BRATISLAVA, October 14, (WEBNOVINY) — Parliament rejected the Cabinet’s draft revision to the law on social services and returned it for further review. Parliament’s move was induced by a proposal of opposition MP Lubomir Petrak (SMER-SD). “The revision in its current form is a spoil,” said Petrak during discussion on the draft on Wednesday. He added that the revision exceeded the framework of Constitutional Court’s findings and did not solve financing of social services. Six MPs from the ruling coalition party MOST-HID also backed the proposal to return the draft to the Cabinet for review.
The draft revision responded to the finding of the Constitutional Court from the May of this year, according to which some provisions of this law were not in accordance with the Constitution of the Slovak Republic. This finding concerns the provision of social services secured municipalities in non-public providers only in case the municipality cannot secure provision of social services by a public provider. “The proposal will enable private individuals to freely choose a social service provider to the full extent without any restrictions and consequences involved,” stated the ministry. The proposal suggests for example the impossibility to finance a non-public provider of social services if a client chose it directly. The revision to the law should be effective as of January of next year.
The Constitutional Court SR in mid-May of this year that some provisions of the revision to the law on social services concerning their provision by municipalities and counties, were not in accordance with the Constitution. On the basis of this ruling, municipalities cannot prefer provision of social services at their facilities and only when they lack capacities they can place clients in private facilities. Regarding this issue, the Constitutional Court rules in favor of a group of 45 MPs represented by Monika Gibalova (KDH). They asked the court to examine whether provisions of the law on social services that regulate provision of social services by municipalities and counties and their obligation to provide these services preferentially and mostly through their own facilities were in accordance with the Constitution. They believe that these provisions do not comply with the Constitution, which the Constitutional Court also confirmed.
SITA