practices of some countries serve as an example of good practice and motivation for other EU Member States. Slovenia is one of those countries that have not yet systematically
tackled the issue of violence against young people in schools, nor challenged harassment of
people due to their sexual orientation or gender expression at workplace or elsewhere in public life. The strategy provides an opportunity for the State to create a coordination point in
one of the departments with the aim of preparing an action plan and implementing various
measures in this area,” said Miha Lobnik.

Personal grounds of discrimination – Sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression

77

1.9 Social status
1.9.1 Advisory, informing and support activities related
			 to the personal ground of social status
Treating a homeless person
The Advocate was approached by a homeless person. The client described the treatment
which they were subject to from various stakeholders (passers-by, security guards, stores,
state authorities). The Advocate provided the client with advisory in various fields of social
life. Homelessness can represent a personal ground of social status, which is subject to protection and falls within the definition of personal grounds under the PADA. (0702-38/2019)

1.9.2 Discrimination investigation in relation to the
			 personal ground of social status
In 2020, the Advocate did not issue any decision dealing with discrimination investigation in
relation to the personal ground of social status.

1.9.3 Assessments of the discriminatory character of
			 regulations with regard to the personal ground of
			social status
In 2020, the Advocate did not conduct assessments of the discriminatory character of regulations with regard to the personal ground of social status.

78

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

1.9.4 The Advocate’s recommendations regarding the
			 personal ground of social status
Recommendations regarding the Bill on Amendments to the Act on Intervention Measures
to Contain the COVID-19 Epidemic and Mitigate its Consequences for Citizens and the Economy (Set of measures to mitigate the effects of the epidemic no. 2)
The Advocate recommended to the National Assembly the adoption of special measures for
vulnerable social groups during the COVID-19 epidemic, which were overlooked by the Set of
measures to mitigate the effects of the epidemic No. 1 or whose situation was not satisfactorily regulated. In doing so, the Advocate’s starting points were the recommendations to the
Government of 10 April (No. 0701-5/2020/1), summarising which recommendations were not
followed or were only partially followed.
Thus, the Advocate recommended that, in the context of the intervention measures during
the epidemic, the following be provided: a subsidy for lunch for pupils and students; financial
aid to persons entitled to or providing personal assistance; financial aid to care homes for
the elderly; emergency health care and the right to basic care in the form of cash social assistance to foreigners legally residing in the Republic of Slovenia; additional aid to single-parent
families, families of children with special needs, self-employed parents working part-time,
socially disadvantaged tenants and recipients of loans, unemployed, homeless, students and
the elderly residing in care homes. (0701-5/2020/6)
Recommendation status: The recommendations were taken into account or partially taken
into account mainly in the subsequent Set of measures to mitigate the effects of the epidemic, possibly several times, e.g. aid to students under the Set of measures to mitigate the
effects of the epidemic No. 2 (additional inclusion of part-time students), Set of measures to
mitigate the effects of the epidemic No. 7 (recurrence of assistance in the second wave of
the epidemic) and the Set of measures to mitigate the effects of the epidemic No. 8 (supplementing the list of beneficiaries). And lastly, four recommendations were taken into account
(aid to families of children with special needs, self-employed parents, parents or guardians
of children or adults with special needs, differentiation according to the condition of paid
overdue tax liabilities); seven recommendations were partially taken into account (pupils and
students, tenants and recipients of housing loans, unemployed or homeless people, students,
care homes for the elderly), and three were not taken into account (single-parent families,
personal assistance, foreigners).

Personal grounds of discrimination – Social status

79

Recommendation regarding the draft Act Determining Intervention Measures to Assist in
Mitigating the Consequences of the Second Wave of COVID-19 Epidemic (Set of measures
to mitigate the effects of the epidemic No. 7)
The Advocate of the Principle of Equality made a recommendation to the Deputies of the
National Assembly on how to supplement certain proposed solutions to comply with the principles of equality, equal treatment and equal opportunities. The Advocate’s recommendation
refers to: termination of employment for no reason to employees who fulfil the conditions
for retirement; crisis allowance for work during the epidemic for workers whose last paid
monthly wage did not exceed the double of the minimum wage; crisis allowance for those
who make use of the maternity, paternity or parental leave; solidarity allowance for lunch
and financial aid for single-parent families; solidarity allowance eligible for families from
the 1st to 6th income bracket inclusive (not only up to the fifth); special additional aid for
single-parent families; special regular monthly allowance for students whose main source
of livelihood is student work if they are unable to do the work due to the epidemic; extraordinary aid at the birth of a child; adequate and decent pay and allowance for work in risky
situations for high-school students, university students, pensioners, volunteers and others
working in health care, in care homes for the elderly and in special social welfare institutions
during the epidemic; additional financial aid to care homes for the elderly, also for the purpose of enabling contacts of residents of the homes with their relatives and family members.
(0070-8/2020/1)
Recommendation status: Partially taken into account in the part of extraordinary aid at the
birth of a child (extension of the period) and solidarity allowance for children (expanding the
list of beneficiaries). Within the Set of measures to mitigate the effects of the epidemic No.
7, the recommendation of the Advocate from the Set of measures to mitigate the effects of
the epidemic No. 5 was taken into account regarding the compensation of wages for workers
who are unable to perform work due to quarantine at home or childcare which must not be
lower than the minimum wage in the Republic of Slovenia. In part, the recommendation was
also taken into account within the Set of measures to mitigate the effects of the epidemic
No. 8, namely regarding the solidarity allowance for adult high-school students.

Recommendation regarding the opening of self-service laundries within the Ordinance on
the provisional prohibition on the offering and sale of goods and services to consumers in
the Republic of Slovenia
Based on a complaint, the Advocate considered the case of the closure of self-service laundries during the first wave of the epidemic. In the proceedings, it was assessed that the interpretation of the Ordinance on the provisional prohibition on the offering and sale of goods
and services to consumers in the Republic of Slovenia, which does not consider self-service
laundries among the exceptions (together with “other emergency services to ensure public
safety and health”), disproportionately adversely affects socially disadvantaged individuals
living in worse material circumstances and prevents them from ensuring basic hygiene. A recommendation was addressed to the MEDT that when interpreting the Ordinance, laundries
should be included among the exceptions and thus remain open. (0700-22/2020/4)
Recommendation status: Not taken into account.

80

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

Recommendation directed at the Ordinance on the provisional prohibition on the offering and sale of goods and services to consumers in the Republic of Slovenia – opening of
self-service laundries
During the second wave of the epidemic, the Advocate again received a question regarding
the opening of laundries. In the same way as in the recommendation of 9 April 2020, the
Advocate assessed, that the closure of self-service laundries disproportionately affects the
situation of persons whose access to the minimum hygiene standards is prevented, as a
result of their social status and material circumstances. Therefore, a recommendation was
made to the MEDT, that the according to the interpretation of the Ordinance on the provisional prohibition on the offering and sale of goods and services to consumers in the Republic
of Slovenia, self-service laundries should be considered among “other emergency services to
ensure public safety and health” which would enable the reopening of the laundries (or that
the self-service laundries be included among the specific exceptions). (0702-136/2020/4)
Recommendation status: Not taken into account.

Recommendation regarding the adoption of additional measures to protect the homeless
during the COVID-19 epidemic
During the first wave of the epidemic, the Advocate recommended that all Slovenian municipalities take special measures for the homeless in terms of providing safe all-day accommodation, use of protective equipment, access to toilets, hot meals, laundry, access to substitution therapies, etc. Due to the restriction on freedom of movement and gathering of people
in public places and areas, the homeless are(were) disproportionately affected.
The municipalities closed public toilets, compromising the chances of the homeless to take
care of personal hygiene and increasing the likelihood of a deterioration of their health.
(0709-38/2020/1)
Recommendation status: Partially taken into account. Municipalities were informed about
the recommendation by various associations, one municipality responded to the Advocate.
The situation in individual municipalities with regard to the measures is not known to the
Advocate.

1.9.5 Highlights of the public opinion survey on
			 discrimination from 2020 with regard to the
			 personal ground of social status
The poor are largely perceived as the most frequent victims of discrimination in Slovenia (21
per cent of respondents, which is ten percentage points more than in 2017), while four per
cent of respondents perceive people of lower social status as the most frequent targets of
discrimination.

Personal grounds of discrimination – Social status

81

1.9.6 The Advocate’s cooperation with civil society with
			 regard to the personal ground of social status
Due to the declared epidemic associated with the COVID-19 disease, the Advocate’s cooperation with civil society organisations was mostly carried out in written form. This way, the Advocate obtained information on discrimination as perceived by the individual organisations
in their particular fields of work.

1.9.7 The Advocate’s educational and awareness-raising
			 activities with regard to the personal ground of
			social status
In 2020, the Advocate placed particular emphasis on bringing to light the situation of individual vulnerable groups during the COVID-19 epidemic with the help of the media and
publications on social networks. In various ways, including participation in numerous panel
discussions, the Advocate justified the necessity of adapting the anti-corona measures to the
principle that no one should be left behind the society.

82

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

1.10		 Property status
1.10.1		 Advisory, informing and support activities related
				 to the personal ground of property status
Conditioning the rental of an apartment with the employment of the tenant
The Market Inspectorate of the Republic of Slovenia (MIRS) requested the Advocate’s opinion
regarding the conduct of a real estate company, which made the rental of an apartment
conditional upon the employment of the tenant. The Advocate explained that in such cases
the proportionality test should be observed to establish and verify which legitimate goal is
being pursued by setting this condition and whether the means to achieve this goal are appropriate and necessary. The Advocate further explained that the condition of employment
can indeed be excessive, as it prevents access to renting an apartment and thus enjoying
one of the basic human rights, for those who may be unemployed, but can provide the owner
of the apartment with regular rent payments. There may be other, less restrictive measures
to pursue the legitimate goal of ensuring regular payments of rent, and not merely the condition of regular employment. However, if there are less restrictive ways, then the condition
of regular employment is not necessary, and the proportionality test is not complied with. In
the subject case, therefore, no exception to the prohibition of direct discrimination would be
granted and the treatment described is not acceptable, on the contrary, it is discriminatory.
(0702-143/2020)

Rejection of the application for a bank account overdraft in the case of negative balance
The Advocate was approached by a client whose bank rejected a request for a bank account
overdraft due to a previous personal bankruptcy. The client posed the question of why, as
a socially disadvantaged person and a recipient of social aid, they are not entitled to this
banking service and whether the conduct constitutes discrimination on the grounds of property status. The Advocate explained to the client that the conditions for granting the bank
account overdraft may be based on the personal ground of property status. However, such
conditions are not necessarily unlawful, as the bank may have legitimate reasons for not
granting a bank account overdraft to persons subject to personal bankruptcy. The specific
reasons why the bank refused to grant the bank account overdraft to persons in personal
bankruptcy, and whether the bank’s terms and conditions are appropriate, necessary, and
proportionate, can be determined by the Advocate only in a declaratory administrative procedure, so the Advocate invited the client to submit a complaint. (0702-111/2020)

Personal grounds of discrimination – Property status

83

Refusal to open a basic bank account
The Advocate was approached by a client whose request for the opening of a basic bank
account was denied by several banks due to past executions. As a result, the client was in a
difficult situation, as they got a job and, in accordance with Article 135 of the Employment
Relationships Act,9 the Employer was obliged to pay them using a transfer to a bank account.
The Advocate advised the client to request a written explanatory note from the bank on the
reasons for the refusal to open an account. The client did so and sent the reply by the bank
to the Advocate, however, the reasons for the refusal were not clearly stated. The Advocate
found that the refusal to open a basic bank account for the stated reason is justified under
the third indent of paragraph 7 of Article 181 of the Payment Services, Services for Issuing
Electronic Money and Payment Systems Act (PSSIEMPSA).10 The Advocate addressed an inquiry to the Bank of Slovenia as to whether a situation is permissible in which an individual
can be left without a bank account, and at the same time the law obliges their employer
to pay their salary to a bank account. The Bank of Slovenia explained that the possibility of
some consumers being left without a bank account on the basis of the said provision was
already detected, and that the problem was reported to the competent ministry and with a
call for a suitable solution. The Advocate noted that the client was able to solve the problem
by opening a bank account abroad, therefore, the Advocate decided to consider addressing
the problem at the systemic level. (0702-85/2020)

Difficulties in exercising the right to cash social assistance
The Advocate was approached by a client who described their difficulties in exercising their
right to cash social assistance. The Advocate advised the client on how to apply for the cash
social assistance. (0702-47/2020)

1.10.2		 Discrimination investigation in relation to the
				 personal ground of property status
In 2020, the Advocate did not issue any decision dealing with discrimination investigation in
relation to the personal ground of property status.

