Text file: 3019.txt
author: Kamen
downvotes: 2
end consideration date: 2012-05-17
id: '3019'
number comments: 4
number views: 3385
proposal type: Competent authority response
response: "Response from the Ministry of the Interior\nThe financing of political\
  \ parties is regulated by the Law on Political Parties (Official Journal of the\
  \ Republic of Slovenia, No 100/05 - Official Consolidated Text, 103/07, 99/13 and\
  \ 46/14) in Chapter \"IV. Party Financing\" (Articles 21 to 26). Thus, in Article\
  \ 21, the above-mentioned law provides, inter alia, that the party shall obtain\
  \ its funds from membership fees, contributions from natural persons, property income\
  \ and the budget, and prohibits any obtaining of party funds from abroad. The financing\
  \ of political parties from the State and local budgets is regulated in more detail\
  \ in Articles 23 and 26 of the Law. Article 23(1) thus stipulates that parties which\
  \ stood as candidates in the last elections to the National Assembly are entitled\
  \ to funds from the State budget if they obtained at least 1% of the national vote.\
  \ The second paragraph provides that if several parties have submitted a joint list\
  \ of candidates in the elections, they are entitled to the State budget if they\
  \ have obtained at least 1.2% of the votes in the country (if two parties have submitted\
  \ a joint list) or 1.5% of the votes (if three or more parties have submitted a\
  \ joint list of candidates). Paragraph 3 provides, inter alia, that the parties\
  \ referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article shall be entitled to 25% of\
  \ the funds allocated in the budget for the financing of political parties in equal\
  \ shares, and shall be entitled to the remaining funds in proportion to the number\
  \ of votes they have obtained in all constituencies. The fourth paragraph provides,\
  \ inter alia, that the funds earmarked for the financing of political parties shall\
  \ be determined in the budget of the Republic of Slovenia and may not exceed 0.017%\
  \ of the gross social product achieved in the year preceding the adoption of the\
  \ budget. The provision of Article 26 stipulates that local authorities shall finance\
  \ political parties in accordance with this Law and that the competent authority\
  \ of the municipality shall, by a decision on party financing, determine that the\
  \ party which stood as a candidate in the last elections for the municipal council\
  \ shall receive funds from the budget of the local authority in proportion to the\
  \ number of electoral votes it obtained in the elections. If elections are held\
  \ under the majority voting system, the number of votes obtained by the parties\
  \ in each constituency shall be divided by the number of members of the local community\
  \ council to be elected in that constituency. It is also stipulated that a party\
  \ receives funding from the local authority budget if it has obtained at least half\
  \ of the number of votes needed to elect one member of the local authority council,\
  \ which is obtained by dividing the number of valid votes by the number of seats\
  \ on the local authority council. The amount of funds earmarked for the financing\
  \ of political parties is set in the local authority's budget for each financial\
  \ year. The level of funding shall be determined on the basis that it may not exceed\
  \ 0.6% of the resources which the local authority has secured under the rules governing\
  \ the financing of municipalities and which are intended to ensure the exercise\
  \ of its constitutional and statutory functions for that year. Article 25 of the\
  \ Law also stipulates that state bodies, local authorities, legal persons governed\
  \ by public and private law, and sole proprietors and self-employed individuals\
  \ may not finance parties, unless otherwise provided by law.\nIt follows from the\
  \ above provisions that companies (and other legal persons governed by public and\
  \ private law) may not finance political parties, or political parties may obtain\
  \ funding only from the above sources, and therefore cannot be equated with associations\
  \ or trade unions, which may obtain funding from other sources. The prohibition\
  \ of funding by legal persons, sole proprietors and self-employed individuals was\
  \ regulated in the Political Parties Act by an amendment of 2013 (ZPolS-E), mainly\
  \ in order to prevent the funding of parties also by companies, direct or indirect\
  \ majority state-owned entities, or to avoid disclosure of information on persons\
  \ making contributions to the party, and the possibility that by making a contribution\
