The following reply was given to my proposal "Stopping the payment of salaries without contributions and taxes": "Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market and Regulation 260/2012/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2012 introducing technical and business requirements for credit transfers and direct debits in euro command freedom of choice of payment service provider. A regulation along the lines of the SDC, which would require business entities to have a payment (transaction) account only with a legal person acting on the basis of a public mandate, would be contrary to the acquis of the European Union." and to the proposal "Prevent abuse of workers" reply: "We would further draw attention to the provision of Article 200 of the ZDR-1, which regulates the enforcement of the right against the employer and the judicial remedy. Thus, if an employee considers that his employer is not fulfilling his obligations under the employment relationship or is violating any of his rights under the employment relationship, he has the right to demand that the employer remedy the violation or fulfil his obligations. If the employer fails to comply with its obligations under the employment relationship or to remedy the breach within a further period of eight working days after the written request is served on the employee, the employee may, within eight days of the expiry of the period for compliance or remedy by the employer, apply for judicial redress before the competent labour tribunal. In this context, it should be clarified that the employee may pursue monetary claims arising out of the employment relationship directly before the competent labour court and that claims arising out of the employment relationship are time-barred within five years.
From an employment law perspective, we can therefore summarise the options available to the employee in the event of non-payment of contributions. The employee can seek judicial protection of his rights before the competent labour court by bringing an action against the employer for payment of unpaid wages and contributions. To a certain extent, the worker can also apply to the Labour Inspectorate of the Republic of Slovenia. The entry into force of the ZDR-1 introduced two additional possibilities: the possibility of electronic enforcement against the employer, if the employee has the pay slip, and the possibility of extraordinary dismissal.
In the light of the above, we consider that the content highlighted is appropriate from the point of view of the general labour law regime and that there are no justifiable grounds for changing it."
As can be seen from the pasted sections, both answers were negative, so the only way to regulate the regular payment of payroll contributions is to remove the legal entity from the register or to prohibit it from operating. The second answer means in practice that, although the employee can seek judicial protection before the competent court, he has to prove that the employer has not paid the contributions intentionally, which is impossible to prove, and therefore does not resolve the cases. However, labour inspectorates are too slow to take action and only impose fines. In practice, the current possible measures are ineffective. In order to stop or eradicate the recurrence of non-payment of contributions, the only possible solution is to expel such employers. The Labour Inspectorate could be given the power to propose expulsion in respect of this type of infringement.