9

Employment Relationships Act (Official Gazette of the RS, No. 21/13, 78/13 – amended, 47/15 – ZZSDT, 33/16 –
PZ-F, 52/16, 15/17 – decision of the Constitutional Court, 22/19 – Trade Secrets Act, 81/19 and 203/20 –
ADIMAMCSWE).
10 Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, Nos. 7/18, 9/18 – corr. and 102/20.

84

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

1.10.3		 Assessments of the discriminatory character of
				 regulations with regard to the personal ground of
				property status
According to the Advocate, the decision on macro-prudential restrictions on household
lending by the Bank of Slovenia is not discriminatory
As of 1 November 2019, the Bank of Slovenia issued a resolution11 tightening the conditions
under which banks and savings banks may grant consumer and housing loans to consumers.
The Advocate assessed the discriminatory character of the decision and concluded that, given the social status, financial situation and family status of the borrowers, the decision does
not constitute discrimination as the restrictions are an appropriate, necessary, and proportionate measure to ensure financial stability. (050-8/2019)

According to the Advocate, the government regulation on exceptions to border crossings
for property owners in Croatia is not discriminatory
The Advocate addressed the complaint of a client regarding the ordinance on restrictions on
the crossing of borders with neighbouring countries.12 Until 28 September 2020, this ordinance stipulated particular exceptions to mandatory quarantine when crossing the border.
The exceptions also included owners or tenants of real estate, vessels, or campsite plots. The
client alleged discrimination on the grounds of property status, as those who do not have
property or contractual rights in a neighbouring country are in a disadvantaged situation
when crossing the border. The Advocate assessed that the exceptions to the mandatory
quarantine also include a number of other life situations which take into account a special
situation of the persons concerned and their need to cross the border. The equality body also
assessed that a property or contractual right in another country does not say anything about
a person’s property status. Hence, no personal ground was given in the case. The Advocate
assessed that the regulation was not discriminatory. (050-19/2020)

11 Decision on macro-prudential restrictions on household lending by the Bank of Slovenia is not discriminatory,
Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 64/19 and 75/20. Slovenia, Official Gazette of the Republic of
Slovenia, No. 64/20.
12 Ordinance of imposing and implementing measures to prevent the spread of epidemic COVID-19 at the border
crossing points at the external border and inspection posts within national borders ob the Republic ob Slovenia
(Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 112/20, 115/20, 120/20, 121/20 - corr. in 130/20).

Personal grounds of discrimination – Property status

85

1.10.4		 The Advocate’s recommendations regarding the
				 personal ground of property status
Recommendation regarding the draft Integrated National Energy and Climate Plan
As part of the public consultation on the amended draft Integrated National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP), the Advocate made a recommendation on the problem of energy poverty.
The Advocate pointed out that in the context of energy policy changes, energy poverty is not
only problematic in terms of “fair and equitable transition”, but also in terms of discrimination, so a recommendation was made to the MoI, that the chapter on energy poverty in the
draft NECP be extended to include a clear definition of energy poverty in Slovenia, as well as
specific objectives and measures (including social policies), should the set objectives not be
complied with according to the planned dynamics. (0701-1/2020/1)
Status: Not taken into account.

Recommendation regarding the draft Act Amending the Housing Act
Regarding the draft act, the Advocate recommended amendments to the MESP with the aim
of improving physical accessibility of multi-apartment buildings for people with disabilities,
access to higher subsidies for non-profit rent and right of access to non-profit apartments
for foreigners with permanent residence (residents). (0709-62/2020/1)
Recommendation status: The legislative process is still ongoing.

Recommendation regarding the draft of the new Communicable Diseases Act
A recommendation was addressed to MH, to provide information, counselling and education
in accessible languages, forms and technologies, in line with the principle of accessibility.
The Advocate also raised the issue of vaccination as a condition for access to programs of
secondary and higher education institutions in the field of health care. A recommendation
was also made by the Advocate that protective equipment for persons in disadvantaged material situation be provided by the State and that the MH amend the Act so that persons in a
civil union or non-formal civil union be clearly and unambiguously entitled to compensation.
(0070-1/2020/1)
Recommendation status: The legislative process is still ongoing.

86

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

Recommendation regarding the draft of the Long-Term Care Act
The Advocate recommended to the Ministry of Health that the draft act should clearly define
the principle of equal access to long-term care for all, regardless of the personal grounds of
the beneficiaries, and the right to independent and autonomous life of the beneficiaries. In
the recommendation, the Advocate stated that the act should clearly define the right to
long-term care, dis-aggregate all its essential elements, criteria and methods of exercise of
the rights, and the means for their protection. It was also recommended that a comparable
level of enjoyment of rights be ensured for children without the status of long-term care
beneficiaries. (0701-14/2020/2)
Recommendation status: The legislative process is still ongoing.

Recommendations regarding the Bill on Amendments to the Act on Intervention Measures
to Contain the COVID-19 Epidemic and Mitigate its Consequences for Citizens and the Economy (Set of measures to mitigate the effects of the epidemic No. 2)
The Advocate recommended to the National Assembly the adoption of special measures for
vulnerable social groups during the COVID-19 epidemic, which were overlooked by the Set of
measures to mitigate the effects of the epidemic No. 1 or whose situation was not satisfactorily regulated. In doing so, the Advocate’s starting points were the recommendations to the
Government of 10 April (No. 0701-5/2020/1), summarising which recommendations were not
followed or were only partially followed.
Thus, the Advocate recommended that, in the context of the intervention measures during
the epidemic, the following be provided: a subsidy for lunch for pupils and students; financial
aid to persons entitled to or providing personal assistance; financial aid to care homes for
the elderly; emergency health care and the right to basic care in the form of cash social assistance to foreigners legally residing in the Republic of Slovenia; additional aid to single-parent
families, families of children with special needs, self-employed parents working part-time,
socially disadvantaged tenants and recipients of loans, unemployed, homeless, students and
the elderly residing in care homes. (0701-5/2020/6)
Recommendation status: The recommendations were taken into account or partially taken
into account mainly in the subsequent Set of measures to mitigate the effects of the epidemic, possibly several times, e.g. aid to students under the Set of measures to mitigate the
effects of the epidemic No. 2 (additional inclusion of part-time students), Set of measures to
mitigate the effects of the epidemic No. 7 (recurrence of assistance in the second wave of
the epidemic) and the Set of measures to mitigate the effects of the epidemic No. 8 (supplementing the list of beneficiaries).
And lastly, four recommendations were taken into account (aid to families of children with
special needs, self-employed parents, parents or guardians of children or adults with special
needs, differentiation according to the condition of paid overdue tax liabilities); seven recommendations were partially taken into account (pupils and students, tenants and recipients
of housing loans, unemployed or homeless people, students, care homes for the elderly), and
three were not taken into account (single-parent families, personal assistance, foreigners).

Personal grounds of discrimination – Property status

87

Recommendation regarding the draft Act Determining Temporary Measures to Mitigate
and Remedy the Consequences of COVID-19 (Set of measures to mitigate the effects of the
epidemic No. 5)
The Advocate recommended to the National Assembly that the measures also provide workers who cannot perform their work due to quarantine or childcare (i.e. force majeure) with
compensation not lower than the minimum wage (which was already in force during the first
wave of the epidemic). Guardians of adults with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities and
guardians and foster parents of children should be included among the workers who are unable to perform their work due to so-called force majeure. The Advocate recommended that
additional justifications for distinguishing certain beneficiaries and methods of determining
the amount of aid or compensation be included in the act. It was also recommended that
consideration be given to introducing additional special measures to ensure equal opportunities for the people most affected by the adoption of stricter measures envisaged in the
government’s plan to prevent the spread of infections. (0701-15/2020/1)
Recommendation status: The recommendation was taken into account in the part where
the Advocate proposed compensation in the amount of at least the minimum wage (in Set
of measures to mitigate the effects of the epidemic No. 7) and that guardians and foster
parents of persons, including adults, be included among the recipients of compensation (by
way of amendments). The recommendation regarding the unjustified differentiation of beneficiaries of aid was not taken into account.

Recommendation regarding the draft Act Determining Intervention Measures to Assist in
Mitigating the Consequences of the Second Wave of COVID-19 Epidemic (Set of measures
to mitigate the effects of the epidemic No. 7)
The Advocate of the Principle of Equality made a recommendation to the Deputies of the
National Assembly on how to supplement certain proposed solutions to comply with the principles of equality, equal treatment and equal opportunities. The Advocate’s recommendation
refers to: termination of employment for no reason to employees who fulfil the conditions
for retirement; crisis allowance for work during the epidemic for workers whose last paid
monthly wage did not exceed the double of the minimum wage; crisis allowance for those
who make use of the maternity, paternity or parental leave; solidarity allowance for lunch
and financial aid for single-parent families; solidarity allowance eligible for families from
the 1st to 6th income bracket inclusive (not only up to the fifth); special additional aid for
single-parent families; special regular monthly allowance for students whose main source
of livelihood is student work if they are unable to do the work due to the epidemic; extraordinary aid at the birth of a child; adequate and decent pay and allowance for work in risky
situations for high-school students, university students, pensioners, volunteers and others
working in health care, in care homes for the elderly and in special social welfare institutions
during the epidemic; additional financial aid to care homes for the elderly, also for the purpose of enabling contacts of residents of the homes with their relatives and family members.
(0070-8/2020/1)

88

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

Recommendation status: Partially taken into account in the part of extraordinary aid at the
birth of a child (extension of the period) and solidarity allowance for children (expanding the
list of beneficiaries). Within the Set of measures to mitigate the effects of the epidemic No.
7, the recommendation of the Advocate from the Set of measures to mitigate the effects of
the epidemic No. 5 was taken into account regarding the compensation of wages for workers
who are unable to perform work due to quarantine at home or childcare which must not be
lower than the minimum wage in the Republic of Slovenia. In part, the recommendation was
also taken into account within the Set of measures to mitigate the effects of the epidemic
No. 8, namely regarding the solidarity allowance for adult high-school students.

Recommendation regarding the opening of self-service laundries within the Ordinance on
the provisional prohibition on the offering and sale of goods and services to consumers in
the Republic of Slovenia
Based on a complaint, the Advocate considered the case of the closure of self-service laundries during the first wave of the epidemic. In the proceedings, it was assessed that the
interpretation of the Ordinance on the provisional prohibition on the offering and sale
of goods and services to consumers in the Republic of Slovenia, which does not consider
self-service laundries among the exceptions (together with “other emergency services to
ensure public safety and health”), disproportionately adversely affects socially disadvantaged individuals living in worse material circumstances and prevents them from ensuring basic hygiene. A recommendation was addressed to the MEDT that when interpreting
the Ordinance, laundries should be included among the exceptions and thus remain open.
(0700-22/2020/4)
Recommendation status: Not taken into account.