  \ to the party, legal persons, sole proprietors or self-employed persons may gain\
  \ an undue advantage over entities that have not made contributions to the party\
  \ (for example, in public procurement); and to reduce corrupt practices related\
  \ to the financing of clients. However, in order to implement the above-mentioned\
  \ prohibition on party funding, the same amendment amended Article 23 of the Law\
  \ in so far as it sets out the criteria for the distribution of budgetary funds\
  \ between parties, so that a part of the funds (25 per cent) is allocated to the\
  \ parties eligible for the funds in equal proportions regardless of the number of\
  \ votes received (linear), and the other part of the funds (75 per cent) is allocated\
  \ to the parties in proportion to the number of votes received (proportional). All\
  \ parties that win at least 1 % of the popular vote are entitled to a smaller share\
  \ of the funds, thus achieving parity between these parties. The smaller part (25\
  \ %) is intended to cover the fixed costs incurred by the parties in their operation,\
  \ which all parties face, regardless of the number of votes received. The remainder\
  \ (75 %) is distributed to eligible parties according to their electoral success\
  \ or the number of votes received. This distribution of funds also gives small,\
  \ extra-parliamentary parties a more equal footing in competing for voters and other\
  \ activities, and increases the seriousness of parties' electoral candidacy. For\
  \ the same reason, Article 26 of the Law has been amended, which, unlike the previous\
  \ Law, provides for the obligation of local authorities to finance eligible political\
  \ parties and for the competent authority of the municipality to adopt a resolution\
  \ on party financing, in which it is stipulated that the local authority shall finance\
  \ political parties only for the votes they have won in the elections of the members\
  \ of the council of the local authority. The funding of political parties from the\
  \ state and local budgets is therefore also justified by the fact that parties are\
  \ deprived of funding from those sources prohibited by the ZPolS, while the costs\
  \ of the parties remain fixed.\nAt the same time, we would like to point out that\
  \ both the provision of Article 23 and the provision of Article 26 of the Law on\
  \ Political Parties have been subject to review before the Constitutional Court.\
  \ The provision of Article 23 of the Act is in compliance with the decision of the\
  \ Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia, No U-I-367/96 of 11 March 1999,\
  \ which, inter alia, ordered the legislator to:\n amend or supplement the unconstitutional\
  \ regulation in such a way as to eliminate discrimination between parliamentary\
  \ and extra-parliamentary parties; it may set a certain threshold for obtaining\
  \ funds from the State budget, which may be expressed in terms of the number of\
  \ votes obtained in the elections or in terms of some other criterion; the threshold\
  \ may only be such as to prevent parties from obtaining money from the budget which\
  \ have submitted candidacies which, in the elections, have proved to have no realistic\
  \ prospect of success from obtaining funds from the State budget, only those parties\
  \ which have been shown at the elections to have had no realistic prospect of winning\
  \ at least one mandate may be excluded from state funding, the threshold for obtaining\
  \ funding may be higher than the number of signatures required to support a candidacy,\
  \ the legislator has the right to choose a lower threshold when determining the\
  \ support required to stand as a candidate, and a higher threshold when determining\
  \ the conditions for obtaining money from the state budget. \nAfter considering\
  \ several possible solutions, the legislator has defined the most appropriate criterion\
  \ as electoral success, which it has defined in terms of the percentage of votes\
  \ (1%) obtained by each party in the elections in relation to all valid votes cast\
  \ in the country. The threshold is lower than the number of votes needed to win\
  \ one parliamentary seat and higher than the number of signatures needed to determine\
  \ the list of candidates.\nOn the initiative of political parties, the Constitutional\
  \ Court reconsidered Article 23 of the Law on Political Parties and in the reasoning\
  \ of the decision, No U-I-223/00-22 of 24 October 2002, stated, inter alia, that:\n\
  \ the electoral threshold of 1%, 1.2% and 1.5% is set reasonably and in accordance\
  \ with the purpose it is intended to achieve - the exclusion from State funding\
  \ of those parties which, in the elections, proved to have had no chance of entering\
