I am an unemployed person whose cash benefit stopped before the epidemic was declared. Discrimination in treatment during the epidemic. In my view, the legislator has infringed the first paragraph of Article 14. Article 14 of the Constitution, since, as an unemployed person whose cash benefit ceased before the epidemic was declared and who, for one reason or another, exceeds the census threshold for the receipt of cash social assistance and has no income during the epidemic, I am disadvantaged during the epidemic, because the legislator did not grant me either the crisis solidarity allowance or the crisis cash benefit during the epidemic in the two laws under attack, as it did to other unemployed people with epidemic benefit and pensioners, to whom it granted different solidarity allowances, even though they have a pension of up to EUR 700,00 (probably also a flat and a house and a partner with a pension or a salary - it has not been verified); and I am not entitled to the same amount of social security benefits during the epidemic.The legislator has in fact failed to ensure equal treatment for such disadvantaged social groups or individuals who are unemployed without a cash benefit, whose cash benefit ceased before the epidemic and who for one reason or another exceed the census threshold for cash social assistance, and has discriminated against us. The legislature's failure to act in the two impugned laws, or to refuse or release unemployed persons without cash benefits whose cash benefits ceased before the epidemic, constitutes an interference with the right to equal or non-discriminatory treatment under Article 14(1) of the Constitution. There was no constitutionally permissible reason for such a decision by the legislator.The legislator also failed to provide a definition of the vulnerable group in the contested laws, which constitutes a violation of the principle of the rule of law (Article 2 of the Constitution), which requires that legal norms be clear and unambiguous and do not allow for arbitrariness. In the present case, the subject of the review is the contested legal regulation, according to which we, the unemployed without cash benefits or those whose benefits expired before the epidemic, are not included, at least for the solidarity allowance, like other groups (pensioners, but who have a pension and may also have other assets such as a flat or a house, and who may also have a partner with a pension or a salary, students), or the unemployed whose employment relationship was terminated during the epidemic.In the course of the epidemic, the unemployed without cash benefits, or those whose benefits expired before the epidemic, are not included, at least who are not entitled to a cash benefit and who have acquired a cash benefit if their employment relationship ended during the epidemic, are not exempted from paying compulsory health insurance, as are the self-employed or unemployed who are not entitled to a cash benefit and who have acquired a cash benefit if their employment relationship ended during the epidemic. Further discrimination. The legislator has thus also infringed the principle of the protection of the protection of legitimate expectations (Article 2 of the Constitution), in conjunction with Article 14 of the Constitution, in the case of me and this group of unemployed persons without a benefit or whose benefit expired before the epidemic and who are over the threshold for obtaining a cash social assistance benefit. Act on Intervention Measures to Curb the COVID-19 Epidemic and to Mitigate its Consequences for Citizens and the Economy (ZIUZEOP), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 49/2020 of 10.4.2020 and the Act on Amendments and Additions to the Act on Intervention Measures to Curb the COVID-19 Epidemic and to Mitigate its Consequences for Citizens and the Economy (ZIUZEOP-A), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No 61/2020 of 30.4.2020 are incompatible with Articles 2 and 14 of the Constitution. The legislator has infringed the principle of the protection of the protection of legitimate expectations under Article 2 of the Constitution (the rule of law) and Article 14(1) of the Constitution (impermissible discrimination), as arbitration is involved, giving undue advantage to one group and disadvantage to others.#CARE FOR ALL #LET'S STAY HOME #TOGETHER WE CAN'T treat each individual individually to decide whether he/she is entitled to an allowance or a solidarity allowance, there is no identification of a vulnerable group entitled to a solidarity allowance or an allowance in times of epidemic (arbitration), favouring one group that already receives an income - a pension (pensioners, who may have other assets such as a flat and a partner with a pension.); the circumstances for the decision on the solidarity allowance have not been examined individually) and still give them the solidarity allowance, and the unemployed who do not qualify for the cash benefit and whose employment relationship ended during the epidemic and still give them the cash benefit during the epidemic, while at the same time disadvantaging another group, i.e. those of us who have no income, as unemployed persons, whose cash benefit ended before the epidemic and who, for one reason or another, exceed the census threshold for the receipt of the social assistance benefit paid to us. There is no one-size-fits-all. Unacceptable discrimination. Arbitration. I propose that this injustice be rectified and that we be given an epidemic allowance. We need to eat too.