Recommendation directed at the Ordinance on the provisional prohibition on the offering and sale of goods and services to consumers in the Republic of Slovenia – opening of
self-service laundries
During the second wave of the epidemic, the Advocate again received a question regarding
the opening of laundries. In the same way as in the recommendation of 9 April 2020, the
Advocate assessed, that the closure of self-service laundries disproportionately affects the
situation of persons whose access to the basic hygiene standards is prevented, as a result
of their social status and material circumstances. Therefore, a recommendation was made
to the MEDT, that the according to the interpretation of the Ordinance on the provisional
prohibition on the offering and sale of goods and services to consumers in the Republic of
Slovenia, self-service laundries should be considered among “other emergency services to
ensure public safety and health” which would enable the reopening of the laundries (or that
the self-service laundries be included among the specific exceptions). (0702-136/2020/4)
Recommendation status: Not taken into account.

Personal grounds of discrimination – Property status

89

Recommendation regarding the adoption of additional measures to protect the homeless
during the COVID-19 epidemic
During the first wave of the epidemic, the Advocate recommended that all Slovenian municipalities take special measures for the homeless in terms of providing safe all-day accommodation, use of protective equipment, access to toilets, hot meals, laundry, access to
substitution therapies, etc. Due to the restriction on freedom of movement and gathering
of people in public places and areas, the homeless are(were) disproportionately affected. The
municipalities closed public toilets, compromising the chances of the homeless to take care
of personal hygiene and increasing the likelihood of a deterioration of their health.
(0709-38/2020/1)
Recommendation status: Partially taken into account. Municipalities were informed about
the recommendation by various associations, one municipality responded to the Advocate.
The situation in individual municipalities with regard to the measures is not known to the
Advocate.

Recommendation regarding the ensuring of conditions for distance learning for all schoolage children
In the recommendation made to the MESS, the Advocate pointed out that some Slovenian
families with school-age children did not have adequate access to distance learning during
the time of the epidemic. It was suggested that the Ministry should help schools directly by
purchasing information and communication equipment and by providing them with access
to the World Wide Web. (0701-4/2020/1)
Recommendation status: Partially taken into account. The Ministry explained that a project
is being implemented with the help of various donors to provide school children with the
necessary ICT equipment. Based on reports from the media, the Advocate estimated that,
despite the efforts of authorities, some children did not have access to ICT equipment and a
quality connection to the World Wide Web.

Recommendation regarding further measures to mitigate the effects of the COVID-19 epidemic in the housing-related area
The Advocate recommended further measures to the MESP to mitigate the effects of the
COVID-19 epidemic in the housing-related area. As information on the rights and possibilities
of aid to tenants is very dispersed, the Advocate recommended that the Ministry should
provide accessible and comprehensible information on the rights and possibilities of aid to
tenants in one place and closely monitor the situation on the housing market in the coming
months and use available measures to respond (e.g. additional subsidies, a freeze of rent),
paying special attention to vulnerable groups. (0701-5/2020/4)
Recommendation status: Not taken into account.

90

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

Recommendations regarding further measures to mitigate the effects of the COVID-19
epidemic with a view to preventing and eliminating discrimination
The Advocate highlighted the uneven impact of the epidemic on already vulnerable groups
and suggested that the Government of the Republic of Slovenia should adopt (additional)
special measures to help these groups, as it is crucial that all efforts during the epidemic follow the principle that “no one should be left behind”. Among other things, the Advocate drew
attention to a particularly difficult situation of: single-parent families; families of children
with special needs; self-employed parents working part-time; pupils and students (in terms
of lunch); socially disadvantaged tenants and recipients of loans; unemployed; homeless;
students; the elderly in care homes and foreigners. (0701-5/2020/1)
Recommendation status: The recommendations were taken into account or partially taken
into account mainly in the subsequent Set of measures to mitigate the effects of the epidemic, possibly several times, e.g. aid to students under the Set of measures to mitigate the
effects of the epidemic No. 2 (additional inclusion of part-time students), Set of measures to
mitigate the effects of the epidemic No. 7 (recurrence of assistance in the second wave of
the epidemic) and the Set of measures to mitigate the effects of the epidemic No. 8 (supplementing the list of beneficiaries). And lastly, four recommendations were taken into account
(aid to families of children with special needs, self-employed parents, parents or guardians
of children or adults with special needs, differentiation according to the condition of paid
overdue tax liabilities); seven recommendations were partially taken into account (pupils and
students, tenants and recipients of housing loans, unemployed or homeless people, students,
care homes for the elderly), and three were not taken into account (single-parent families,
personal assistance, foreigners).

Recommendation on the ensuring of inclusive education in the case of reoccurring school
closures
The Advocate recommended that, in the case of reoccurring school closures, the MESS should
provide for an inclusive education for all children, especially with regard to their access to
information and communication technologies. It was pointed out that despite the involvement of all relevant services, there was a difference in the acquisition of knowledge between
different groups of students, especially those from the so-called vulnerable groups (e.g. children from economically vulnerable backgrounds, Roma children, children with special needs),
which had a negative impact on their learning performance and, consequently, on the exercise of their right to education. The Advocate assessed that when distance learning using
computer technology was introduced during the first wave of the epidemic, not all students
were granted the same opportunities. Moreover, the recommendation that pupils and students entitled to a subsidy for lunch be provided with the payment of funds in the amount
of the approved food subsidy during the closure of educational institutions, was once again
underlined by the Advocate. (0709-60/2020/1)
Recommendation status: Partially taken into account. The MESS devoted some attention to
certain parts of the recommendation, e.g. the psychological and psychosocial consequences
of distance learning, and at the end of December 2020, an Ordinance on the reopening of primary schools with a specially adapted program and institutions for the education of children
and adolescents with special needs was issued.

Personal grounds of discrimination – Property status

91

1.10.5		 Highlights of the public opinion survey on
				 discrimination from 2020 with regard to the
				 personal ground of property status
Among the participants of the survey, seven per cent understand discrimination as unequal
treatment based on the person’s property status. At the same time, 17 per cent of respondents perceive property status as the most common reason for discrimination in Slovenia,
which is the same as in 2017.
From the 22 per cent of people who claimed to have experienced discrimination in 2020, 14
per cent of the participants in the survey were discriminated against due to the personal
ground of property status (which is approximately 1.5 per cent of the population of Slovenia).

1.10.6		 The Advocate’s cooperation with civil society with
				 regard to the personal ground of property status
Due to the declared epidemic associated with the coronavirus disease, the Advocate’s cooperation with civil society organisations was mostly carried out in written form. This way, the
Advocate obtained information on discrimination as perceived by the individual organisations in their particular fields of work.

1.10.7		 The Advocate’s educational and awareness
				 raising activities with regard to the personal
				ground of property status
In 2020, the Advocate placed particular emphasis on bringing to light the situation of individual vulnerable groups during the COVID-19 epidemic with the help of the media and
publications on social networks. In various ways, including participation in numerous panel
discussions, the Advocate justified the necessity of adapting the anti-corona measures to the
principle that no one should be left behind by the society.

92

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

1.11		 Education
THE ADVOCATE HIGHLIGHTS
Article 57 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia
(education and schooling)
Freedom of education shall be guaranteed.
Primary education is compulsory and shall be financed from public funds.
The state shall create the opportunities for citizens to obtain a proper education.

1.11.1		 Advisory, informing and support activities related
				 to the personal ground of education
Conditions for appointing the Dean
The Advocate was approached by one of the universities regarding a change in the statute,
which was being prepared. The planned changes included new conditions for the appointment of the Dean of one of the faculties. The university wanted to know whether the conditions were discriminatory. The Advocate explained its powers and the fact that a position
can be taken only after a procedure has been completed. Therefore, the Advocate informed
the client on how to initiate the procedure and in what way the decision-making takes place.
In particular, the Advocate would assess whether the condition is linked to personal grounds,
such as education, and then assess which legitimate objective the condition pursues, whether the condition is consistent with the proportionality test – whether it is appropriate, necessary, and proportionate. (0702-33/2020)

The procedure of recognition of competencies at the faculty
The Advocate was approached by a client who was involved in the procedure of recognising
competencies at one of the faculties. As the faculty failed to recognise certain competencies,
the client did not have the opportunity to enrol at the desired level and in the selected direction of education. Therefore, the client asked the Advocate for support and advice regarding
the recognition of competencies. The Advocate explained that the area of recognition of
competencies is not a question of discrimination with reference to the personal grounds of
the client, but a professional issue in the field of higher education, which the Advocate cannot interfere with. (0702-118/2020)

Personal grounds of discrimination – Education

93

1.11.2		 Discrimination investigation in relation to the
				personal ground of education
Refusal to enrol in the second year of the second cycle does not constitute discrimination
The complainant, who had already completed his second cycle degree, wished to enrol in the
second cycle in another field of study at the same faculty. The University did not grant the
request. As a result, the complainant alleged discriminatory treatment on the grounds of
education. He compared his situation with graduates of the four-year undergraduate degree,
who were allowed to enrol directly in the second year. In this case, the Advocate found that
the complainant was not in a comparable situation with the graduates of the four-year undergraduate degree, as they had not obtained a master’s degree upon completion of their
studies, while the applicant has. Enrolment directly in the second year of the second cycle
degree only enables them to obtain a master’s degree, which the complainant has already
obtained. As a result, the Advocate did not find discrimination on the grounds of education.
(Decision No. 0700-2/2020/21 of 31 August 2020)

1.11.3		 Assessments of the discriminatory character of
				 regulations with regard to the personal ground of
				education
In 2020, the Advocate did not conduct assessments of the discriminatory character of regulations with regard to the personal ground of education.

1.11.4		 The Advocate’s recommendations regarding the
personal ground of education
Recommendation regarding the draft of the new Communicable Diseases Act
A recommendation was addressed to MH, to provide information, counselling and education
in accessible languages, forms, and technologies, in line with the principle of accessibility. The
Advocate also raised the issue of vaccination as a condition for access to programs of secondary and higher education institutions in the field of health care. (0070-1/2020/1)
Recommendation status: The legislative process is still ongoing.

94

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

1.11.5		 Highlights of the public opinion survey on
				 discrimination from 2020 with regard to the
				personal ground of education
Five percent of respondents thought that people with particular skills or education are the
most common target of discrimination in Slovenia (which is an increase of two percentage
points compared to 2017), ten percent of people consider education as the most common
reason for discrimination in Slovenia (which is three percentage points more than in 2017).
In 2020, the population expressed a high degree of tolerance (the second largest) towards
different educational groups; namely, 87 percent of the respondents stated that they do not
avoid people with lower levels of educational attainment compared to themselves, while seven percent of the population avoids such contacts – which remained unchanged compared
to 2017.
The frequency of discrimination on the basis of education is also reflected in the fact that
(among the 22 percent of respondents who claimed to have experienced discrimination in
2020), 20 percent were discriminated against on the basis of their education.

1.11.6		 The Advocate’s cooperation with civil society with
				 regard to the personal ground of education
Due to the declared epidemic associated with the coronavirus disease, the Advocate’s cooperation with civil society organisations was mostly carried out in written form. This way, the
Advocate obtained information on discrimination as perceived by the individual organisations in their particular fields of work.

1.11.7		 The Advocate’s educational and awareness
				 raising activities with regard to the personal
				ground of education
In 2020, the Advocate did not conduct any special educational or awareness-raising activities
with regard to the personal ground of education.

Personal grounds of discrimination – Education

95

1.12		 Other personal grounds
The examples presented below include the work of the Advocate on cases marked by other
personal grounds.
These are personal grounds that are not explicitly listed in the PADA, but according to their
characteristics they can be classified among the so-called other personal grounds. A condition is that these personal grounds are such personal characteristics of the individual which
are out of their control and for which it is reasonable to expect that the individual could not
easily give them up.
Other personal grounds that the Advocate considered in 2020 are:
•
•
•
•
•

health status, body weight and height,
parenthood and family status,
citizenship,
place of residence,
trade-union membership.

And other listed personal grounds where the Advocate did not acknowledge the status of
another personal ground:
•
•

96

employment status, self-employment, and concessionaire status,
membership in a hunting association.

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

1.12.1		 Advisory, informing and support activities –
				anonymised cases
Health status
Evaluating an employee on long-term sick leave
The Advocate was approached by a client employed in the public sector who sought advice
because their employer did not want to evaluate them due to long-term sick leave. The
non-evaluation has negative consequences for the client as a civil servant, that is why the
client asked for information about the possibilities of action. The Advocate advised the client
on the available legal remedies that could be used for the protection of rights under the Public Sector Salary System Act,13 under the Public Employees Act14 and under the Employment
Relationships Act,15 and how discrimination can be alleged on the ground of health status
using these legal remedies. (0702-4/2020)

Different criteria in determining the method of calculating business performance bonuses
Following a decision on the discriminatory calculation of business performance, i.e.the Christmas bonus, with regard to the presence of the employee at the workplace (case no. 070030/2019, decision of 4 September 2019) several individuals approached the Advocate whose
employers used the same method of calculating Christmas bonuses. They wanted to know
whether the Decision where the Advocate found indirect discrimination on the grounds of
gender, parenthood and health status had effect only in the specific case or whether it also
applies to other companies with the same practice. The Advocate explained that the decision
has effect only in the specific case of the company against which the complaint was lodged.
Since the decision of the Advocate was upheld by the Administrative Court of the Republic
of Slovenia (judgement No. I U 29/2020-21 of 11 November 2020), it can be expected that
the Advocate will issue the same decision in all other cases where the de facto and de jure
situation is substantially the same as in the case under consideration. The Advocate invited
the clients to lodge a complaint, which may also be anonymous. (0702-8/2020)

13 Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 108/09 – official consolidated text, 13/10, 59/10, 85/10, 107/10,
35/11 – ORZSPJS49a, 27/12 – decision of the Constitutional Court, 40/12 - ZUJF, 46/13, 25/14 – Financial
Administration Act, 50/14, 95/14 – Public Sector Salary System Act 15, 82/15, 23/17 – State Attorneys Office
Act, 67/17 and 84/18.
14 Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, Nos. 63/07 – official consolidated text, 65/08, 69/08 – Market in
Financial Instruments Act-A, 69/08 – Insurance Act-E, 40/12 – Fiscal Balance Act, 158/20 – Integrity and
Prevention of Corruption Act-C and 203/20 – ADIMAMCSWE.
15 Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, Nos. 21/13, 78/13 – amended, 47/15 – Employment, Selfemployment and Work of Foreigners Act, 33/16 – Act Amending the Maritime Code, 52/16, 15/17 decision of
the Constitutional Court, 22/19 – Trade Secrets Act, 81/19 and 203/20 – ADIMAMCSWE.

Personal grounds of discrimination – Other personal grounds

97

Exercising the option of shopping in stores at a time reserved exclusively for vulnerable
groups
The Advocate was approached by a client who, being a chronic patient, wanted to exercise
the right of shopping in stores at the time reserved exclusively for vulnerable groups during the coronavirus epidemic.16 The latter were mentioned in the relevant Ordinance of the
Government of the Republic of Slovenia only by way of example, while special emphasis was
put on persons over the age of 65. However, the client was younger, and their vulnerability
was not visible on the outside, so they asked for advice on how to exercise this particular
advantage. The Advocate provided the client with an explanation including a legal opinion
and advised them to obtain a medical certificate, which will enable the exercise of the stated
advantage. (0702-50/2020)

Humour without stigmatising the vulnerable
A client drew the Advocate’s attention to a radio play posted on the radio’s online social networks that inappropriately stigmatised people with mental health problems. The Advocate
issued to the radio station a recommendation to remove the disputed content and to assess
its suitability from the point of view of protection against discrimination. (0702-42/2020)

Unilateral order of annual leave
The Advocate was approached by a client who returned from holidays abroad immediately
after the declared epidemic. Their employer forced them to use their annual leave, and did
not allow them to work from home, unlike their colleagues, who had this opportunity, this
made the client feel discriminated against. Therefore, the client asked the Advocate for advice. The Advocate explained that the employer must not unilaterally order annual leave to
an employee, not even during the current epidemiological situation in Slovenia. Article 163
of the Employment Relationships Act stipulates that annual leave is used in such a way as
to take into account the needs of the work process, the possibilities for rest and recreation
of the employee and the employee’s family obligations, however, this does not mean that
the employer can unilaterally order the use of annual leave. The right to annual leave is a
worker’s right at their own disposal. The Advocate advised the client to inform the employer
about this, and in case of non-compliance, they can also turn to the Labor Inspectorate regarding the labor law issues. (0702-43/2020)

Request for advice on schooling of a child with autism
The Advocate was approached by a client who has a son with autism. They asked for advice
regarding the schooling of the child, for whom they have been waiting for a decision on
guidance. The Advocate advised the client to submit an application to the Inspectorate for
Education and Sport, as the question concerned professional topics falling outside the competence of the Advocate. (0702-13/2020)
16 Ordinance on the provisional prohibition on the offering and sale of goods and services to consumers in the
Republic of Slovenia, Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, Nos. 25/20, 29/20, 32/20, 37/20, 42/20, 47/20,
53/20, 58/20, 59/20 and 67/20.

98

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

Body weight
Refusal of service due to alleged excess weight and reimbursement of the purchase price
The Advocate was approached by a client who wanted to use the “zipline” service, but was
rejected by the provider due to their alleged excess weight, and was charged a part of the
amount paid for the performance of the service. When the customer demanded the amount
back, the service provider refused to return the whole amount, referring to the general terms
and conditions. The client turned to the Advocate for help, wishing to remain anonymous.
The Advocate explained to the client that in the specific cases discrimination investigation
can be carried out only based on a complaint. If discrimination were to be found, the Advocate would primarily assess whether the maximum weight limits pursue a legitimate objective (e.g. in the field of safety, risk insurance in such activities) and whether the way in
which the maximum weight is determined represents appropriate and necessary means of
achieving that objective. (0702-108/2020)

Body height
Termination of employment due to height
The Advocate was approached by a client who was dismissed due to their height. The client
asked for advice. The Advocate invited the client to lodge a complaint. Moreover, the Advocate explained that based on the complaint received a conclusion will have to made on
whether the requirement for a minimum height for the workplace is given and which particular objective is pursued. Subsequently, a consideration would be given to the question of
whether the objective could be achieved by other, less restrictive measures. In this case, the
Advocate would investigate whether the conduct represents a prohibited form of discrimination or an exception to the prohibition of discrimination. However, the client did not choose
to submit the complaint. (0702-123/2020)

Parenthood
Termination of employment during parental leave
The Advocate was approached by a client whose action by which they alleged discrimination
on the grounds of parenthood before the Labour Court was rejected. Namely, during the client’s absence due to parental leave, the employer carried out a reorganisation and abolished
their workplace, a month after returning to work, the client received a termination of their
employment contract. The client asked the Advocate for an opinion on whether it would be
reasonable to apply for revision of the decision before the Supreme Court of the Republic
of Slovenia. The Advocate explained to the client in which part the revision would be (ir)
relevant. The client informed the Advocate that they applied for revision and succeeded in
the case. The Supreme Court ruled on the application of paragraph 2 of Article 115 of the
Employment Relationships Act and decided that the abolition of a workplace during parental
leave was treated as “conduct necessary for the termination of employment contract and
employment of another employee”, which makes the termination of the employment contract unlawful. In response to the client’s additional questions, the Advocate also provided
further information on the possibility of filing a claim for damages before a court of general
jurisdiction due to discrimination under Article 39 of the PADA. (0702-2/2019)
Personal grounds of discrimination – Other personal grounds

99

Poorer evaluation due to parental leave
The Advocate was approached by a client stating that they were subject to poorer evaluation
by their public sector employer due to being absent from work for the reason of parental
leave. The client stated that this was a systematic practice of the employer. The Advocate
advised them on how the discrimination investigation procedure is conducted. The client
filed a complaint, initiating the procedure before the Advocate. At the end of 2020, the procedure was still pending. (0702-41/2020)

Citizenship
Termination of a bank account of a legal entity owned by foreign citizens
The Market Inspectorate asked the Advocate for an opinion on the alleged discrimination
against a legal entity by the bank, which announced the closure of its bank account, allegedly
due to the fact, that the owners of the legal entity were Ukrainian citizens. The Advocate
explained that banks have different ways of handling unusual transactions, customers and
business relationships related to countries on the list of high-risk third countries with strategic weaknesses that do not have appropriate measures in place to prevent and detect
money laundering or terrorist financing. However, a bank may not terminate its business
cooperation by reason of the mere fact that the representatives, founders, or partners of the
business entity are nationals of the country at risk. (0702-114/2020)

The procedure for obtaining international protection
The Advocate was approached by a client with a request for advice regarding the procedure
for obtaining international protection. The latter was denied to the client, as a result they
were accommodated in a center for foreigners, where they were waiting for the procedure
of repatriation. The client asked for help. The Advocate expressed understanding for the
client’s hardship and explained that the equality body is not competent to deal with the
case, as proceedings related to the status of foreigners fall outside the scope of protection
against discrimination. The Advocate further explained that the equality body does not have
the power to act as an appellate body in cases that are already pending before other state
authorities. Therefore, the Advocate directed the client to use the remedies available in these
proceedings. (0702-72/2019)

100

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

Placing foreign workers to quarantine upon arrival in Slovenia
A client approached the Advocate regarding the difficult situation in which foreign workers
found themselves during the coronavirus epidemic, upon arriving in Slovenia and being placed
in quarantine. They are said to be without basic means of subsistence, and the question has
been raised as to who is responsible for their sustenance during the time when they are unable to work due to quarantine. The Civil Protection declined competence in the matter and
the workers were helped by some humanitarian organisations. The client posed the question
on how to systematically arrange the quarantine orders for people who find themselves in a
livelihood crisis and asked the Advocate for advice on further steps. The Advocate assessed
that the matter was not linked to discrimination, as their employers were responsible for
complying with the obligations under employment contracts with all employees, regardless
of their citizenship. The Advocate suggested informing the workers that for violations of the
employment contract (e.g. non-payment of income during quarantine) the Labour Inspectorate is responsible, while the violations of quarantine decision fall within the competence of
the Health Inspectorate. (0702-105/2020)

Place of residence
Free participation in cultural events for the residents of the municipality
The Market Inspectorate requested the Advocate’s opinion on whether enabling free participation in cultural events for the residents of the municipality in which the cultural institution is located constitutes discrimination against the residents of other municipalities. The
Advocate explained that such a benefit may constitute discrimination against residents of
other municipalities under the PADA, unless consistent with the proportionality test. The
legitimate objective of such conduct must be given, and the conduct must represent appropriate, necessary, and proportionate measure for achieving the latter. If part of the funds for
the operation of the cultural institution is contributed by the municipality from municipal
levies, the legitimate goal (increased visits to the institution and cultural awareness) can also
be achieved by this measure, but it must be reasoned and substantiated with specific data
and calculations on how the residents have already contributed to the functioning of the
institution through the payment of taxes. (0705-35/2020)

Personal grounds of discrimination – Other personal grounds

101

Trade union membership
Worse treatment due to trade union membership
The Advocate was approached by an individual who claimed that their employer was in
breach of labour law, as a result of which, while being a member of the trade union, they
turned to the trade union for help. The latter sent a formal notice to the management, on
the basis of which some violations were eliminated. Following the trade union’s action, the
management ordered the client a special paid leave until the day when their fixed-term employment contract expiration. The client considered that the conduct was the result of the
union membership and the actions linked to the irregularities. Therefore, the client asked the
Advocate for advice. The Advocate informed the client that poorer treatment due to trade
union membership is explicitly prohibited, as well as retaliatory measures taken against individuals who act against violations. Th Advocate informed the client of the possibilities for
action and invited the client to submit a complaint. The client did not choose to submit the
complaint. (0702-103/2020)