  \ the National Assembly (the principle of equality referred to in paragraph 14(2)\
  \ of Article 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania is not infringed).\
  \ Article 14(1) of the Constitution), the financing of parties under the new regime\
  \ is merely the State's contribution to the formation and building of democratic\
  \ relations in society by ensuring equal opportunities for the various parties of\
  \ different political options to operate; the funds are intended to provide parties\
  \ with a certain financial resource for their political activity and greater competence\
  \ to stand for election; the funds from the state budget undoubtedly have an impact\
  \ on the ability of a party to stand candidates in elections; therefore, an excessively\
  \ high threshold for obtaining the funds could constitute an interference with the\
  \ above-mentioned constitutional right, although extra-parliamentary parties can\
  \ also obtain the right to these funds; the electoral threshold is set low enough\
  \ - similar funding arrangements are also in place in Austria, Germany, Hungary;\
  \ the electoral threshold of 1% for obtaining the funds from the state budget is\
  \ an appropriate measure, and the measure imposed by the law is also proportionate\
  \ The 1% electoral threshold is only a minor obstacle to obtaining these funds (parties\
  \ that do not reach this threshold can be considered as not having sufficient electoral\
  \ support, or as having only marginal political strength.\nAs regards the provision\
  \ of Article 26 of the Act, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia,\
  \ in its decision No U-I-223/00-22 of 24 October 2002, ruled that the first and\
  \ second paragraphs of Article 26 and the first sentence of the third paragraph\
  \ of Article 26 of the Act on Political Parties are not incompatible with the Constitution.\
  \ In that decision, the Court took the view that the regulation governing the financing\
  \ of political parties from the budgets of local authorities sets as a condition\
  \ for obtaining the right to financing a certain electoral success, which is the\
  \ same criterion as that laid down for obtaining the right to financing from the\
  \ State budget. The number of votes (50% of the votes needed to win one mandate)\
  \ allows for the financing of political parties that have failed to win a mandate\
  \ in the municipal council. This excludes from funding those political parties which\
  \ the legislator has assessed as not having had a realistic chance of a certain\
  \ electoral success. The Constitutional Court found that the above assessment was\
  \ reasonable and that the electoral threshold was not too high, given that the role\
  \ of political parties in local communities was not as pronounced as that of political\
  \ parties at the national level, and that the setting of an electoral threshold\
  \ for the right to receive funding from the budgets of local communities was in\
  \ accordance with the principle of proportionality, for the reasons already stated\
  \ by the Constitutional Court in its assessment of the electoral threshold for the\
  \ right to receive funding from the State budget.\nFor the above reasons, we consider\
  \ that the petitioner's proposal to abolish party funding from the budget altogether\
  \ is unfounded and controversial.\n Official reply from the Ministry of Education,\
  \ Science, Culture and Sport\nThe Ministry of Education, Science, Culture and Sport\
  \ (hereinafter referred to as \"MESCS\") has analysed and examined the provisions\
  \ of the Religious Freedom Act (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No.\
  \ 14/07, 46/10 - US Decision and 40/12 - ZUJF; hereinafter referred to as \"ZVS\"\
  ) and other laws regulating the direct or indirect financing of the Church and all\
  \ its institutions from the State budget, in relation to Proposal No. 3019, insofar\
  \ as it relates to the proposal to cease any financing of religious institutions\
  \ from the State budget. Below we provide you with the response to Proposal No 3019,\
  \ which is identical in substance to the response of the MIZK\u0160 to Proposal\
  \ No 3231, as both proposals are identical in substance (i.e. the proposal to end\
  \ the financing of religious communities and their institutions).\na) According\
  \ to Article 29(1) of the ZVS, registered churches and other religious communities\
  \ are primarily financed from donations and other contributions from natural and\
  \ legal persons and from their other assets, as well as from contributions from\
  \ the international religious organisations of which they are members. Pursuant\
  \ to Article 29(2) of the ZVS, a registered church or other religious community\
  \ may collect voluntary contributions in accordance with its rules and the applicable\
  \ legislation.\nb) Article 29(3) of the ZVS provides that the State may provide\
  \ material support to registered churches and other religious communities on the\
  \ grounds of their generally beneficial interest as defined in Article 5 of the\
  \ ZVS.\nArticle 5 of the ZVS defines churches and other religious communities as\
  \ organisations of general utility and also defines the concept of an organisation\
  \ of general utility. Namely, a church and other religious community can be defined\
  \ as an organisation of general utility if it is committed to spirituality and human\
  \ dignity in private and public life, strives to give meaning to existence in the\
  \ sphere of religious life, and at the same time, through its activities, also plays\
  \ a significant role in public life by developing its cultural, educational, training,\
  \ solidarity, charitable and other activities in the field of the welfare state,\
  \ which enrich the national identity and thus perform an important social task.\
  \ Like other NGOs, religious communities carry out activities that make an important\
  \ contribution to the exercise of the social function of the State.\nArticle 2 of\
  \ the Slovenian Constitution obliges the State to carry out the social function\
  \ of the State, which requires the State to ensure the existence and functioning\
  \ of the various segments of civil society, other institutions and associations,\
  \ especially those which, like NGOs, carry out activities of general interest.\n\
  Religious communities carry out a specific work which primarily contributes to the\
  \ cultural and spiritual enrichment of society, while at the same time helping to\
  \ build national identity. Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees the principle\
  \ of equality, which prohibits discrimination of any kind, including on the grounds\
  \ of religious or any other belief. In order to respect this principle, the State\
  \ is obliged to ensure that religious communities operate in areas similar to those\
  \ of NGOs and are funded by the State.\nMoreover, religious communities perform\
  \ an important social function in satisfying the human need for spirituality and\
  \ the practice of religion, where the State has an interest. This interest is manifested\
  \ in the formation of a system of values, which the modern state needs for the existence\
  \ of society.\nAccording to the ZVS, religious communities that enter into the functions\
  \ of the welfare state and thus enrich national identity are therefore organisations\
  \ of general utility, as they are in areas of broader public interest. The Constitutional\
  \ Court of the Republic of Slovenia, in Decision No U-I-107/96, which was confirmed\
  \ by Decision No U-I-121/97, took the view that churches and religious communities\
  \ have the status of institutions of general utility. Similarly, the Constitutional\
  \ Court of the Republic of Slovenia, in its Decisions No U-I-326/98 and No U-I-92/07,\
  \ emphasised that religious communities perform an important social function. Such\
  \ importance of religious communities justifies the State's duty to cooperate with\
  \ them on a permanent basis. Article 5(2) of the ZVS provides that the State shall\
  \ respect the identity of churches and other religious communities and shall establish\
  \ an open and permanent dialogue with them and develop forms of lasting cooperation.\
  \ It follows from Article 29(3) of the ZVS, as already stated, that the State may\
  \ provide material support to registered churches and other religious communities\
  \ on the grounds of their generally useful significance as defined in Article 5\
  \ of the ZVS.\nAccording to the position of the Constitutional Court of the Republic\
  \ of Slovenia (Decision No U-I-92/07), the State must treat all types of associations\
  \ - religious, world-religious and others - equally when financing activities of\
  \ general benefit (para. 139).\nThe following position of the Constitutional Court\
  \ of the Republic of Slovenia is further derived from the decision of the Constitutional\
  \ Court of the Republic of Slovenia, No U-I-92/07 (paragraph 103): \"The modern\
  \ democratic and social State actively participates in many areas of society, which\
  \ it promotes in various ways, directly or indirectly. Since religious communities,\
  \ by virtue of their beliefs, also perform tasks in such areas, the State may not\
  \ ignore or even exclude them in promoting and facilitating various activities in\
