The Civil Rights Project Sisak (CRP Sisak) in accordance with the receipt of the official response from the Ministry of Labour, Pension System, Family and Social Policy dated August 12, 2022, expresses dissatisfaction with the said response, because it consists of a mere listing of the articles of the Law on Social Welfare /refined text of the Law/, and not precise answers. CRP Sisak wrote to the Ministry of Labour, Pension System, Family and Social Policy on June 2, 2022.
Odgovor MROSP zabilježba tražbine na nekretninama korisnika socijalnih usluga
ZSS tumačenje čl. 239 zabilježba tražbine incijativa PGP Sisak
Namely, CRP repeatedly emphasize that the problem is vaguely defined. Specifically, from our long-standing practice: for example, a person who enjoys the service of the right to accommodation has a son who is very ill and receives a disability pension of approx. HRK 1.300,00 and cannot contribute to payment for accommodation services, but a claim is recorded on real estates. There are also cases where the accommodation service is partially financed by the legal maintenance obligor, so even in these situations there is a note on the real estate. The clients who may be in the process of resolving ownership relations on real estate are sent a note, record, which in practice prevents them from carrying out further activities… After the probate hearing, the “debtor” turns to the competent Ministry with a request to remove the note, however, they demand the return of the amounts paid in the name of the received social welfare and in the end, it is not deleted.
CRP would like to emphasise that this is a question of unclear legal practice, legal limbo, and with such treatment, service users are put in an unequal position: those who own nothing and those who, for example, own uncultivable arable land whose sale they cannot make a profit. There is also the question of the psychological impact on the clients, because they feel that they are no longer the owners of their properties, mostly inherited from their ancestors, which they would also leave to their heirs, but they are afraid that this is only endangering them, putting them in the position of repaying the debt…
The Republic of Croatia as a welfare state would have to ensure unconditional social rights, and not bring its citizens into a position of debt slavery or credit their rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
We also point to the violation of the constitutional category of equality of citizens of the Republic of Croatia before the courts and other state and other bodies that have public powers, as well as the violation of the guarantee of social rights for the citizens of the Republic of Croatia.
In conclusion, this kind of behaviour defeats the purpose of the Social Welfare Act highlighted in Art. 3 of the Social Welfare Act, which talks about the goals and purpose of social welfare itself and states:
“Social care is an organized activity of public interest, the aim of which is to provide assistance to socially vulnerable persons, as well as persons in unfavourable personal or family circumstances, and includes prevention, help and support for individuals, families and groups, with the aim of improving the quality of life, and encouraging change and empowering users, for their active involvement. “
Therefore, CRP requires SOCIAL ASSISTANCE, NOT CREDIT, for its clients, i.e., socially vulnerable citizens!