Employment status
Payment of Christmas bonus exclusively for workers employed on day of 1 December in the
current year.
The Advocate was approached by an individual who retired in November 2019, while the employer paid Christmas bonuses for the current year to all those who were employed by the
company on day of 1 December 2019. The client asked for clarification whether not being entitled to the Christmas bonus represents discriminatory conduct. The Advocate explained to
the client that the issue falls outside the field of discrimination, as the employment relationship may be terminated for various reasons and not due to the worker’s personal grounds. At
the same time, the Advocate informed the client that according to labour law and in accordance with case law, a worker in such a situation has the right to a proportional share of the
Christmas bonus or business performance bonus (judgement of the Higher Labour and Social
Court, HLSC judgement and decision Pdp 1331/2008). (0702-21/2020)

Concessionaire status
Implementation of mentoring of trainee dentists
The Advocate was approached by an individual who is a dentist with a self-pay clinic. He applied to the Ministry of Health for mentoring trainees, but the application was rejected, as
only dentists in the public network can provide mentoring. The Advocate informed the client
that the matter did not fall within its powers, as it is a matter of distinction between public
or private healthcare, and operation on the basis of concession is a matter of the individual
dentist’s choice and not their personal ground. (0702-74/2019)

102

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

Other
Operation of the consulate of the Republic of Slovenia in a foreign country during the declared epidemic
The client addressed a question to the Advocate about the operation of the consulate of
the Republic of Slovenia in a foreign country during the declared coronavirus epidemic. The
client stated that during the stoppage of public life, Slovenian citizens can perform the most
urgent consular tasks at the consulate in person, for example in the case of an expired passport, while foreign citizens are not allowed to enter the Republic of Slovenia under any conditions, therefore, taking fingerprints of foreign citizens who are in the process of obtaining a
residence permit in Slovenia is suspended. The Advocate addressed an inquiry to the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs in order to advise the client. The latter explained that, in accordance with
the Foreign Affairs Act, during a time of poor epidemiological situation in the country, only
urgent tasks are being carried out, which can include pursuing the interests of the Republic
of Slovenia and its citizens. The reduced operation lasted for a month, after which the embassy gradually established a larger volume of consular operations. The Advocate forwarded
the clarifications of the Ministry to the client. (0702-104/2020)

1.12.2		 Discrimination investigation – anonymised cases
THE ADVOCATE HIGHLIGHTS
Article 51 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia
(right to health care)
Everyone has the right to health care under conditions provided by law.
The rights to health care from public funds shall be provided by law.
No one may be compelled to undergo medical treatment except in cases provided by law.

Health status
Refusal to insure a person living with HIV constitutes discrimination
The Advocate of the Principle of Equality was approached by a person living with HIV, whom
an insurance company denied access to casualty insurance due to their health status. In the
proceedings, the Advocate obtained the opinion of a medical expert who has also been working in the field of HIV infections for many years. According to the expert opinion, an insured
person who lives with HIV and undergoes regular treatment does not pose any greater risk
to the insurance company than HIV-negative people. As the insurance company failed to
demonstrate an exception to the prohibition of direct discrimination in the proceedings, the
Advocate found that the characteristics of direct discrimination were found in the refusal by
the insurance company to insure the client. Following the Advocate’s decision, the insurance
company offered the conclusion of the insurance to the individual concerned. (Decision No.
0700-18/2019/13 of 14 January 2020)

Personal grounds of discrimination – Other personal grounds

103

The security guard was not subject to discrimination due to his health condition
The complainant complained due to a sense of discrimination in employment, consequently their employment contract was terminated by the employer. The client alleged unequal
treatment because of his health condition. The Advocate found that the termination of employment was the result of the complainant’s inappropriate communication with the employer and other employees. There was no evidence that the reason for the employer’s conduct
was in the complainant’s health condition. The case was also examined by the Court, which
did not find any unlawful conduct in relation to the termination of employment. As a result,
the Advocate did not find any discriminatory conduct. (Decision no. 0700-5/2020/9 of 21
September 2020)

The employee was not subject to discrimination due to their health condition
The Advocate received a complaint in which the client alleged discrimination at the workplace
on the ground of health condition. The client claimed that the company of their employment
had a lack of understanding for their health problems. In the discrimination investigation
proceedings, the Advocate obtained information from the company and from witnesses provided by the client. As the allegations of the client in the proceedings were not confirmed,
the Advocate did not find discrimination. (Decision No. 0700-29/2020/9 of 12 October 2020)

Parenthood
The state did not discriminate against a civil servant on the grounds of family status
The civil servant was sent to work abroad, where they also enrolled their child in school.
However, their employer was not willing to reimburse the tuition costs. The client lodged a
complaint alleging discrimination on the grounds of family status, as she was the mother of
a child whom she had to enrol in school when being sent to work abroad, and, while being a
single parent, the tuition represented a higher burden compared to the situation of a childless person or a person taking care of the child together with the other parent. The client
managed to reach an amicable settlement of the dispute with the employer even before the
conclusion of the discrimination investigation procedure. As a result, the Advocate did not
find discrimination. (Decision No. 0700-18/2020/9 of 31 August 2020)

104

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

Citizenship
Termination of the personal bank account maintenance agreement does not constitute
discrimination
A foreign citizen lodged a complaint with the Advocate because the bank had terminated
their personal bank account maintenance agreement. In the proceedings, the Advocate could
not confirm that the reason for the termination of the personal bank account maintenance
agreement was a particular personal ground of the client (citizenship of another country).
As regards the termination of a personal bank account maintenance agreement, the bank
has the right to decide with whom they wish to cooperate and with whom not (however such
decision must not constitute discrimination due to personal grounds), while the bank account maintenance agreement can be terminated without giving any reason, as long as the
notice period of two months is taken into account. In addition, the contractual relationship
between the bank and the client is confidential, and the law does not include the Advocate
among those authorities, to whom banks must disclose the reasons for the termination of
the agreement. Moreover, the bank stated that nationality or citizenship could not be the
reason for the termination of the agreement, as the bank has numerous clients who are the
citizens of the same country, or many clients born in the same country who are now citizens
of Slovenia. Consequently, the Advocate did not find any discriminatory conduct. However, an
important difference between personal and basic bank accounts was noted. Unlike personal
accounts, the bank has limited flexibility with regard to the termination of a basic bank
account maintenance agreement, as termination is possible only for specific legal reasons.
Clients who have a basic bank account enjoy much greater statutory protection from termination compared to owners of personal bank accounts. (Decision No. 0700-38/2019/20 of 19
May 2020)

By terminating the personal bank account maintenance agreement, the bank did not discriminate against the foreign citizen.
A foreign citizen lodged a complaint with the Advocate because the bank had temporarily
terminated their personal bank account maintenance agreement. In the proceedings, the
Advocate found that the reason for the suspension of the personal bank account was not the
client’s personal grounds (citizenship of another country), but a procedural error of the bank,
which reactivated the client’s account after one month. The procedure also showed a significant difference between a personal account and a basic bank account. When concluding and
terminating an agreement for the maintenance of a basic bank account, banks have significantly greater flexibility to decide with whom they wish to cooperate and with whom not
(however, discrimination on the basis of personal grounds is not permissible). On the other
hands, banks have less room for manoeuvre in concluding a basic bank account maintenance
agreement. According to European regulations, a basic account can be terminated only for
specific reasons set out by law. In the present case, the client had a personal bank account
with the bank. In this case, the bank had the right to unilaterally terminate the contract, but
in the procedure it turned out that an error had occurred with the bank, and the account was
reactivated. Therefore, the Advocate did not find any discriminatory conduct. (Decision No.
0700-36/2019/9 of 19 May 2020)

Personal grounds of discrimination – Other personal grounds

105

Restricting the expansion of agricultural land
Restricting the expansion of agricultural land
The Advocate was approached by one of the environmental civil initiatives, which seeks to
limit the expansion of agricultural land in one of the municipalities. The members of the civil
initiative claimed that the population of the municipality was discriminated against with regard to access to a healthy living environment, while intensive farming is said to have harmful effects on the environment and thus on their health. The Advocate agreed that this was
a burning environmental issue, but noted in the proceedings that the case is not a matter
of discrimination. It is not possible to determine compared to which group, the population
is in a worse situation, as most regions are exposed to harmful effects on the environment,
whether due to industry, transport, or agriculture. (Decision No. 0700-40/2019/21 of 15 December 2020)

Membership in a hunting association
Conditioning membership in a hunting association upon leaving another hunting family
does not constitute discrimination
The complainant complained about the condition for membership in a hunting family, which
requires potential members to leave other hunting families beforehand. The Advocate
found that the condition does not represent an exclusion from membership due to personal
grounds which are the subject of protection under the PADA. Membership in a hunting family
is a matter of choice and is not related to the personal characteristics of the individual that
would be inherent or inalienable. As a result, the Advocate rejected the complaint. (Decision
No. 0700-81/2019/8 of 19 March 2020)

Other
No discrimination was found in the inspector salary system
The inspector lodged a complaint in which they argued that the salary system of another inspectorate was more favourable. He alleged discrimination based on his working position. The
Advocate found in the proceedings that differences in the salary systems do not occur due
to the personal grounds of individuals. A working position does not fall within the protected
personal grounds, as it is not an inherent or inalienable characteristic of an individual related
to their identity. As a result, the Advocate did not find discrimination. The Advocate allowed
for the possibility that this is an inadmissible anomaly, however, not related to the issue of
discrimination. (Decision No. 0700-59/2019/4 of 27 July 2020)

106

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

1.12.3		 Assessing the discriminatory character of
				regulations
Health status
Equalisation between non-occupational disease with occupational disease
The complainant argued that the arrangement from the second and third paragraph of Article 34 of the Health Care and Health Insurance Act17 and the third paragraph of Article 137
of the Rules on Compulsory Health Insurance is discriminatory.18 The provisions stipulate
that when an employee’s employment contract expires during their absence from work due
to illness or injury by reason of temporary incapacity for work, they are entitled to a salary
compensation for additional 30 days after the termination of the employment relationship.
However, if the cause of the temporary incapacity for work is an occupational disease or
injury at work, the employee is entitled to a salary compensation for the entire period of the
incapacity for work, that is until they are able to work again. The complainant considered
that a non-occupational disease should be equalised with an occupational disease or injury
at work and that all persons in this legal position should be provided with compensation for
the entire period of incapacity for work. The Advocate assessed that the situation of persons
whose temporary incapacity for work is the result of an occupational disease or injury at
work is not comparable to the situation of persons whose temporary incapacity for work is
based on a disease or injury not related to the work performed. Special treatment of persons
suffering from an occupational disease or undergoing a treatment due to the consequences
of an injury at work is appropriate and reasonable precisely due to the close link with certain
labour rights. As a result, the Advocate decided not to carry out a more detailed assessment
of discrimination. (050-23/2020)

17 Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, Nos. 72/06 - official consolidated text, 114/06 – Act Regulating
Adjustments of Transfers to Individuals and Households in the Republic of Slovenia, 91/07, 76/08, 62/10 –
Exercise of Rights from Public Funds Act, 87/11, 40/12 - Fiscal Balance Act, 21/13 – Labour Market Regulation
Act-A, 91/13, 99/13 – Exercise of Rights from Public Funds Act-C, 99/13 – Social Assistance Payments Act-C,
111/13 –Act Governing the Register of Insured Persons and Beneficiaries of Rights Provided under Pension and
Disability Insurance-1, 95/14 – Fiscal Balance Act-C, 47/15 – Employment, Self-employment and Work of
Foreigners Act, 61/17 – Act Regulating the Situation of Students, 64/17 – Health Services Act- K, 36/19 and
189/20 - Municipal Costs Reduction Act.
18 Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, Nos. 79/94, 73/95, 39/96, 70/96, 47/97, 3/98, 3/98, 51/98 – decision
of the Constitutional Court, 73/98 – decision of the Constitutional Court, 90/98, 6/99 –corr., 109/99 – decision
US, 61/00, 64/00 – corr., 91/00 – corr., 59/02, 18/03, 30/03, 35/03 – corr., 78/03, 84/04, 44/05, 86/06, 90/06 –
corr., 64/07, 33/08, 7/09, 88/09, 30/11, 49/12, 106/12, 99/13 - Social Assistance Payments Act-C , 25/14 –
decision of the Constitutional Court, 25/14, 85/14, 10/17 – Cross-border provision of services Act, 64/18 and
4/20.

