PLEASE I know that this is not the right procedural way to point out some illogicalities in the newly adopted law, official notice in Official Journal 61/2010 :* 3350*. Law on Social Security Benefits (ZSVarPre), Page 9195.       I would just like to comment on the two controversial paragraphs in the two articles, even though I am not a lawyer by training, but I think with my own head and, because of my own difficult social situation, I inform myself about the legislation that concerns me - I am a literary person who has the will to think.  Article 23, paragraph 5: 5. a private car or a single-passenger vehicle with a value of up to 28 times the basic minimum income, Explanatory note: This Article therefore states that the applicant may have a private car, while he may not have savings. Yes, what about us almost blind people. That is to say, those who are really deprived should also sell their car first and then apply for social assistance. That does not seem logical to me - yes, a car, no savings, not even a thousand euros - is it not highly illogical?  And Article 36, paragraph (7) If a beneficiary of permanent social assistance or a beneficiary who has received social assistance at least twenty-four times in the three years preceding the application is the owner of immovable property, the decision on entitlement to social assistance shall prohibit him from alienating and encumbering the immovable property of which he is the owner in favour of the Republic of Slovenia.  This seems to me to be, in a sense, a gallant undermining of the modest assets of those small farmers who receive social assistance and who, because of their years, find it difficult to find employment and cannot even survive on a modest, almost market-garden farming income. There will simply be a seal, in legal jargon, put on their property. And you think that social workers are going to warn these simple people about what can happen to them, so that they do not simply have to sell or give away their arable land. The law says nothing about what happens to the seal if people's status improves, if they get a job, if they otherwise recover. I doubt that social workers will have the legal knowledge to be able to advise people on how to get their seals removed if they want to sell the property and thus stop receiving social support for a while. I am surprised that the law applies retrospectively, that is to say, to the time when they were receiving this benefit of tenure, that is to say, to the previous three years, when the law was not yet in force and people were not aware of the legal risks of receiving social assistance. I really find this highly controversial, this retroactive intervention, because the general legal principle, supposedly also under the Constitution, is that new situations are taken into account by the adoption of a new law, not by putting the beneficiaries of social transfers in a matt situation. To be poetic: like this, my darlings, you have been eating the State's cock up to now, and you have fields, do you not. Yes, you go on eating the state bread, but the fields will be ours when you growl. So, if such a law and such an article have already been adopted, and this paragraph asserts the right of the State to put a seal on the non-benefits of beneficiaries who are already having their social contribution reduced as a result of the CC, as much as it is, for example, a meagre EUR 71 for me. The law could have defined things differently, for example, those who will henceforth receive three years of uninterrupted social assistance will get a seal on their immovable property. That would make sense to me, rather than requiring things retrospectively. Nobody is accusing the rich of all sorts of machinations, but that is another story, a completely different story. Poor people's property, let it become state property!    Well, I would have thought it quite appropriate that at least somebody should have read this, because it seems to me that there is, after all, enough sensible subtlety in your institution to understand how laws are sometimes made just like that, over the top.     I find it hard to believe that this writing will generate any response, and perhaps someone will just smile and click and share and it will. Anyway, it seems to me that the state should slowly issue a primer: How to use the state, because even soup in a jar has to have an instruction manual, so why shouldn't the state - a bit of a joke, really, a bit of a joke.
I WOULD THEREFORE SUGGEST TO THE GOVERNMENT TO SHAKE UP THE LAW ONCE AGAIN WITH THE RIGHT LEGAL OPTICS AND WITH MORE CONSIDERATION FOR THE WEAKEST ...    Have a nice day, I hope it's drier - our socialists are always dry anyway ... !       Bojan Bizjak