  \ society. The religious neutrality of the State does not mean sidelining religion\
  \ in society, as this could lead to the opposite: discrimination on the basis of\
  \ religion and a denial of neutrality. The principle of separation does not prevent\
  \ the State from establishing positive relations, forms of cooperation and joint\
  \ efforts with those religious communities that also carry out activities of general\
  \ benefit, as it has with other civil society organisations in this respect. Nor\
  \ can it be controversial in this respect if the legislator generally considers\
  \ that religious communities, through their fundamental mission - the promotion\
  \ of religious freedom as a human right - play an important and useful role in terms\
  \ of the consolidation of human dignity in a modern democratic society, which goes\
  \ beyond the mere pursuit of individual goals.\"\nWe further clarify that Article\
  \ 13 of the Agreement between the Republic of Slovenia and the Holy See on Legal\
  \ Issues (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia-MP, No. 4/04; hereinafter\
  \ referred to as the \"Vatican Agreement\") stipulates that charitable and social\
  \ Church institutions and organisations engaged in charity and social solidarity\
  \ and organised in accordance with Slovenian legislation shall be treated on an\
  \ equal footing with other similar charitable organisations in the country with\
  \ regard to relief, assistance and other incentive measures. The aforementioned\
  \ provision is directly applicable pursuant to Article 8 of the Constitution, or,\
  \ as provided for in Article 153 of the Constitution, laws and regulations must\
  \ be brought into conformity with it.\nThe Constitutional Court of the Republic\
  \ of Slovenia has never prohibited the financing of religious communities in its\
  \ decisions. In the opinion given in the procedure for the assessment of the constitutionality\
  \ of the Agreement between the Republic of Slovenia and the Holy See on Legal Issues,\
  \ No. Rm-1/02 (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 118/03), the Constitutional\
  \ Court of the Republic of Slovenia stated in paragraph 19 that \"the principle\
  \ of separation of the State and the religious communities does not mean that all\
  \ support and assistance is excluded, provided, of course, that the equality of\
  \ all religious communities is ensured. The Constitutional Court has similarly interpreted\
  \ the content of this principle in Decision No U-I-92/01 of 28 February 2002\".\
  \ In the same decision, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia further\
  \ stated in paragraph 20: \"One of the essential components of the principle of\
  \ separation of state and religious communities in countries characterised by its\
  \ strict implementation (France, the United States of America, Japan) is that the\
  \ state does not financially or otherwise support religious activities.\" It is\
  \ clear from the above-mentioned paragraph 20 that, in the light of the above-mentioned\
  \ paragraph 19, the Republic of Slovenia does not apply the most restrictive form\
  \ of the principle of the separation of the state and religious communities, since,\
  \ as stated above, state support and assistance to religious communities are not\
  \ excluded in Slovenia. The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia reiterates\
  \ the same position in Decision No U-I-92/07 in its constitutional review of the\
  \ legal regulation of the financing of religious communities (Article 20 of the\
  \ CPLR and the third paragraph of Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic\
  \ of Slovenia). In Decision No U-I-92/07, the Constitutional Court of the Republic\
  \ of Slovenia ruled that, while respecting the equality of religious communities,\
  \ the State may provide support to religious communities - including financial support\
  \ - provided that this does not contravene the principle of the separation of the\
  \ State and religious communities, namely the requirement of the religious or denominational\
  \ neutrality of the State deriving from this principle (para. 130). The Constitutional\
  \ Court of the Republic of Slovenia in Decision U-I-92/07 also assessed the fifth\
  \ paragraph of Article 27 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia (paragraph\
  \ 3 of the operative part). Article 27 of the ZVS and found that the contested provision\
  \ makes a distinction in the area of the regulation of additional benefits, i.e.\
  \ in the area of the State's promotional activities, whereby the legislator is constitutionally\
  \ bound by the prohibition of arbitrary, unreasonable distinctions between those\