Personal grounds of discrimination – Other personal grounds

107

Parenthood
According to the Advocate, the Government has sensibly regulated the aid for the self-employed working part-time in ADIMCEMCCE with amendment A
The first Act on intervention measures granting aid to the economy and citizens during the
epidemic excluded from the circle of the self-employed aid beneficiaries those who were
self-employed for part-time work and their insurance for a full-time work was based on other
legal grounds, for example the Pension and Disability Insurance Act (PDIA-2). The Advocate
was approached by several complainants who alleged discrimination on the grounds of parenthood or disability. One of the criteria for obtaining aid was the income of the self-employed in 2019. Parents who were taking parental leave at the time did not fulfil these criteria, as they had no income from their business activity at the time. The Advocate found
that the Government had remedied this situation in further anti-crisis measures, therefore
the procedure for the assessment of the discriminatory character of this regulation was suspended. (050-6/2020 and 050-7/2020)

Family status
According to the Advocate, the manner of regulating crisis allowances for large families by
the government is not discriminatory
Based on a question from the press, the Advocate assessed the discriminatory character of
the intervention measure related to the supplementary allowance for large families.19 All
families with three or more children were entitled to the allowance regardless of their property status. For families with one or two children, their property status was taken into account
when considering the supplementary child allowance. Discrimination on the basis of family
status at the intersection with property status was alleged. In the proceedings, the Advocate found that the large family allowance and the child allowance were not comparable.
According to the Parental Protection and Family Benefits Act, the large family allowance is20
universal. It is granted to families with three or more children, where the state bears part of
the cost of childcare, regardless of the social status. However, child allowance is not universal.
It is granted to socially disadvantaged children, including those in families with three or more
children. The Intervention Measure Act followed this arrangement, except in the part when
it granted the entitlement to the supplementary child allowance only to families which did
not also receive the allowance for large families. The Advocate assessed that the regulation is
not discriminatory, as it takes into account the different situation of large families compared
to other families. (050-22/2020)

19 Act Determining the Intervention Measures to Contain the COVID-19 Epidemic and Mitigate its Consequences
for Citizens and the Economy (ADIMCEMCCE), Official Gazette of the RS, No. 49/20 and the Act Amending the
Act Determining the Intervention Measures to Contain the COVID-19 Epidemic and Mitigate its Consequences
for Citizens and the Economy (ADIMCEMCCE-A), Official Gazette of the RS, No. 61/2020.
20 Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 26/14, 90/15, 75/17 – Exercise of Rights from Public Funds
Act-G, 14/18, 81/19 and 158/20.

108

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

Citizenship
According to the Advocate, the unequal treatment of citizens and foreigners with permanent residence when deferring the payment of a loan during an epidemic is discriminatory.
The Advocate received a complaint due to the Act Determining the Intervention Measure
of Deferred Payment of Borrowers’ Liabilities (ADIMDPBL),21 which entered into force on 28
March 2020. The Act contains an intervention measure of deferral of payment of borrowers’
obligations from credit agreements concluded with a bank or savings bank, as one of the
measures to mitigate the consequences of the COVID-19 epidemic. Among other things, the
measure was intended for citizens of Slovenia who have registered permanent residence in
Slovenia.
The complainant claimed that the aforementioned Act is discriminatory towards all foreigners, who are borrowers living and working in the Republic of Slovenia. Besides foreigners who
work in Slovenia on the basis of a temporary residence permit issued in compliance with the
Foreigners Act and who generally do not have larger credits or loans, there are also persons
who have been living and working in Slovenia for longer periods (two years or more, even ten
years) and have a permanent residence in the Republic of Slovenia. The Advocate carried out
a discrimination assessment procedure, in which it was established that citizens of other EU
Member States and third-country nationals with registered permanent residence in Slovenia
were unjustifiably excluded from the intervention measure. He considered that the regulation violated the principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of nationality and was not
in compliance with Directives 2004/38/EC and 2003/109/EC. He recommended to the Government of the Republic of Slovenia that the discriminatory provision be eliminated within 30
days. (050-5/2020)

According to the Advocate, the Residence Registration Act is not discriminatory against
foreign workers who are employed in Slovenia and work in the position of drivers in international transport
The complainant claimed that the Residence Registration Act22 is discriminatory while not
considering the special situation of foreigners who are employed by a Slovenian employer
and work as drivers in international transport. Most of them are domiciled at addresses in
third countries. Many administrative units reject their registration of temporary residence at
addresses in Slovenia, as they actually do not reside in Slovenia at all. However, without residence in Slovenia, they cannot benefit from certain rights in Slovenia. The Advocate analysed
and assessed their legal position and found that there was no legal vacuum in the regulation
and that the conditionality of the rights upon residence in Slovenia does not constitute any
systemic/legal discrimination as it is objectively justified and urgently necessary and derives
from the essential nature of the (exercise/use of the) rights. Nevertheless, the equality body
assessed that, in practice, there is inadequate enforcement of certain regulations and issued
recommendations to the MH and the MI. (050-15/2020)

21 Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, Nos. 36/20, 49/20 – ADIMCEMCCE and 203/20 – ADIMAMCSWE.
22 Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 52/16.

Personal grounds of discrimination – Other personal grounds

109

According to the Advocate, the regulation of the use of tourist vouchers does not constitute discrimination against foreigners with a temporary residence in Slovenia
The complainants claimed that the regulation from the Act Determining the Intervention
Measures to Mitigate and Remedy the Consequences of the COVID-19 Epidemic23 which granted the right to tourist vouchers only to citizens of the Republic of Slovenia and foreigners
with permanent residence in the Republic of Slovenia, but not to foreigners with temporary
residence in Slovenia was discriminatory. The Advocate assessed that persons with temporary residence are not in a comparable situation to the other two groups. According to the
Slovenian legal system, permanent residents have much more recognised rights compared
to persons with temporary residence. The latter usually acquire all these rights by obtaining
a permanent residence permit, usually after five years of residence in Slovenia in accordance
with the Foreigners Act. As a result, the Advocate did not choose to carry out a more detailed
assessment of discrimination. (050-13/2020 and 050-14/2020)

Employment status
Different arrangements for the reimbursement of transport costs to and from work for
civil servants and Deputies
The complainants contacted the Advocate for reasons relating to the proposal of the Deputies Act amendment, discussed in the National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia in 2019,
which, among other things, regulated the right to reimbursement of transport costs to and
from work in such a way that, under the new arrangement, the deputies would be granted mileage as reimbursement of travel expenses. The complainants alleged discrimination
against civil servants compared to deputies, as the employer reimburses transport costs to
civil servants in the amount corresponding to the cheapest public transport. In the case of
the allegedly discriminatory provision from the amendment to the Deputies Act, the Advocate observed that, at the end, it was not enacted by the National Assembly. Therefore, the
discrimination assessment was not carried out. (050-6/2019 and 050-7/2019)

Status of engineers working on a part-time basis
The complainant argued that the Architecture and Civil Engineering Act was discriminatory,24 as it enables the competent chamber to classify persons in particular position who at
their own choice work part-time as managers as inactive authorised engineers. The Advocate
found that part-time work is the choice of the individual and does not represent a personal
ground. As a result, the Advocate decided not to carry out a more detailed assessment of
discrimination. (050-1/2020)

23 Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 80/20.
24 Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 61/17.

110

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

Self-employment
As unemployment is not a personal ground under the PADA, the Advocate did not assess
possible systemic discrimination against the self-employed during sick leave of up to 30
days
Employees and the self-employed receive compensation for sick leave from the compulsory
health insurance from the 31st day of illness or injury. During the first 30 days of sick leave,
the compensation is borne by the employers. The complainant alleged discriminatory treatment of the self-employed in comparison to the employed. The self-employed run a business
and employ themselves, therefore, they have to make sure, that they have enough resources
available to sustain themselves during the first 30 days of illness and incapacity of performing their work. In the assessment of potential systemic discrimination of the self-employed
due to such an arrangement of sick pay, the Advocate found that self-employment is not a
personal ground under the PADA, so the potential discrimination of this arrangement cannot be considered. The Advocates’s finding, however, do not mean that the current regulation of health care in Slovenia is fully appropriate. Namely, the NIPH data show that the
self-employed and other comparable categories of employees benefit from sick leave of up
to 30 days to a much lesser extent compared to employees in an employment relationship.
(050-11/2020)

Other
Municipal ordinance on compensation for the use of building land
According to the complainant, the Ordinance on the compensation for the use of building
land issued by the municipality of their residence is discriminatory. The ordinance stipulates
that if the owners have a building of small value and small size on a building plot, they must
pay disproportionately high fees for the building land compared to owners who have a residential house on the plot. The Advocate was not able to identify any personal ground in the
case that would lead to unequal treatment. The ordinance of the municipality distinguishes
between the calculation of compensation for the use of built-up building land and the use of
building land not build on. The size of the land affects the calculation too. In the first case,
(only) the area of the built-up building land is taken into account (i.e. according to the actual
area occupied by the building on the plot). In the second case, the total area of the building
land (not build on) is taken into consideration. The method of calculating the compensation
is a result of in the municipality’s strategy to make building land more built-up over time. As
a result, the equality body decided not to carry out a more detailed assessment of discrimination. (050-25/2020)

Personal grounds of discrimination – Other personal grounds

111

1.12.4		 Recommendations by the Advocate
Health status
Recommendation regarding the accessibility of insurance services for people living with HIV
In 2019, the Advocate received a complaint to address discrimination in which the complainant stated that an insurance company unjustifiably rejected his attempt to obtain insurance, the reason being the personal ground of living with HIV. Based on the findings of the
Survey on the accessibility of insurance for people living with HIV and in order to promote
equal treatment, the Advocate recommended that insurance companies improve the consumer experience, provide separate and transparent information and adapt products to vulnerable groups, including people living with HIV. Moreover, the recommendation also referred
to greater transparency in concluding insurance policies and setting insurance conditions, as
well as updating the data on which the risk assessment is based. The Advocate addressed
the recommendations to: insurance companies, NGOs, the Slovenian Insurance Association,
the Insurance Supervision Agency, the MH and the MoF. (0709-5/2020/47, 0709-5/2020/48,
0709-5/2020/49, 0709-5/2020/50, 0709-5/2020/51, 0709-5/2020/52 (0709-5/2020))
Recommendation status: Pending.

Recommendation on the ensuring of equal treatment of intersex people
Upon handing over the Special Report on the Situation of Intersex People in Medical Procedures to healthcare institutions that come into contact with intersex patients, the Advocate
recommended that they refrain from carrying out any non-essential medical interventions
in the sexual characteristics of intersex children which would be carried out without their
consent and/or can be deferred until the time when the child can give appropriate consent;
to ensure that intersex children and their parents or guardians are properly informed before
any medical intervention in their body and to strictly adhere to definitions and terms related
to intersex based on depathologisation and respect for the human rights of intersex people.
The Advocate recommended to the Ministry of Health the independent interdisciplinary
working group to review the current protocols for medical treatment of intersex people, prepare a unified protocol and harmonise it with modern medical guidelines and practices, and
implementation of activities in cooperation with the MESS aimed at raising awareness of the
general and specific public on the human rights of intersex people and improving the opportunities for additional professional training on intersexuality for healthcare professionals.
The Advocate recommended to the MI the examination of possible arrangements for flexible
procedures for the registration of births and legal recognition of gender on the basis of self-determination. (0709-49/2020/5, 0709-49/2020/6, 0709-49/2020/7, 0709-49/2020/10
(0709-49/2020))
Recommendation status: Not yet taken into account.

