I propose to abolish the possibility for the State or a local authority to receive the following benefits after the death of the recipient (hereafter: social transfers):
- cash social assistance,
- care allowance,
- payment for care in care homes for the elderly
- payment by the municipality for home care
declare the inheritance of his/her property. In my opinion, this is contrary to the Constitution.
 
Reasoning:
 
Social transfers are intended to ensure the social security of citizens (Article 50 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia).
According to Article 50 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, ensuring the social security of citizens is one of the tasks of the State and local authorities. In essence, it is a redistribution of income from rich to poor (redistributive function of the State).
 
According to Article 146 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, the State and local authorities obtain the means to carry out their tasks through taxes and other compulsory levies and through the proceeds of their own property. As regards the social funds, the unnecessary impoverishment of which was referred to by the Constitutional Court in its decision in the case of the constitutional review of the Law on Inheritance, it should be stressed that there are no social funds in the true sense of the word, but the above-mentioned social transfers are financed directly from the State budget or the budgets of local communities.  The redistributive function of the State and local authorities is financed from:
- Highly progressive personal income taxes (personal income tax) - high earners pay much more than low earners, which is shared by both the state and local authorities;
- property taxes (land use tax, tax on buildings (large houses, rest and recreation areas), tax on watercraft), which are also progressive and are shared by local communities;
- other taxes which are not progressive (corporate income tax) or not progressive in social terms (motor vehicle tax).
Furthermore, the redistributive role of the State and local authorities can be seen in the fact that the level of many benefits depends (in inverse proportion) on the income of the beneficiary or his/her family. This applies not only to the social transfers mentioned above, but also to other benefits (e.g. reduced fees for kindergarten programmes, child allowances, state scholarships, reimbursement of meals in primary and secondary schools, etc.). This demonstrates that the redistributive function of the State and local authorities is already in operation without the State or local authority having to be notified of the inheritance of a deceased person who received the social transfers mentioned above during his/her lifetime.
 
However, nowhere in the Constitution is it stated that the State or a local authority may declare itself heir to a deceased who received the abovementioned social transfers during his lifetime. Moreover, Article 33 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia provides that the right to private property and inheritance is guaranteed, and the State or a local authority's claim to inheritance is in flagrant violation of the right to private property and inheritance, as well as of the principle of equality before the law and the principle of guaranteeing equal human rights irrespective of different personal circumstances (Article 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia). The social transfers in question are granted to three groups of the population, which are also the most vulnerable:
- the elderly (care allowance, payment for care in care homes for the elderly, payment by the municipality for home help and, to a lesser extent, permanent cash social assistance);
- people with disabilities (care allowance, municipal payment for home care and permanent cash social assistance); and
- the long-term unemployed (cash social assistance).
Instead of helping these most vulnerable groups, they are further disadvantaged and stigmatised by the fact that the State or local authorities can claim their inheritance after their death.
The long-term unemployed will have even less incentive to return to the labour market because their assets will be inherited by the State after their death. They will prefer to be unemployed until they die, so that whatever they make in later life is not taken by the state.
Not to mention that if a disabled person who is unable to work and needs someone else's care and assistance is prevented from moving to a more suitable apartment because of a seal on a property that is neither architecturally suitable nor adaptable, they will also be prevented from living more independently (e.g. they would need less assistance if they lived in an architecturally adapted apartment in an architecturally adapted housing estate, where all the services would be at their fingertips).
This is in flagrant violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, which stipulates that respect for the human person and his or her dignity is guaranteed in criminal and all other legal proceedings, and one of these legal proceedings is the granting of social transfers. 18. Article 16 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia provides that Articles 18 and 21 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia may not be violated even in a state of war or emergency. They must be respected, regardless of the worst-case Greek scenario.
 
Furthermore, notwithstanding the above, there is a whole range of income-dependent benefits paid by the State and local authorities, which the State or local authorities have not (yet) taken the right to claim as inheritance upon the death of the recipient. These are, for example:
- child allowances
- scholarships
- reimbursement of meals in primary and secondary schools
- reduced fees for kindergarten programmes
From the above, it can be seen that people are differentiated not only according to personal circumstances beyond their control (age, disability and long-term unemployment), but also according to the type of income they receive.

Another thing can be seen: the right of the State to claim inheritance hits the old and the powerless hardest. The rights referred to in the previous paragraph are given to the young, while the social transfers referred to in the first paragraph of this article are given mainly to the old and infirm (excluding the long-term unemployed). People who are old today have paid taxes all their lives - if they have not paid contributions, they have at least paid taxes. And now, in return, they are not entitled to live a decent life, and after their death, their property and other assets are inherited by their children. I am also surprised that the state does not reclaim the rights that people enjoyed when they were young (all of the above in the previous paragraph). Are people really worth less in old age than they were when they were young? So much is said about how the old should be looked after, and then this is done!!! This is a violation not only of the Constitution but of all moral principles!
 
I therefore ask you to support my proposal to abolish the possibility for the State or a local authority to claim inheritance after the death of a recipient of social transfers.