  \ religious communities that can obtain additional benefits and those that cannot\
  \ apply for them (paragraph 206). It follows from paragraph 9 of the operative part\
  \ of the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia that the\
  \ fifth paragraph of Article 27 of the ZVS is not also inconsistent with the Satversme.\
  \ In the light of the above, the Republic of Slovenia has not adopted the concept\
  \ of the principle of strict separation of the State and religious communities,\
  \ but rather the concept of cooperation between the State and religious communities,\
  \ while respecting the principle of State sovereignty and the autonomy of religious\
  \ communities.\nBy concluding the Vatican Agreement, the Republic of Slovenia has\
  \ also demonstrated at the international level that it does not assert either exclusion\
  \ or strict separation between the State and religious communities, but rather places\
  \ the principle of cooperation between the State and religious communities at the\
  \ forefront. In Article 1 of the Vatican Agreement, both signatories to the Vatican\
  \ Agreement undertake to cooperate in the advancement of the human person and the\
  \ common good. The Vatican Agreement is above laws in the hierarchy of legal acts,\
  \ given its legal nature. Within the framework of the principle of separation of\
  \ State and religious communities, the Republic of Slovenia maintains a system of\
  \ cooperation characterised by cooperation between two equal and equal partners\
  \ in their own sphere. Thus, religious communities and the State cooperate in areas\
  \ that are for the benefit of human beings and society in general. This interpretation\
  \ has also been directly transposed into the domestic legal order by the National\
  \ Assembly through the ratification of the Vatican Agreement. The Republic of Slovenia\
  \ is thus committed to a system of cooperation with religious communities in all\
  \ areas where this is to the benefit and in the interest of its citizens.\nOur legislation\
  \ also provides for an indirect form of State funding for religious communities\
  \ in the form of tax exemptions, but as a rule, it is not only religious communities\
  \ that are entitled to tax exemptions, but also many other non-profit organisations\
  \ that carry out humanitarian, scientific, cultural, health, social, sporting, etc.\
  \ activities. Like the Constitution, the existing legislation of the Republic of\
  \ Slovenia (e.g. ZVS, the Law on the Organisation and Financing of Education and\
  \ Training, the Law on the Protection of Cultural Heritage, the Law on Income Tax,\
  \ etc.) does not proceed from the principle of excluding religious communities from\
  \ public life. On the contrary, on the basis of Articles 7 and 41 of the Constitution,\
  \ Slovenian legislation is based on cooperation between the State and religious\
  \ communities.\nc) Direct form of financing of registered churches or other religious\
  \ communities or their religious officials:\nParagraph 27(1). Article 27, paragraph\
  \ 1, of the ZVS provides that registered churches and other religious communities\
  \ may, under the conditions of the ZVS, provide funding for their religious servants\
  \ who are citizens of the Republic of Slovenia with permanent residence in the Republic\
  \ of Slovenia and for whom the profession of religious servant is their sole occupation,\
  \ apply, on the basis of their authorisation and on their behalf, for the right\
  \ to receive earmarked State financial assistance from the State budget to cover\
  \ social security contributions in the amount of the following types of social security\
  \ contributions on a base of at least 48 per cent of the average salary for the\
  \ month preceding the month in which the insurance base is determined:  - for compulsory\
  \ pension and invalidity insurance (contribution by the insured person), and - for\
  \ compulsory sickness insurance (contribution by the insured person).\nPursuant\
  \ to Article 27(2) of the ZVS, priests and religious are entitled to the earmarked\
  \ State financial assistance referred to in Article 27(1) of the ZVS, even if they\
  \ have a relationship with a church or other religious community which does not\
  \ have all the elements of an employment relationship. The State may pay the assistance\
  \ referred to in Article 27, paragraph 1, of the ZVS for priests who have at least\
  \ a secondary education and for religious who have taken vows of celibacy, chastity\
  \ and obedience. Other religious servants have this right only if they have an employment\
  \ contract with a church or other religious community which guarantees the salary\
