Communicated on 14 January 2018
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 36013/16
Srečko DENŽIČ
against Slovenia
lodged on 17 June 2016
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns an ongoing non-implementation of the Constitutional Court’s decision of 13 December 2007 revoking a legal provision (Section 26 of the Act Amending the Marriage and Family Relations Act) which abrogated the obligation of parents to pay for the maintenance of their adult disabled children who did not have sufficient means for living. The Constitutional Court revoked the aforementioned provision because it failed to replace the parents’ obligation with that of the State, leaving disabled adults in a precarious situation without permanent subsistence means. The Constitutional Court gave the legislator a deadline of one year to adopt a law providing for appropriate maintenance for the disabled adults who cannot provide for themselves. However, in view of the vulnerability of the disabled individuals concerned, it determined that the parents should continue to provide for them during the given one‑year time‑frame. Today, more than ten years later, the law required by the aforementioned Constitutional Court’s decision has still not been passed and the applicant, who is a parent of a disabled adult, continues to be obliged, as proved by the enforcement orders issued against him, to pay for her maintenance.
The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (lawfulness – failure to comply with the principle of the rule of law, excessive burden), Articles 6 and 13 (non-execution of the Constitutional Court’s decision of 13 December 2007), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken together with Article 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 (discrimination between parents of healthy and parents of disabled adults).
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, on account of the non-implementation of the Constitutional Court’s decision of 13 December 2007 and ensuing enforcement decisions ordering the applicant to pay maintenance for his adult disabled daughter?
If so, has the interference been justified? In particular has it complied with the requirement of lawfulness, including the principle of the rule of law, and the requirement of proportionality (see, amongst many authorities, Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, § 147 and 151, ECHR 2004‑V)?
2. Has there been a violation of Article 6 and/or Article 13 of the Convention because of non-implementation of the Constitutional Court’s decision of 13 December 2007?
3. Has there been a violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 on account of the difference in treatment of the parents of dependant disabled adults and the parents of healthy adults?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy