Since the enactment of the Inclusive Supplement Act in December 2023 and its entry into force in January 2024, numerous questions have begun to arise in practice. One particularly sensitive issue concerns situations in which a beneficiary dies before his or her right is formally recognised or before already accrued amounts are paid out. Although this may seem like a “technical” problem, its consequences for the families of deceased beneficiaries are very real and often unjust.
In a significant number of cases, proceedings for the recognition of these rights last longer than the legally prescribed deadlines. The reasons are most commonly administrative in nature, such as lengthy expert assessments or an overburdened system. In the meantime, the beneficiary dies, and the competent authorities, invoking the General Administrative Procedure Act, discontinue the proceedings on the grounds that the right in question is a personal right that ceases upon death. The consequence of this approach is that the right is never formally recognised, due amounts remain unpaid, and heirs are prevented from claiming what is, by its very nature, a proprietary claim.
At the heart of the problem lies a failure to distinguish between two legal categories: the right to the inclusive supplement itself as a personal right, and the monetary claim that arises at the moment the statutory conditions are met. Although the right is personal, its financial effects should not automatically disappear upon the beneficiary’s death — particularly in situations where the failure to pay is the result of administrative delays rather than an unfulfilled eligibility requirement.
An important contribution to understanding of this issue is provided by the recent judgment of the Administrative Court in Zagreb of 23 January 2026, which annulled the decisions of the competent authorities. The Court took the position that the death of a party cannot result in the loss of an already due proprietary claim, especially when the non-payment was caused by the length of proceedings on the part of the public authority. The Court particularly emphasised the need to distinguish between a personal right and its financial effects, as well as the protection of the legitimate expectations of the parties. Additional weight is lent to this position by the fact that the Ministry of Labour, Pension System, Family and Social Policy withdrew its appeal against the aforementioned judgment on 6 March 2026. The decision was made by Minister Alen Ružić, withdrawing the appeal previously filed by his predecessor Marin Piletić, thereby further confirming the direction of judicial practice in this area.
This position is not new. It builds upon an earlier legal opinion of the Administrative Court of the Republic of Croatia from 2011, according to which the death of a party does not in itself constitute an obstacle to the continuation of proceedings if the claim includes an unrealised proprietary entitlement. This opinion had already been applied to rights such as pensions, personal disability allowances, care and assistance supplements, and health insurance entitlements — rights that are personal in nature but produce financial effects.
Nevertheless, the absence of a clear statutory provision leads to inconsistent practice. While the General Administrative Procedure Act calls for the discontinuation of proceedings due to the personal nature of the right, real-life situations call for a different approach. In practice, this means that the outcome often depends on the interpretation of the individual authority, creating legal uncertainty and a lack of trust in the system.
Resolving this problem does not require complex intervention – only a clear and explicit legislative amendment. It should be prescribed that in the event of a beneficiary’s death, if the conditions for recognition of the right were met prior to the date of death, the competent authority shall determine the right and the amount of due sums, with such amounts constituting a proprietary right that forms part of the estate and is paid out to the heirs. Such a provision would have the character of a special regulation in relation to the general administrative procedure and would eliminate existing ambiguities.
The current state of affairs results in citizens and their families bearing the consequences of a slow system, which should not be acceptable in a legal order founded on the principles of fairness and legal certainty. If the conditions for exercising a right were met during the beneficiary’s lifetime, then its financial effects should also be recognised — regardless of whether the administrative proceedings were completed on time. A clear legislative intervention in that direction would represent not only a legally necessary step, but a socially necessary one as well.
Loading ...