112

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

Recommendation regarding the draft for the Mental Health Act
In the recommendation to the Ministry of Health, the Advocate highlighted the lack of content related to the observance of human rights protection standards. Among other things, a
recommendation was addressed to Ministry of Health, to include the prohibition of discrimination, stigmatisation and other neglect based on mental disorder in the act; to examine
the compliance of the envisaged solutions with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities; and to provide information, counselling and information in accessible languages,
forms and technologies, including information in the form of easy reading. (0070-4/2020/1)
Recommendation status: The legislative process is still ongoing.

Parenthood
Recommendation regarding the draft Act Determining Temporary Measures to Mitigate
and Remedy the Consequences of COVID-19 (Set of measures to mitigate the effects of the
epidemic no. 5)
The Advocate recommended to the National Assembly that the measures also provide workers who cannot perform their work due to quarantine or childcare (i.e. force majeure) with
compensation not lower than the minimum wage (which was already in force during the first
wave of the epidemic). Guardians of adults with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities and
guardians and foster parents of children should be included among the workers who are unable to perform their work due to so-called force majeure. The Advocate recommended that
additional justifications for distinguishing certain beneficiaries and methods of determining
the amount of aid or compensation be included in the act. It was also recommended that
consideration be given to introducing additional special measures to ensure equal opportunities for the people most affected by the adoption of stricter measures envisaged in the
government’s plan to prevent the spread of infections. (0701-15/2020/1)
Recommendation status: The recommendation was taken into account in the part where
the Advocate proposed compensation in the amount of at least the minimum wage (in Set
of measures to mitigate the effects of the epidemic no.7) and that guardians and foster
parents of persons, including adults, be included among the recipients of compensation (by
way of amendments). The recommendation regarding the unjustified differentiation of beneficiaries of aid was not taken into account.

Recommendation regarding the draft Motor Vehicles Tax Act
In a recommendation to the National Assembly, the Advocate pointed out that the prohibition of discrimination also applies to the determination of benefits in the exemption from
motor vehicle tax for large families and people with disabilities. Some of the criteria for obtaining benefits (permanent residence, benefits available for only one vehicle, beneficiaries
only with certain types of disabilities) are questionable in terms of equal treatment (foreigners, EU citizens, the elderly and people with certain disabilities), so the Advocate recommended improvement of the arrangement. (0070-3/2020/1)
Recommendation status: Not taken into account.

Personal grounds of discrimination – Other personal grounds

113

Recommendation regarding the draft Act Determining Intervention Measures to Assist in
Mitigating the Consequences of the Second Wave of COVID-19 Epidemic (Set of measures
to mitigate the effects of the epidemic no. 7)
The Advocate of the Principle of Equality made a recommendation to the Deputies of the
National Assembly on how to supplement certain proposed solutions to comply with the
principles of equality, equal treatment and equal opportunities. The Advocate’s recommendation refers to: crisis allowance for parents taking advantage of the maternity, paternity
or parental leave; solidarity allowance for lunch and financial assistance for single-parent
families; solidarity allowance eligible for families from 1st to 6th income bracket inclusive
(not only up to fifth); special additional aid for single-parent families; special regular monthly
allowance for students whose main source of livelihood is student work if they are unable to
do the work due to the epidemic; extraordinary aid at the birth of a child. (0070-8/2020/1)
Recommendation status: Partially taken into account in the part of extraordinary aid at the
birth of a child (extension of the period) and solidarity allowance for children (expanding the
list of beneficiaries). Within the Set of measures to mitigate the effects of the epidemic No.
7, the recommendation of the Advocate from the Set of measures to mitigate the effects of
the epidemic No. 5 was taken into account regarding the compensation of wages for workers
who are unable to perform work due to quarantine at home or childcare which must not be
lower than the minimum wage in the Republic of Slovenia. In part, the recommendation was
also taken into account within the Set of measures to mitigate the effects of the epidemic
No. 8, namely regarding the solidarity allowance for adult high-school students.

Recommendations regarding further measures to mitigate the effects of the COVID-19
epidemic with a view to preventing and eliminating discrimination
The Advocate highlighted the uneven impact of the epidemic on already vulnerable groups
and suggested that the Government of the Republic of Slovenia should adopt (additional)
special measures to help these groups, as it is crucial that all efforts during the epidemic follow the principle that “no one should be left behind”. Among other things, the Advocate drew
attention to a particularly difficult situation of: single-parent families; families of children
with special needs; self-employed parents working part-time; pupils and students (in terms
of lunch). (0701-5/2020/1)
Status of the recommendation: four recommendations were taken into account (families of
children with special needs, self-employed parents, parents or guardians of children or adults
with special needs, differentiation according to the condition of paid overdue tax liabilities);
recommendations referring to pupils and students were partially taken into account and
recommendations intended for single-parent families were not taken into account.

Citizenship
Recommendation regarding the draft Act Amending the Housing Act
Regarding the draft act, the Advocate recommended amendments to the MESP with the aim
of improving physical accessibility of multi-apartment buildings for people with disabilities,
access to higher subsidies for non-profit rent and right of access to non-profit apartments
for foreigners with permanent residence (residents). (0709-62/2020/1)
Recommendation status: The legislative process is still ongoing.

114

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

Recommendation regarding the Act Determining the Intervention Measure of Deferred
Payment of Borrowers’ Liabilities
The Advocate received a complaint regarding the Act Determining the Intervention Measure
of Deferred Payment of Borrowers’ Liabilities which entered into force on 28 March 2020. The
Act provides for an intervention measure of deferral of payment of borrowers’ obligations
from credit agreements which is available only to citizens of Slovenia who have registered
permanent residence in Slovenia. The Advocate carried out a discrimination assessment
procedure and was established that citizens of other EU Member States and third-country nationals with registered permanent residence in Slovenia were unjustifiably excluded
from the intervention measure. He considered that the regulation violated the principle of
non-discrimination on the grounds of nationality and was not in compliance with Directives
2004/38/EC and 2003/109/EC. The advocate recommended to the Ministry that the discriminatory provision be eliminated. (050-5/2020/11)
Recommendation status: Considered in PKP6.

Recommendation regarding the proposal for the Act Determining the Intervention Measures to Mitigate the Consequences of the Second Wave of COVID-19 Epidemic (Set of measures to mitigate the effects of the epidemic No. 6)
On the basis of a received complaint, the Advocate carried out the procedure of assessing the
discriminatory character of the Act Determining the Intervention Measure of Deferred Payment of Borrowers’ Liabilities and assessed that the unequal treatment of EU citizens and
third-country nationals residing in the Republic of Slovenia constitutes discrimination on the
ground of citizenship. The Advocate recommended to the Deputies in the National Assembly
that they support the adoption of the provision eliminating discrimination in the deferral of
payment of obligations from credit agreements against foreigners with permanent residence
in Slovenia. (050-5/2020/15)
Recommendation status: Taken into account.

Recommendation regarding the draft Motor Vehicles Tax Act
In a recommendation to the National Assembly, the Advocate pointed out that the prohibition of discrimination also applies to the determination of benefits in the exemption from
motor vehicle tax for large families and people with disabilities. Some of the criteria for obtaining benefits (permanent residence, benefits available for only one vehicle, beneficiaries
only with certain types of disabilities) are questionable in terms of equal treatment (foreigners, EU citizens, the elderly and people with certain disabilities), so the Advocate recommended improvement of the arrangement. (0070-3/2020/1)
Recommendation status: Not taken into account.

Personal grounds of discrimination – Other personal grounds

115

Recommendation regarding the treatment of foreigners, drivers in international transport
The Advocate carried out the procedure for assessing the discriminatory character of the
systemic regulation of the situation of foreigners – drivers in international transport, employed by employers in the Republic of Slovenia. Despite the fact the discrimination was not
found, the Advocate noted in the proceedings that, in practice, these persons indeed face
certain problems that indicate inappropriate conduct of certain institutions. The Advocate
made a recommendation to the MI that all Administrative units be instructed to inform such
foreigners, when registering their residence in the Republic of Slovenia, of certain facts that
explicitly concern them in relation to their application, e.g. that the obligation to register
is obligatory only if the drivers in international transport actually reside in the Republic of
Slovenia, otherwise not. (050-15/2020/60)
Recommendation status: So far not taken into account.

Recommendation regarding the treatment of foreigners, drivers in international transport
The advocate carried out a procedure for assessing the discriminatory nature of the systemic
regulation of the situation of foreigners - drivers in international transport, employed by
employers in the Republic of Slovenia. Despite the fact the discrimination was not found, the
Advocate noted in the proceedings that, in practice, these persons indeed face certain problems that indicate inappropriate conduct of certain institutions with regard to the access to
health care. The Advocate made a recommendation to the MH to instruct health centres not
to condition the right of choosing doctor (and health center) of the said foreigners upon the
registration of their residence in the Republic of Slovenia, and to inform the Health Insurance
Institute of Slovenia not to condition the receipt of their insurance card upon the registration of residence in the Republic of Slovenia (in this regard, the possibility of delivering a
postal item to the authorised person or the employer of the insured person represents an
important fact). (050-15/2020/59)
Recommendation status: So far not taken into account.

Other
Recommendation regarding the draft Protection of Public Order Act
The Advocate made a recommendation to the MI that, in the diction of the minor offence
of incitement to intolerance, the terminology be used which is common to the relevant provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia and other sectoral acts, where the
prohibition of the so-called hate speech is laid down. The Advocate also recommended that
this minor offence should be connected to intolerance based on any personal ground leading
to unlawful discrimination and not just some. The Advocate also recommended that a system be set up for the recording of minor offences of incitement to intolerance to enable a
classification according to the personal grounds of persons or groups of persons at whom the
conduct was directed. (0070-6/2020/1)
Recommendation status: The legislative process is still ongoing.

116

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

Recommendations regarding the proposal of the Act on the Protection of Personal Data in
the Area of Treatment of Criminal Offences
In the framework of the public consultation, the Advocate responded to the proposal of the
Personal Data Protection Act in the field of dealing with criminal offences. In the recommendation to the MoJ, the Advocate focused on the issue of protection against discrimination in
the context of automated decision-making and automated processing of personal data and
on the issue of the legal basis for collecting data on the so-called hate crimes. Among other
things, the Advocate recommended enactment of the following arrangements: that the impact assessment of automated decision-making be carried out, in particular with regard to
discrimination; subsequent (manual) verification of the results of automated processing of
personal data be carried every time; that, before introducing a new system for automated
processing of personal data, the competent authority must also carry out an impact assessment on the risks to human rights and fundamental freedoms, in particular with regard to
the prohibition of discrimination; to include among the exceptions to the prohibition of using
special categories of personal data situations related to hate crimes. (0701-6/2020/3)
Status of the recommendation: Partially taken into account, as only the recommendation to
conduct the impact assessment of automated decision-making in particular with regard to
discrimination was taken into account.

Recommendation regarding the approach of the Republic of Slovenia vis-à-vis particular
recommendations received within the third round of the Universal Periodic Review
The Advocate summarised the recommendation sent on 9 January 2020 to the MFA with
regard to discrimination against persons or groups of persons with a certain personal ground
within the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) and recommended to the Government that the
recommendations by other countries received within the third cycle of UPR, be accepted positively and implemented. The Advocate highlighted the recommendations of the countries
regarding the adoption of a comprehensive national strategy in the field of fighting against
all forms of discrimination; proper regulation and treatment of so-called hate crimes; prevention and treatment of the so-called hate speech and independence of national human rights
mechanisms. (511-27/2019)
Recommendation status: Partially taken into account. On 30 January 2020, the Government
adopted an Addendum to the Report of the Working Group on UPR, wherein the Republic of
Slovenia expressed its views on the recommendations of the countries. The Advocate recommended the accepting 19 recommendations of the countries, of which the Government
of the Republic of Slovenia adopted 15 and took note of four. The Government took note of
three recommendations on hate crimes and hate speech (racist motives) and one recommendation on the Ombudsman’s full autonomy and independence.

Personal grounds of discrimination – Other personal grounds

117

Recommendation on the timely involvement of the Advocate in the preparation and adoption of legislative proposals
The Advocate recommended to the General Secretariat of the Government that the procedure for adopting regulations should also include an assessment of possible discriminatory
effects of the draft regulation, i.e. the drafter of the regulation should assess in advance
whether the draft regulation leads to unequal treatment. This means that the drafter of
the regulation explains and justifies any unequal treatment and underpins it with data and
analyses (the so-called equality data). The Advocate proposed a broadening of the scope
of mandatory components of a draft act, and that if the draft regulation leads to unequal
treatment of a certain social group, the Advocate should be informed in a timely and direct
manner during the public consultation. (079-3/2020/1)
Recommendation status: Partially taken into account. The Secretariat-General of the Government sent a recommendation to the Ministries and Government office and suggested
that the Advocate be informed in a timely manner in sensitive cases. The broadening of the
mandatory components of a draft regulation was not taken into account, and the situation
did not improve after informing the Advocate.

1.12.5		 The Advocate’s cooperation with civil society
Health status
On 24 November 2020, a representative of the Advocate attended a consultation entitled,
Who needs help during the pandemic? Ethical, medical, and criminal aspects of triage. The
consultation was co-organised by the SASA Development Council and the Institute of Criminology at the Faculty of Law, University of Ljubljana. The participants of the conference
brought to light several fundamental dilemmas that arise in the case of shortage of equipment and staff during a pandemic from a medical, ethical, and legal point of view.

General protection against discrimination
On 10 December 2020, on the occasion of the World Human Rights Day, the Diversity Charter
Slovenia organised a virtual event entitled “Diversity against pandemic” – ceremonial signature of the Diversity Charter and a round table. The event was attended by a representative
of the Advocate. Diversity charters are one of the current voluntary European diversity initiatives with the aim of encouraging organisations (private, public) to implement and develop
diversity policies within organisations. The Charter consists of principles that the organisation follows in its work with regard to promoting diversity, non-discrimination and equal
opportunities at the workplace.

118

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

1.12.6		 Education and awareness raising by the Advocate
Citizenship
The Advocate at the EURES meeting
On 7 July 2020, a representative of the Advocate took part in a meeting of the EU network on
legal support to the free movement of mobile workers. The EURES network connects employment services in the EU. The event was organised by the Slovenian Employment Service. The
aim of the event was to present and exchange good practices and explore opportunities for
future cooperation and networking of the members and partners. The Advocate’s representative stressed the importance of understanding and consistently enforcing the EU primary
law in this area as well.

General protection against discrimination
The Advocate in a panel discussion on intolerance at the Police Academy
On 27 January 2020, a representative of the Advocate attended a panel discussion on intolerance organised by the Center for Research and Social Skills, within the Police Academy. In
spite of particular dilemma, the participants in the discussion organised by the Center for
Research and Social Skills expressed their commitment to tolerance, ideas of equality and
social cohesion. The Police carefully examines all information on suspected crimes and minor offences, and an important guideline for a less restrictive approach to prosecuting hate
speech could also be changed case law.

The Advocate presented the work of the equality body to the Association of Free Trade
Unions of Slovenia
The Advocate responded to the invitation of the Association of Free Trade Unions of Slovenia to present the Annual Report for 2019 at one of the Association’s presidency meetings.
Trade union membership falls within the scope of protected personal grounds, and employee
representatives also often encounter cases of violation of the general prohibition of discrimination. Representatives of the Advocate presented the Advocate’s powers and key points
from the Annual Report, especially with regard to protection against discrimination in the
field of work and employment. The representatives stressed that each case dealt with by the
equality body is important, as the findings may be helpful to others who might not wish to
be exposed but are subject to similar inferior treatment.

Personal grounds of discrimination – Other personal grounds

119

The Advocate receives many complaints about discrimination in the field of work and employment. One of the most
high-profile cases in which discrimination was found was the reduced Christmas bonus for employees who were absent from work during the year due to pregnancy, family care, or illness. The Advocate informed to the Association
of Free Trade Unions of Slovenia how employees can take action in such cases.

The Advocate carried out a workshop on protection against discrimination
On 15 September 2020, at the invitation of the Association Odnos, the representatives of
the Advocates held a workshop for participants in the social activation project for immigrant
women. They presented what discrimination means and when individuals can turn to the
Advocate. Immigrants are often subject to inferior treatment on the grounds of nationality,
citizenship, language, religion, and skin color. They usually face prejudices long after immigration, which makes it harder for them to integrate into society.
The Advocate gave a lecture on protection against discrimination at the Faculty of Law
On 2 December 2020, for the fourth year in a row, the Head of the Advocate, Miha Lobnik,
presented the work of the equality body to students of the Faculty of Law of the University
of Ljubljana who participate in the extracurricular activity called Anti-Discrimination Legal
Clinic. At the lecture, students learned about the development of the independent state body
for the protection against discrimination, which tasks the equality body performs, and what
are some of the current cases where discrimination was found.

120

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

The Advocate participated in a professional webinar Sustainable Development and Law
On 20 December 2020, a representative of the Advocate participated in a professional webinar “Sustainable Development and Law” organised by the Association ELSA from Ljubljana,
the United Nations Association for Slovenia, and the Pamfil Magazine. The representative
gave a lecture presenting the topic of “Sustainable development, (non)discrimination and
equal treatment – intersection and selected issues.” In his lecture, the representative of the
Advocate presented the links between the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
and the goals of sustainable development on the one hand, and the issues of non-discrimination and the promotion of equal treatment on the other hand. The 2030 Agenda represents
the most ambitious global framework for human development, at the heart of which is the
principle: “Leave No One Behind”. Reducing all forms of inequality is emphasised by the Agenda as an independent goal of sustainable development.

Discrimination is prohibited in Slovenia, and protection against discrimination is provided to all the inhabitants.
Immigrants are often the target of discriminatory practices, and at the same time find it more difficult to exercise
their rights. With a view to improving the level of protection against discrimination, the Advocate conducted training for a group of immigrant women.

Personal grounds of discrimination – Other personal grounds

121

2 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ADA

Administrative Dispute Act

ADIMCEMCCE

Act Determining the Intervention Measures to Contain the COVID-19
Epidemic and Mitigate its Consequences for Citizens and the
Economy

ADIMDPBL

Act Determining the Intervention Measure of Deferred Payment of
Borrowers’ Liabilities

ADIMMCSWE

Act Determining the Intervention Measures to Mitigate the
Consequences of the Second Wave of COVID-19 Epidemic

ADTMMRS

Act Determining Temporary Measures to Mitigate and Remedy the
Consequences of COVID-19

Advocate

The Advocate of the Principle of Equality

APMJAOPMCSID

Act on provisional measures for judicial, administrative and other
public matters to cope with the spread of infectious disease SARSCoV-2 (COVID-19)

ARSPWOAS

Act Regulating the Supplement to Pensions for Work and
Outstanding Achievements in Sports

ARUSSL

Act Regulating the Use of Slovene Sign Language

CC-1

Criminal Code

CDADI

Council of Europe's Steering Committee on Anti-Discrimination,
Diversity and Inclusion

Charter

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

COVID-19

COVID-19 – Coronavirus disease

CRSA

Citizenship of the Republic of Slovenia Act

CUA

Civil Union Act

CWRA

Council for Women in Rural Areas

ECRI

European Commission against Racism and Intolerance

EIGE

European Institute for Gender Equality

EP

European Parliament

Equinet

European Network of Equality Bodies

ESF

European Social Fund

EU

European Union

FC

Family Code

FRA

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights

122

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

GAPA

General Administrative Procedure Act

GONM

Government Office for National Minorities

GOSIM

Government Office for the Support and Integration of Migrants

Government of
the RS

Government of the Republic of Slovenia

HA-1E

Draft Act Amending the Housing Act

HFRS

Housing Fund of the Republic of Slovenia

ICHR

Interdepartmental Commission on Human Rights

IPTA

Insurance Premium Tax Act

LGBTI+

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer and other diverse
identities

LIRS

Labour Inspectorate of the Republic of Slovenia

MAFF

Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food

MC

Ministry of Culture

MD

Ministry of Defence

MEDT

Ministry of Economic Development and Technology

MESP

Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning

MESS

Ministry of Education, Science and Sport

MF

Ministry of Finance

MFA

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

MH

Ministry of Health

MI

Ministry of the Interior

MIRS

Market Inspectorate of the Republic of Slovenia

MLFSAEO

Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities

MMA

Mass Media Act

MoI

Ministry of Infrastructure

MoJ

Ministry of Justice

MPA

Ministry of Public Administration

National
Assembly

National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia

NCDPOS

National Council of Disabled People's Organisations of Slovenia

NGOs

Non-governmental organisations

Acronyms and abbreviations

123

NHRI

National Human Rights Institution

NIPH

National Institute of Public Health

NPMR

National Program of Measures for the Roma

PAA

Personal Assistance Act

PADA

Protection against Discrimination Act

PDIA-2

Pension and Disability Insurance Act

PDPA

Personal Data Protection Act

PSSIEMPSA

Payment Services, Services for Issuing Electronic Money and
Payment Systems Act

RCRSA-1

Roma Community in the Republic of Slovenia Act

RS

Republic of Slovenia

SIDA

Social Inclusion of Disabled Persons Act

SIFOROMA

National Platform for the Roma

SPIRIT Slovenia

Public Agency for Entrepreneurship, Internationalization, Foreign
Investments and Technology

SPSA-1

State Prosecution Service Act

SWC

Social Work Centres

UNHCR

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

UPR

Universal Periodic Review

124

Advocate of the Principle of Equality – Annual Report 2020 – Cases and Issues

Acronyms and abbreviations

125

Annual Report of the Advocate of the Principle of Equality for 2020 – Cases and Issues
Issued by
The Advocate of the Principle of Equality of the Republic of Slovenia
On behalf of the Advocate
Miha Lobnik, Head of the Institution, Advocate of the Principle of Equality
Editor
mag. Karmen Merlov
Contributors
Miha Lobnik, mag. Karmen Merlov, dr. Neža Kogovšek Šalamon, mag. Jelena Aleksić,
Samo Novak, dr. Matevž Kokol, Nevenka Prešlenkova, Mitja Blažič, Boštjan Vernik Šetinc,
Sergeja Oštir, Mojca Šmid, Aljoša Gadžijev, Danilo Hovnik, Nika Stroligo Urankar, David Kovič,
Majda Hostnik, Črt Kaker, Denis Vičič
Associate contributors
Katja Grubar, Maja Rangus, Urška Osterc
Photos
Archive of the Advocate of the Principle of Equality, unless otherwise stated
Translation and proofreading
K&J Group, storitve d.o.o.
Institutional identity design
Luka Pajntar, kaloop.si
Print layout design
Blaž Rat, IDEJA.si
Print
CICERO, Begunje, d.o.o.
Circulation
200

Ljubljana, 2021
Use of the contents of the Report is permitted with citations.
The grammatical gender used in the report refers to any gender.
The original text of the Annual Report for 2020 is in the Slovenian language. In the case of
unclear translation, the original shall prevail.
The publication is free-of-charge and freely available.
Annual and special reports by the Advocate of the Principle of Equality are published online
at www.zagovornik.si

Print edition
ISSN 2670-708X
Online edition
ISSN 2670-7535

The Advocate of the Principle of Equality is an independent
state authority established to ensure the protection against
discrimination, promotion of equality, equal treatment and
equal opportunities. It was established in 2016 on the basis
of a newly adopted Protection Against Discrimination Act
with which Slovenia transposed and implemented the five
European Equality Directives. The institution is a member of
the European Network of Equality Bodies – Equinet.

www.zagovornik.si