  \ of the religious servant. Article 27, paragraph 4, of the ZVS provides that the\
  \ State, in providing the right to assistance, shall take into account a reasonable\
  \ proportion between the number of religious servants and the number of members\
  \ of a registered church or other religious community who are citizens of the Republic\
  \ of Slovenia with permanent residence in the Republic of Slovenia. A reasonable\
  \ proportion is met if a ratio of at least 1 000 members of a registered church\
  \ or other religious community per one religious official of that church or other\
  \ religious community is established. Churches and other religious communities shall\
  \ prove the number of their members by means of credible data sources, including,\
  \ but not limited to, the use of data from the most recent census. Article 28(4)\
  \ of the ZVS provides that the number of persons in respect of whom State aid for\
  \ the payment of contributions, as set out in Article 27(1) of the ZVS, is payable\
  \ to a church or other religious community for a particular month may, in the calendar\
  \ year following the entry into force of the ZVS, be no more than five per cent\
  \ higher than it was in the first month following the entry into force of the preceding\
  \ Article. If five per cent is not a whole number, the number shall be rounded up.\
  \ In each subsequent year, the number of persons in respect of whom aid is payable\
  \ to a church or other religious community for a particular month may be no more\
  \ than five per cent, rounded up to the nearest whole number, greater than the number\
  \ of persons in the month of the preceding year in which that number was the greatest.\
  \ In the case of churches and other religious communities which, for the first month\
  \ following the date of application of the preceding Article, have not acquired\
  \ the rights referred to in the preceding Article, the provisions of this paragraph\
  \ shall apply mutatis mutandis by limiting the annual increase in the number of\
  \ persons in respect of whom aid is payable to five per cent. Article 28(5) of the\
  \ ZVS provides that the maximum monthly number of persons of a church or other religious\
  \ community in respect of whom aid is payable may be increased by a maximum of 10\
  \ %, rounded up to the nearest whole number, in each consecutive five-year period.\n\
  The Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Slovenia has prepared a\
  \ draft amendment to the ZVS, which is necessary in order to bring the ZVS into\
  \ line with the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia,\
  \ No U-I-92/07 of 15 April 2010 (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No\
  \ 46/10, hereinafter referred to as the 'U-I-92/07 decision'). One of the proposed\
  \ solutions also concerns the partial payment of contributions to religious employees\
  \ of registered churches, namely the partial payment of contributions to the religious\
  \ employees of registered churches, following the end of the period of the economic\
  \ crisis in the Republic of Slovenia (i.e. After the end of the economic crisis\
  \ in the Republic of Slovenia (i.e. after the end of the year following the year\
  \ in which economic growth exceeds 2.5 per cent of gross social product), it is\
  \ envisaged to increase the basis for determining the amount of social security\
  \ contributions for clergy in the same way as it was established before the entry\
  \ into force of the Act on Balancing Public Finances (Official Gazette of the Republic\
  \ of Slovenia, No. 40/12, 96/12 - ZPIZ-2, 104/12 - ZIPRS1314 and 105/12; hereinafter:\
  \ ZUJF). With regard to the proposed increase of the base, the MoLFCC explains that\
  \ while the ZUJF introduced temporary measures in the area of pension and invalidity\
  \ insurance and pension alignment, on the other hand, with regard to the payment\
  \ of contributions for pension and invalidity insurance as well as for (compulsory)\
  \ health insurance, the ZUJF does not affect other groups of persons in this area,\
  \ such as religious employees whose enjoyment of their right to social security\
  \ has been reduced in a significant way. The Ministry of Social Affairs and Labour\
  \ considers that the ZUJF measure, which reduced the basis for determining the amount\
  \ of social security contributions for clergy and thus reduced the enjoyment of\
  \ the right to social security by religious employees, should also be of a temporary\
  \ nature, i.e. only for the duration of the economic crisis. Given that the ZUJF\
  \ did not provide for any transitional period for such a reduction, this is regulated\
