I propose to delete Article 128 of the Succession Act and all legislation related to the right of the State to recover social assistance granted after the death (or at any time) of the recipient.
The only exception to this would be abuse of the right to receive aid, i.e. misrepresentation, etc. (again, a penalty would be a more appropriate form of reimbursement).
 
Social assistance is a social transfer for those who cannot support themselves. It is an institution that confirms that we are still a "social and legal state". A certain number of people will always be in need and it is the duty of the state to provide for them.
Social assistance is not a LOAN and as such cannot be repayable.
In order for any right to repayment of social assistance granted under the current regime to be justified, basic conditions would have to be met:
- all users should have been informed of this fact BEFORE receiving social assistance (in writing) and voluntarily consented to it (and we all know that practically nobody knew about the existence of this right of the State, including ministers!)
- in order to receive the aid, a "loan" contract would have to be signed which would make it clear what the relationship or obligations of the two parties are, the possible liabilities, the repayment methods, the conditions, etc.
- the Constitution, with all its articles (right to private property, etc.), should not apply in its present form, as it is a gross interference with constitutional rights
- the institution of social assistance should be renamed long-term credit with a social hardship payment decree (it is no coincidence that this is reminiscent of the exploitation of the weak members of society)
The excuse that this article should be retained for the sake of all those who take undue advantage of the right to social assistance is nonsensical. It is the duty of the Social Work Service (or the State) to exercise control and to determine the criteria by which this right is granted. If it is unable to carry out this elementary duty, the problem is here and not elsewhere. Those who are unable to regulate this should also suffer the consequences. To pass the burden on to the poorest strata of society is negligent and immoral.
The legal aspect of the unconstitutionality of this Article is also evident from :
 http://www.uradni-list.si/1/objava.jsp?urlid=2000117&stevilka=4907
Official Journal of the RS, No 117/2000 of 19.12.2000
 
   Decision annulling Article 128 of the Law on Succession
 
Amendments to the legislation in question are certainly necessary and, if I understand correctly, required (click on the link)! If this right of the State is to be retained in some other form, the recipients of social assistance must be informed of this on any legal document they receive or submit (forms).
It probably goes without saying that one of the basic principles enshrined in our Constitution is as follows:

Article 155 of the CONSTITUTION
(prohibition of retroactivity of legal acts)
Laws, regulations and general acts cannot have retroactive effect.
 
It follows that new legislation will apply only from the date of its entry into force and not "retroactively". Those who will receive aid from that date onwards will be duly informed and will be able to decide how and what to do next. And only for these, the State can exercise its right to reimbursement!
It is still my strong opinion that provisions of this kind have no place in a state governed by the rule of law, which also considers itself to be a social state!
 
Yours sincerely,
Ziga