  \ by the draft bill in a way that is comparable to the other temporary measures\
  \ of the ZUJF.\nAs regards the appropriateness of the regulation of the partial\
  \ financing by the State of the contributions to religious employees, we would like\
  \ to clarify that the Constitution obliges the State, in accordance with Article\
  \ 2, to carry out the tasks of a welfare state, thereby placing it in a position\
  \ where it has to ensure the existence and functioning of the various segments of\
  \ civil society, other institutions and associations. The requirement of the principle\
  \ of the welfare state is that, instead of formal equality of the individual, the\
  \ State should ensure substantive equality, which means real equality of opportunity\
  \ in the effective exercise of all the rights of the individual in practice, in\
  \ real life, for which the basic prerequisite is, above all, the equalization of\
  \ the actual conditions for the acquisition of material and moral goods. This requires\
  \ active measures by the State, its active action and intervention in individual\
  \ areas of human life. Thus, in Articles 83 and 84 of the Act on the Exercise of\
  \ the Public Interest in Culture (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia,\
  \ No 96/02, as amended), the State has undertaken to finance social and health insurance\
  \ contributions for all those who, under certain conditions, are self-employed in\
  \ culture or who pursue a cultural or other artistic profession. The above is an\
  \ expression of respect for the principle of the welfare state, since cultural workers\
  \ and artists perform a specific work which does not primarily pursue economic objectives,\
  \ but primarily contributes to the cultural and spiritual enrichment of society,\
  \ while at the same time helping to build a national identity. Article 14 of the\
  \ Constitution guarantees the principle of equality, which prohibits discrimination\
  \ of any kind, including on the grounds of religious or any other belief. In order\
  \ to respect this principle, the State also finances social and health insurance\
  \ contributions for religious employees. The latter perform an important function\
  \ in satisfying the human need for spirituality and the practice of religion, in\
  \ which the State certainly has an interest. This interest is manifested in the\
  \ creation of a system of values that the modern state needs for the existence of\
  \ a society that is capable of resolving its own conflicts in a democratic system.\
  \ Moreover, it should be stressed once again that, in addition to the most important\
  \ task of providing spiritual care, religious officials also carry out a range of\
  \ other activities that are important in a modern society. These include charitable,\
  \ educational, educational, humanitarian, cultural and other similar activities.\
  \ We would like to further clarify that the methods of financing religious communities\
  \ in different European countries vary greatly and are generally conditioned by\
  \ the historical development of the relationship between the state and religious\
  \ communities, and that is also why the ZVS had no intention of interfering with\
  \ the system that has been in place in the Republic of Slovenia. The only way of\
  \ directly financing religious communities is through the payment of compulsory\
  \ insurance contributions to religious employees who are Slovenian citizens and\
  \ whose sole occupation is that of a member of the religious community. Since 1964,\
  \ the State has financed their pension and invalidity insurance in one way or another.\
  \ A special government decision of 1991 took over this arrangement in independent\
  \ Slovenia and added the coverage of their health insurance contributions. In addition\
  \ to respecting the principle of the welfare state, the legislator assumed in the\
  \ ZVS that this was the traditional and only method of financing which provided\
  \ religious communities with a continuous minimum level of resources, and therefore\
  \ did not change it, but only supplemented it in such a way as to ensure transparency\
  \ of financing and to allow for monitoring, and for the first time clearly regulated\
  \ at the statutory level rights which had long been recognised at the sub-statutory\
  \ level.\nHaving examined the existing arrangements for the financing of registered\
  \ churches and other religious communities, the MoEFCC considers that they are adequate,\
  \ appropriate and constitutionally compliant.\n "
response date: 2015-11-02
response due date: null
sent date: 2012-04-18
title: End of budget funding for parties
upvotes: 22
url: https://predlagam.vladi.si/predlog/3019
